ISC Q A 5.pdf

ISC RFP Questions and Answers #5

# Question/Request Response

38 Document Reference:

Section L paragraph 5.1, Q&A #4 Question/Answer #29, Section M paragraph 3.0

Question:

Section L of the original RFP requires the offeror to provide past performance information for each subcontractor.

Per the response in Q&A #4 to questions #29, Amendment 1 changed that requirement to apply only to “major subcontractors” (those performing greater than 10% of total annual effort).

Section M reads “The Government will evaluate submitted past performance with past performance of the Prime and Subcontractor/teaming partners being of equal importance for determining both relevancy and performance.”

Since a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required, small business and other partners play an important role in defining the offerors ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract, though they may not all be categorized as “major subcontractors” by the Government’s definition. As such the past performance of all subcontractors is important to the Government’s confidence assessment in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform as stated in the RFP.

If an offeror submits PPIS on all subcontractors as part of the Past Performance Volume, how will the Government evaluate these past performance PPIS and how will they compare them against those who submitted PPIS for “major subcontractors” only?

Suggested Resolution:

In acknowledgement of the importance that small businesses and other partners bring to the capabilities of a team, though they may not be “major subcontractors”, it is recommended that performance information be provided for all subcontractors as was required in the original solicitation.

Section L does not prohibit Offerors from submitting past performance for subcontractors performing less than 10% of the annual effort.

All past performance information submitted will be considered in the evaluation process.

Each Offeror is individually evaluated to determine the appropriate confidence level without regard to other Offerors.

Also, per Section L, para 5.1, the Government reserves the right to use ”data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance” if necessary.

39 Document Reference:

RFP Amendment 2, page 4 of 19, Clause H738(a)

Question:

The H738 clause states "…commercial computer software licenses shall designate the Government as a primary or contingent licensee…."

Need clarification on what this requirement applies to.

Does this apply to:

1. Desktop software such as Microsoft Office, Windows, or Matlab.

2. Other COTS software?

3. Internal contractor business management software?

4. IDE software as referenced in PWS 1.6.2.11 "...transfer of all software used in the management of data (both commercial and non-commercial)?"

It may be difficult or impossible to apply this requirement to software which has already been purchased, is COTS, is shared between multiple programs, or is used for internal contractor business management.

Suggested Resolution:

Suggest that the Government provide a clause interpretation, that limits the application to only a) new software specifically purchased for ISC use; and b) specialty engineering software only.

New software purchased in support of ISC requirements should be purchased with the licensee listed as US Government.

This refers to IDE software as referenced in PWS

1.6.2.11. This does not apply to software such as Office

or Windows etc. It also does not apply to internal contractor business management software.

It is correctly interpreted to mean that new software purchased in support of ISC requirements should be purchased with the licensee listed as US Government.

40 Document Reference:

RFP Amendment 2, page 4 of 19, Clause H739(a)

Question:

The H739 clause states "… All technical data delivered, or otherwise furnished to the Government, including data on the contractor‘s Integrated Data Environment (IDE) shall be marked in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013 and associated DFARS"

What constitutes "otherwise furnished to the Government." Difficult to mark working papers which may result in a delay in sharing some in-process information with the Government.

Suggested Resolution:

Suggest data "otherwise furnished to the Government" apply only to data placed in the data repository used to maintain ISC deliverables.

If a contractor provides the Government access to data, we need to understand if that data is restricted and how that data is restricted regardless of what the data is, working paper or otherwise.

How data should be marked is driven by who paid for the development of the data. Whether data is in-process or final should be of limited concern.

There should be rare circumstance where data, working papers or otherwise, should be restricted. We assume and expect that most data delivered or otherwise provided under the ISC will be unlimited and marked accordingly. Our intent is to ensure that data is marked properly and to scrutinize any data that is delivered or otherwise accessible by the Government that is marked anything but unlimited rights data.

Unmarked data that is accessible by the Government will be considered unlimited rights data.

Otherwise furnished covers data that is emailed, can be accessed, downloaded, or is provided hard copy to the Government.

41 Document Reference:

ISC PWS Rev 01, page 48 of 112, section 1.6.2.10, line 1916

Question:

Government clarification is required to instruct offers on how to respond to PWS .6.2.10, which simply states "See Section H: Special Contract Requirement, Clause 9952.739-H739.”

If evaluated as part of Contracts volume compliance, the Technical volume could simply state "Reference Contracts volume for 9952.739- H739 compliance" or if evaluated as part of the Technical volume combined technical/risk evaluation, the compliance approach to every "shall" of 9952.739-H739 would be addressed.

Will compliance to the Special Contract Requirement, Clause 9952.739- H739 be evaluated as part of the Technical volume combined technical/risk evaluation, or as part of the Contracts volume compliance evaluation?

Suggested Resolution:

Please clarify

This will be evaluated as part of the Contracts volume compliance evaluation.

Reference Section L, para 7.1.5.

42 Document Reference:

ISC PWS Rev 01, page 49 of 112, section 1.6.2.11.2, line 1960

Question:

This paragraph states "Upon expiration of this ISC, the incumbent shall provide, at no additional cost, full data transfer and migration support to the incoming contractor, including full transfer of all software used in the management of data (both commercial and non-commercial)..."

The scope of "full data transfer and migration support" undefined and contractor offeror cannot assess their risk

Suggested Resolution:

Please define "full data transfer and migration support" so bidders can accurately account for this cost impact.

Note: IDE costs will be negotiated after contract award with the successful Offeror.

In the event that the Government is required, for technical and/or regulatory reasons, to request data hosting and management support from the ISC contractor, we want to ensure that the database and hosting environment is fully transferable to either the Government or to the subsequent contractor.

Full data transfer and migration support means:

1: There will be no rights limitation on software used in the management of data, other than those that can be commercially transferred under commercial license terms.

2. There will be no restrictive hardware limitations in transferring a database to new hardware (standard commercial hardware is preferred).

3. If customizations of commercial or noncommercial software are made, those customizations will be usable and further modifiable without limitations to rights, to the Government or to the subsequent contractor.

4. Providing instructions that include hardware and software requirements for maintaining the database infrastructure.

We want to ensure that all data and data management software can be seamlessly maintained between contractors.

43 Document Reference:

Section L, page 131, section 7.3.5

Question:

Pursuant to Section L of the RFP, each contractor is required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9). Section L of the original RFP also required the offeror to provide past performance for each subcontractor, including those small businesses. A contractor’s ability to successfully discharge its obligations and goals reflected in the Small Business Contracting Plan is reflected, in significant part, through the past performance evaluation, which will enable the SSA to evaluate the contractors ability to satisfy its small business requirements.

Suggested Resolution:

In acknowledgement of the importance of small businesses participation, it is recommended that the Air Force amend Section M to include the utilization of small businesses either as a subset of the technical evaluation or as an independent evaluation criteria.

No changes will be made to Section M.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan, although delivered under Volume V, will be evaluated as part of Factor 1, Subfactor 3: Management. Therefore, it is a subset of the technical evaluation.

The only reason the Small Business Subcontracting Plan was moved to Volume V was to prevent it from counting against the Technical Volume page limitation.

44 Document Reference:

RFP (9Jan 2012), page 10, CLIN 0042

Question:

The CLIN 0042 (Development of IDE) PWS paragraphs were not updated with the latest RFP amendment.

Suggested Resolution:

Recommend updating CLIN0042 PWS references to: 1.6.2.11.2, 1.6.2.11.4, and 1.6.2.11.5.

Noted, Amendment 03 will update CLIN 0042 PWS references to: 1.6.2.11.2, 1.6.2.11.4, and 1.6.2.11.5.