ISC Q A 3.pdf

ISC RFP Questions and Answers #3

# Question/Request Response

8 Document Reference: Page 116 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L Clause 5352.209-9001 (a)(2)

Rationale:

Paragraph (a)(2) states: “As a part of the proposal, the offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with complete information of previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition.”

Question/Request:

Please clarify the Government’s definition of “complete information.”

Please identify the location within the Offeror’s proposal response where the complete information is to be provided.

“Complete information” would include:

-Contract number -Total contract value -Estimated completion date (Period of Performance) -Description of the effort -Government Contracting Officer, including name, e-mail, and phone number

This information can be submitted in the Contract Documentation, Volume V.

9 Document Reference: Page 116 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L Clause 5352.209-9001 (a)(1)

Rationale:

Paragraph (a)(1) states: “Restrictions are needed to ensure that the ISC contractor is prohibited from participating as a prime contractor or major subcontractor supplying the Minuteman III weapon system or its major components,”

Question/Request:

Does this statement restrict Offerors from proposing potential Subcontractors who will be performing in parallel as either a Prime Contractor or major Subcontractor on PBC and/or F900 clause contracts?

No, this statement does not restrict ISC offerors from proposing any potential subcontractors.

However, the OCI restrictions shall be included in all ISC subcontracts and flow down to all ISC contractors unless the OCI restrictions are excused in writing by the PCO. The ICBM Systems Division can only consider excusing the OCI restrictions in an ISC subcontract when the work being performed by the ISC subcontractor does not create an OCI.

10 Document Reference: CDRL Data Item A066

Rationale: CDRL Data Item A066 states: “Contractor shall submit initial Quality Assurance program Plan NLT 30 business days after contract award. Government will be allowed 15 business days, after receipt from contractor for approval/disapproval/comments. Contractor shall submit revised Quality Assurance Program Plan incorporating Government comments, NLT 15 business days after award of contract.”

Question/Request:

Would the Government please clarify if this is an administrative error and was the intended requirement that the Contractor’s revised Quality Assurance Program Plan incorporating Government comments to be submitted NLT 15 business days after receipt of Government comments?

Yes, this is an administrative error. The CDRL will be corrected to read as follows “NLT 15 business days after receipt of Government comments.”

11 Document Reference: Page 125 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L 5.0 Volume III – Past Performance Subsection 5.1 General and Subsection 5.3 Recent/Relevant Contracts

Rationale:

Subsection L5.1 General, past performance information is required for “the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed by the Offeror to perform the work outlined in the solicitation,” however, Subsection L5.3 Recent/Relevant Contracts states past performance information is to be submitted for “ up to 5 recent contracts for the prime and up to 3 recent contracts for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered most relevant in demonstrating an ability to perform the proposed effort.”

Question/Request: Please clarify if the solicitation requires past performance information for the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed or only subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered most relevant to perform the proposed effort.”

Yes, the Government requires past performance information for the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed.

Document Reference: CDRL Data Item A003, Box 16

Rationale: A003 CDRL, Block 16 states: “Contractor shall submit the initial Transition Plan NLT 20 Days after award of contract. Government will be allowed 20 days, after receipt from contractor to review for approval/disapproval/comments.

Contractor shall submit revised Transition plan incorporating government comments, if applicable NLT 15 days after receipt from government.”

NOTE: The same language is used for CDRL Data Item A002 and A004.

Question/Recommendation:

Is there a difference between contract performance start date vs. contract award date?

Is it intended that the 20-day deadline be 20 days after the contract award date or 20 days after the contract performance start date because it could be possible if the deadline is 20 days after contract award that the timeline could occur prior to the contract performance start date.

Recommend the Government consider basing contractor deliverable timelines/deadlines on the “contract start” date/milestone.

Please clarify if the contractor’s Proposal version of the Transition Plan is intended as the initial Transition Plan submittal.

Recommendation: Assess the applicability of DoD 4245.7-M to the ISC Transition Plan. Tailor or adjust CDRL A003 Block 4 reference accordingly.

A) CDRLs A002, A003 and A004 will be corrected to read “contract start date” instead of “contract award date.”

B) see answer A above C) see answer A above D) No, they are different. The Transition Plan delivered with the proposal is process oriented.

