GSSC_2.0_Answers_to_Industry_Questions.docx

GSSC 2.0

Answers to Industry Questions to Draft Sections L & M Posted 18 January 2019

1) The Government already emailed a list of Industry Day #1 attendees to all those who attended that Industry Day. Attendees at all other Industry Days can be found in the one-on-one schedules in FBO.

2) Proposal turnaround time will be 60 calendar days.

3) Clause 252.246-7001 will remain in the solicitation and on the resultant contract. The Government has determined this clause is needed to protect its interests in regards to Data Rights.

4) The Government did consider using an Equitable Price Adjustment (EPA) clause, however the FAR generally allows EPA clauses only for Fixed Price contracts. As such, the Government has created a unique clause to this contract (H.004) that allows for upward and/or downward adjustments to rates at specified points during contract performance.

5) The Government will not be removing Clause H.005 from the contract. It is the Government’s position that the clause clearly states that the contractor shall not enter into any contractual relationships with any party that provides Systems Engineering Support (SES) and/or technical direction TO AFGSC in relation to the ICBM Ground Subsystem. This clause was created in response to an actual issue the Government is dealing with and is imperative to separate contractors providing support to AFGSC from the GSSC 2.0 contractor. AFGSC determines the requirements that get flowed down to the GSSC 2.0 contract. Any contractor participating on the GSSC 2.0 contract that is in a direct contractual relationship with AFGSC providing SES and/or technical direction in relation to the ICMB Ground Subsystems creates an OCI.

6) H.006 is a unique solicitation provision and will drop off at contract award.

7) The requirement for the contractor to assist with coordinating penetration testing in the Basic PWS, paragraph 2.2.16 was inadvertently removed. It has been added back in and is now in the General Sustainment PWS, paragraph 1.8.15.

8) Please note that the Codes Awardable Task Order has been removed. The Codes scope has been absorbed by the General Sustainment and IOSSP Task Orders.

9) The Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) CDRL will only be required on the General Sustainment, IOSSP, and ALCS awardable task orders. On General Sustainment, this CDRL is attached to the task order on an “as-required” basis. The IPMR is on the Basic contract for future task orders to use as required.

10) The requirement in Section L paragraphs 1.4.3.1 and 1.4.3.2 remain unchanged. Offerors shall provide text in tables, charts, graphs and figures in Times New Roman in no smaller than 8 point font.

11) Section L paragraph 1.4.4.1 has been changed to require cost data to be provided in .XLSX format.

12) Section L, paragraph 2.3.1.1 and Section M, paragraph 2.7.1.1.1 for Recruitment and Retention have been updated to include of an evaluation of the offeror’s professional employee compensation plan.

13) The intent of evaluating the teaming arrangements in the Techincal Expertise subfactor is to focus on the team structure and partnerships that will contribute to performance of the requirements of the PWS. Given that technical expertise is the highest risk for the GSSC 2.0 contract, the Government deemed it critical to focus the Technical Expertise evaluation on the personnel aspect.

14) The intent of evaluating the Associated Contractor Agreements (ACA) is to analyze the extent of commitment to the contract the offeror has received from its team members. Therefore the requirement is for the offeror to submit a copy of all signed ACAs received up to proposal submittal.

15) Prime Contractors do not get small business credit through their major subcontractors (2nd tier). Credit only applies to the small businesses the Prime directly subcontracts with.

16) Offerors at a minimum shall address the areas called out in each individual sample task. An offeror may exceed the minimum requirement by addressing other areas that would be of concern as a result of each sample task.

17) The Government has received multiple questions from Industry looking for more specifics on the sample tasks. The Government has purposefully worded the sample task scenarios as they are written because:

a. Due to the hypothetical nature of the sample tasks, some of the specific information requested is unavailable, and

b. It is the intent of the Government to avoid steering offerors to specific answers and solutions to the issues presented in the sample tasks.

18) One exception to #17 is in regards to Sample Task three. Cathodic production systems are operational and maintained with monthly and annual system checks. Current sustainment projects are underway or in design for these systems. Current systems drawings are available and all systems are maintained per Civil Engineering Manuals (CEMs). The sites contain multiple nodes for these systems.

19) BOEs are required in the following areas:

a. In the Technical Volume for each Sample Task, See Section L paragraphs 2.3.2.1(D), 2.3.2.2(D), 2.3.2.3(C), and 2.3.2.4(C);

b. And for Transition Costs, see Section L, paragraph 3.4.

Please note that BOE submissions for the Sample Tasks in the Technical Volume are not to contain cost data.

20) Section L paragraphs 2.3.2.1(D), 2.3.2.2(D), 2.3.2.3(C), and 2.3.2.4(C) have been updated to clarify what is required in the Sample Task BOEs which includes a description of the work to be performed, technical expertise, skill mix and hours required to support estimate of work.

21) BOEs for the Sample Tasks shall show how the offeror would complete the task in the given timeframe (e.g. Sample Task 1 – 6 Months, Sample Task 4 – 8 months, etc.).

22) It is the Government’s position that the sample tasks contained in Sections L & M meet the critical areas of risk that need to be addressed in the Source Selection. No additional sample tasks will be added.

23) Section L, paragraph 3.3.1 (formerly paragraph 3.4) has been clarified to state that the offeror shall submit one rate per labor category for the prime contractor.

24) The Draft RFP does not intend to request certified cost or pricing data IAW FAR 15.4 because this is a competitive acquisition. The only places the Draft RFP call out FAR 15.4 are:

a. Section L, paragraph 3.5, calling out the offeror’s duty to conduct the proper cost or price analysis on subcontractor proposals.

b. Section L, paragraph 3.6, calling out the Government’s right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data.

c. Section M, paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, calling out the Government’s duty and intention to evaluate for reasonableness, realism, and balance.

25) Section L, paragraph 3.6 (Subcontractor Costs) has been clarified to instruct the offeror how to provide subcontractor costs to the Government.

26) Section M, paragraph 1.1 has been clarified to state that because the Government is using a best value trade-off approach, this may result in an award to a higher rated, higher Total Evaluated Price (TEP) offeror.

27) Past Performance and experience are not the same thing. Section L, paragraphs 1.1 and 2.3.1.2 will provide the Government the information it needs in regards to ICBM experience.

28) The Government does not plan on involving DCMA in the proposal cost analysis. Only Government personnel will participate in the analysis and evaluation of the cost proposal.

29) BOEs of the entire PWS to show realism to Table 1 are not required. Realism will be conducted on the offeror’s proposed labor rates, see Section M, paragraph 3.4. In regards to Section L, Table 1, realism is determined by whether or not an offeror proposes a price for each Awardable Task Order no less than one percent of the budget numbers in the table, see Section M, paragraph 3.6.

30) The TEP has been updated to include an evaluation of offerors’ proposed labor rates against Government notional hours for various fiscal years including options and various pricing arrangements, and applied to the offeror’s proposed CPAF, CPFF, and CPFF percentages and the proposed transition price. See Section M Paragraph 3.7.

31) Awardable Task Order PWS’s have been updated to clarify the office and storage space the Government will be providing. If a PWS does not specifically state that the Government will provide office/storage space the offeror can assume that the space shall be provided by the contractor. Similarly, if a PWS does not specifically state on-base requirements for office/storage space, the offeror can assume that office/storage space can be obtained off-base.

32) The bidder’s library will be provided with the Final RFP and will contain the following information:

a. Aerospace NDA

b. ICBM Systems Directorate Organizational Chart

c. Most recent Ground Systems Assessment Report (GSAR) The Government is also looking into the possibility of providing drawings related to one or more of the sample tasks.