The initial Transition Plan developed after contract start will be task oriented. Ref Section L for the proposal Transition Plan details. Reference PWS para 1.6.5.1 for the details of the Transition Plan delivered IAW CDRL A003.

E) Concur; CDRL A003, block 4 was corrected to read as DI-MGMT-80790/T and additional instructions were provided in block 16 to address the changes.

13 Document Reference: Transition Plan CDRL Item 4

Rationale: Transition Plan CDRL Item 4 references DID DI- MGMT-80790. The DID instruction 10.3.3 states: “The main section shall separately address each template specified in DoD 4245.7-M.” DoD 4245.7-M defines the acquisition process transition from development to production. The templates it contains seem inconsistent with ISC Transition Plan expectations.

Recommendation:

Recommendation: Assess the applicability of DoD 4245.7-M to the ISC Transition Plan. Tailor or adjust CDRL A003 Block 4 reference accordingly.

Reference response E above for question 12

14 Document Reference: Page 120 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L Table 2.2 – Proposal Organization 5352.209-9001 (a)(1)

Rationale: Table 2.2 includes a statement for Volume II that “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Compensation Plan for Professional Employment will be part of Volume V,” however, these plans are not called out as requirements within Section 7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation.

Question/Request:

Are these required deliverables within Volume V – Contract Documentation?

Yes these are required deliverables with Volume V.

15 RFP Paragraph L 4.2.2 Volume Organization states, “The Technical Volume shall be organized to follow the outline of the PWS and shall address each PWS requirement while still addressing, in more detail, the subfactors below. The Offeror’s proposal shall specifically address the PWS paragraph 1.6 REQUIREMENTS and all of its subparagraphs.”

It is unclear how far the Offeror’s proposal outline needs to mimic the PWS. Is it the Government’s intent for the bidder to address only PWS 1.6 REQUIREMENTS and subsections, or is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to address all requirements in the entire PWS document which would include

SECTION II – SERVICE SUMMARY, SECTION III - PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT and SECTION IV - GENERAL INFORMATION?

Sections III and IV include “shall” statements that arguably could/should be addressed.

If the intent is to include Sections II, III, and/or IV, please provide guidance on what Subfactor these are aligned to and any other impact to the proposal instructions. For example, Sections II, III, and IV are generally management related, but the Management Plan appears to not have a PWS alignment outline requirement and is to be submitted as a separate appendix per L 4.2.2.

Lastly, if Sections II, III, and/or IV are to be addressed, it is our understanding a suitable Offeror response would need to fulfill Section L 4.1 (i.e., ,”…provide, as specifically as possible, the actual methodology to be used for accomplishing/satisfying the Technical subfactors and the requirement found in the PWS… Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation or the PWS.”

As such, we request an additional 15 pages be added to allow adequate coverage of the approximately 20 pages of related PWS (PWS page 62-82)

The Technical Volume of the offeror’s proposal shall specifically address PWS Section 1.6 requirements along with the other Technical Volume requirements listed in Section L, Table

2.2. Once on contract, the successful offeror will

be expected to meet all PWS requirements.

Given the above response, the Government deems the page limitations are sufficient.

16 Section L Table 2.2 – Proposal Organization in section 2.2.2 requires submittal of a Management Plan as part of Volume II – Technical. Section 4.2.2 requires that, in Volume II, “Sections from the PWS shall be addressed in the order in which they appear in the PWS.” The Management Plan, which is described in the RFP only in section 4.2.5, does not have a clear PWS reference. Please specify the PWS reference by which we can call out or refer to the Management Plan in the main body of Volume II.

Suggest Government provide a PWS cross-reference to facilitate calling out the appended Management Plan in the main body of our proposal.

Note: The Management Plan delivered with the proposal (Section L para. 4.2.5 requirement) is not the same Management Plan delivered under CDRL A002 (PWS para. 1.2 and 1.6.2.2 requirement).

The Section L Management Plan will be used for proposal purposes only and should be included as a separate appendix to the Technical Volume (ref last sentence of para 4.2.2: “Plans should be included as separate appendices and will count against the Technical Volume page limit.”).

Once on contract, the successful offeror will deliver a separate/different Management Plan

IAW CDRL A002.

17 Section L, Table 2.2 – Proposal Organization in section 2.2.2 states in part, under Management Plan, “… Compensation Plan for Professional Employees will be part of Volume IV.” There is no reference to this Plan anywhere else in the RFP. Please clarify the requirements for this plan and how it is to be included as part of Volume V.

Suggest Government specify that the Compensation Plan be included as another item under section 7.3 Other Information Required, with the requirements for the plan specifically identified.

Table 2.2 states that “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Compensation Plan for Professional Employees will be part of Volume V.”

Include the Compensation Plan for Professional Employees (IAW FAR 52.222-46) as an appendix to Volume V.

18 Section L, para 6.6 (Section 2) & para 7.2, pages 129-130:

Volume IV - Cost/Price, Section 2, Pricing Assumptions, requires offerors to list each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the price volume, if any. Further, Volume V – Contract Documentation, Section 7.2, Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements, additionally requires offerors to identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and to provide complete accompanying rationale in support of the exception and to fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Please confirm that an exception that is identified which has an impact on cost is to be included in both the Volume IV and V list of exceptions.

Request that the Government clarify its desires with regard to documenting exceptions in the offeror’s proposal.

Exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions that have an impact on cost should be identified/included in both Volumes IV and V.

Please note that an exception taken could render an offeror nonresponsive.

19 Section F, page 90: Period of Performance, states, “Performance under this contract shall be from Est. 15 December 2012 through 30 March 2021.” In Section B, Periods of Performance are defined as 12 months for each period except for Option Year 8, which is defined as a 6 month period. Request the Government clarify whether the end date of the period of performance is 30 March 2021 or 14 June 2021, to be consistent with Section B periods of performance. Request that the Government clarify the solicitation periods of performance to be consistent.

To clarify the response to question #4, the period of performance (PoP) for this contract will be from date of contract award, which is estimated to be 15 December 2012. The basic PoP will be through 30 September 2013. Because 15 December 2012 is an estimated award date, the actual award date may be sooner or later. The TEP for the basic PoP will be based on the identified Total Man Hours Per Year. Depending on the award date, the basic PoP may be reduced at time of award. The contract end date of the PoP is 30 March 2021.

20 Section L, para 7.1.3, page 130, Volume V: Contract Documentation states that the offeror shall propose the performance schedule by completing the blanks in Section F of the model contract.

Recommend the Government clarify and identify the expected period of performance for all offerors to assume and delete the requirement that offerors are to complete Section F.

The period of performance is estimated to be 15 December 2012 through 30 March 2021. The beginning period of performance is subject to change.

21 In response to Question 4 from Q&A #1 posted 12 Jan 12: Based upon the Government’s response to question #4, it is understood that the period-of-performance for the base period will run from 12/15/12 - 12/14/13 and then the first option will begin on 12/15/13 and so on for the following options, with the last option being 6 months. The CLIN Pricing Matrix and the Fixed Price labor Hour Rate Matrix are by Government Fiscal Year (FY). The periods of performance outlined above span two Government FYs, except Option Year 8. Please clarify whether the labor rates are for a Government FY or for a period of performance.

If the first case is true, rates from two FYs will need to be used when calculating a price with the CLIN Pricing Matrix; i.e. FY-13 and FY-14 rates for the base period of performance. In this case the CLIN Pricing Matrix would need to be modified to incorporate the rates for two FYs.

See responses to questions #19 and #27.

22 Document Reference: (1) Labor Category Descriptions document, (2) CLIN Pricing Matrix spreadsheet

Rationale:

The labor category descriptions document shows a Subject Matter Expert labor category but it is not present on the CLIN pricing matrix Excel document.

Question/Request:

Should the labor category be deleted or should it be added into the matrix?

This row was included in error. Please disregard this row.

23 Document Reference: Solicitation, Part I Section B

Rationale:

A CLIN for ODCs was not provided.

Question/Request:

Where does the Government anticipate ODCs will be charged?

ODCs should be incorporated in the fully burdened labor rates.

24 Document Reference: (1) Page 120 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization. (2) Page 125 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L, paragraph 5.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History. (3) Page 125 of 136, Solicitation, Part IV Section L, paragraph 5.1.1

Rationale:

Reference (1) only provides 6 pages per PPIS for Volume III Past Performance, and notes that consent letters do not count toward the page limit. Reference (2) requires Organizational Structure Change History, reference (3) requires Client Authorization Letters if applicable.

Question/Request:

We respectfully request up to 4 additional pages in Volume III for volume summary and required Organizational Structure Change History. In addition, we request Client authorization letters not count towards volume page limit.

The only page limitation imposed on Volume III applies to the PPISs (6 pages per PPIS). The page limit does not apply to the client authorization letters, consent forms, or organizational structure change history explanations.

25 Document Reference: Page 92 of 136, Solicitation, Part I Section H, 5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest (Oct 2010), (a) (2)

Rationale:

In referring to the two restrictions (i) and (ii) the reference states:

The above restrictions shall be included in all subcontracts, teaming arrangements and other agreements calling for performance of work which is subject to the organizational conflict of interest restrictions identified in this clause, unless excused in writing by the contracting officer.”

Question/Request:

Because the teaming agreements may have been negotiated and executed before the release of the RFP, should the words “teaming arrangements” be removed or replaced with “Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA)”?

No, Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) would fit in the category of “other agreements” as identified in the clause.

26 Document Reference: (1) Page 12, line 367 of Performance Work Statement, section 1.4.6 Transition Strategy, (2) Page 9, line 281 of Performance Work Statement, section 1.4.2.3 ISC/Other SPO Managed Contracts Relationships.

Rationale:

Reference (1) shows that the awardee will ultimately assume all systems tasks from the IPIC and the PBC contracts and reference (2) requires the awardee to maintain awareness of the progress, technical issues and status of all F-900 and other SPO managed Non-FISAC programs (i.e. SACCS, MMPU, etc.) to ensure integration with the weapon system and smooth transition to the follow-on phase(s).

Question/Request:

To ensure full knowledge be equally available to all bidders, request the IPIC and PBC PWS/SOWs and corresponding documentation from F-900 and other SPO managed programs be added to the Bidder’s Library.

The PBC IMP-Data Dictionary and a list of the F- 900 programs will be uploaded to the Bidder’s Library. The ISC contractor only needs to maintain awareness of the F-900 programs, therefore no additional information is needed for the proposal.

The Government is currently looking into the possibility of providing the IPIC requirements document in the Bidder’s Library. Offerors will be notified via email if the document is added.

27 Document Reference: Page 90 of 136, Solicitation, Part I Section F, Period of Performance

Rationale:

Reference states that the period of performance under this contract shall be from est. 15 December 2012 through 30 March 2021. By our estimates IAW the estimated CME hours stated in Section B, the period of performance should be:

Basic: December 15, 2012 through December 14, 2013 Option I: December 15, 2013 through December 14, 2014 Option II: December 15, 2014 through December 14, 2015 Option III: December 15, 2015 through December 14, 2016 Option IV: December 15, 2016 through December 14, 2017 Option V: December 15, 2017 through December 14, 2018 Option VI: December 15, 2018 through December 14, 2019 Option VII: December 15, 2019 through December 14, 2020 Option VIII: December 15, 2020 through June 14, 2021

Question/Request:

Because established estimating practices rely on an accurate PoP, would the Government please confirm the Period of Performance schedule to end on June 14, 2021 as opposed to March 30, 2021?

Basic: Est. 15 December 2012 through 30 September 2013 Option I: 1 October 2013 through 30 September Option II: 1 October 2014 through 30 September Option III: 1 October 2015 through 30 September Option IV: 1 October 2016 through 30 September Option V: 1 October 2017 through 30 September Option VI: 1 October 2018 through 30 September Option VII: 1 October 2019 through 30 September Option VIII: 1 October 2020 through 30 March

28 RFP Section L, paragraph 4.2.2, requires the offeror to address, “PWS paragraph 1.6 REQUIREMENTS and all of its subparagraphs.” This includes subparagraph 1.6.6, ASSOCIATE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENTS, and 1.6.7, TRAVEL. The ACA’s are already addressed in Volume V (see Section L, paragraph 7.3.7), and it is unclear what the Government requires in the offeror’s Technical proposal with regard to ACA’s. Furthermore, for Travel, as currently written, there are no obvious PWS requirements that must be addressed in the offeror’s proposal in response to PWS subparagraph 1.6.7.

As the ACA’s are addressed elsewhere in the proposal, and there are no clear requirements to be addressed in PWS subparagraph 1.6.7, Travel, suggest removing these sections from the mandatory list of items to be addressed in Volume II.

The offeror’s ACAs should be provided with Volume V. Offerors do not need to address Paragraph 1.6.7 Travel in their proposal.