NOVASTAR Draft RFP Questions Answers.pdf

NOVASTAR FA8604-21-R-B007 Draft RFP Questions and Answers

1. Is it the Government's intention for this effort to only award up to 5 small businesses and no additional awardees?

a. Yes

2. Will the response to NOVASTAR need to be classified?

a. No, the response does not need to be classified but the Government expects responses to contain classified portions up to the TS/SCI level.

3. Section L-8.8 instructs Offeror to "Cite specific experience or staff qualifications as appropriate for each mission area listed in Attachment L-1 and indicate whether the prime or a subcontractor provided the cited experience or staff qualifications." However, Attachment L-1 is unbalanced across the Intelligence Disciplines in illustrating the sub-mission areas. For instance, TECHINT is divided into 16 very specific program elements, while SIGINT, HUMINT, and OSINT have none. Both GEOINT and MASINT have eight each. Furthermore, NASIC missions are only divided into three program elements when they represent broad Center-wide cross-Group mission areas. To enable the Government to effectively evaluate an Offeror's experience and qualifications across all of these disciplines and missions, recommend the Government revise

Attachment L-1 to provide a more consistent (balanced) and appropriate illustration of the sub-mission areas of each Intelligence Discipline and program elements of each Mission Areas.

a. Additional program elements have not been listed as they would impact the classification of this document. Offeror's can provide additional information in their classified response to the RFP.

4. Please clarify how the Government would like Offerors to populate Attachment L-1 –

Capabilities Matrix.

a. L-8.7 and Attachment L-1 have been updated with the following instructions:

i. To complete the Capabilities Matrix (Attachment L-1) do the following:

1. Create a list of all companies associated with your proposal and their business size under NAICS code 541715 and assign a number to each company (ex: 1-Prime Offeror, Small Business, 2-Subcontractor 1, Large

Business, 3-Subcontractor, Small Business, etc.).

2. Enter the associated number for each company that will execute the scope of work for each cell of the table.

ii. An example of a completed capability matrix has been included in a separate tab on Attachment L-1.

5. Given the intent of On-Premise Administration, Cloud and Hybrid Administration, does Research and Development have to be explicitly addressed in the Offeror’s response to this Technical

Area?

a. Yes, the Government expects this to be addressed concerning this technical area.

6. Cite specific experience or staff qualifications/certifications, and clearance levels appropriate to substantiate Offeror capability discussion for each cell of the Attachment L-1" Does the

Government require the Offeror to input data into Attachment L-1 to provide the above requested information, or is it up to the Offeror on how that requirement is presented in the proposal?

a. L-8.7 and Attachment L-1 have been updated with the following instructions:

i. To complete the Capabilities Matrix (Attachment L-1) do the following:

1. Create a list of all companies associated with your proposal and their business size under NAICS code 541715 and assign a number to each company (ex: 1-Prime Offeror, Small Business, 2-Subcontractor 1, Large

Business, 3-Subcontractor, Small Business, etc.).

2. Enter the associated number for each company that will execute the scope of work for each cell of the table.

ii. An example of a completed capability matrix has been included in a separate tab on Attachment L-1.

7. In attachment L-3 can the Government confirm that Offerors are to insert the direct labor rate on Tab B in columns D, H, L, P, T, X, etc.?

a. The original attachment L-3 has been removed and does not need to be completed.

8. In attachment L-3 can the Government confirm that subcontractors are only to submit rates for positions they plan on bidding on for Task Orders? Can the Government also confirm that subcontractors can submit their attachment L-3 and the narrative portion of the Professional

Employee Compensation Plan separately to the Government since this is considered proprietary information?

a. The original attachment L-3 has been removed and does not need to be completed.

However, subcontractors and prime Offerors can submit separate rates and plan packages to the Government separately. Please have subcontractors utilize the same submission instructions listed for prime Offerors.

9. There are differing period of performance dates for the Professional Employee Compensation and Proposal Pricing Worksheet (Pricing Matrix). The Attachments L-3 (TCP) and L-4 (Pricing) have different start dates. Is that the Government’s intent, or should the attachments have consistent start dates?

a. The original attachment L-3 has been removed. The original L-4 is now labeled as L-3.

Please utilize the dates identified in the remaining document.

10. Total employee compensation worksheet requires subcontractors input. Please verify the requirement for subcontractors to complete this worksheet. If subcontractors are required to complete this worksheet and the data contained within contains proprietary information, please verify that subcontractors may submit their data directly to the Government.

a. The Government has identified "applicable subcontractors" that should submit professional employee compensation plans for evaluation. 'Applicable subcontractors' are those that are considered small business concerns of similar size and like nature, and the Prime's top three other subcontractors in terms of the scope of work they are anticipated to perform. Subcontractors may submit their information directly to the

Government following the same instructions outlined in the package for the Prime

Offerors. Section L-9.3.2 has been updated to reflect this.

11. On the Government Pricing Worksheet there is not a column to add fee. Will the Government confirm that they are only looking for fully loaded rates without fee and fee will be determined at the task order level?

a. The Government has removed fee and profit from this table and those will be incorporated based on the contract type at the task order level. This should only include the Offeror's fully loaded rates minus fee/profit.

12. The historical hour multipliers are currently the same for off-site and on-site labor. Please verify that this is accurate, respectful of on-site and off-site labor.

a. For evaluation purposes, this is correct. Contractors are able to propose their own solutions to Task Orders, which may consistent of varying mixes of on-site and off-site hours based on each requirement.

13. Can the Government provide instructions on how questions/comments related to classified documents should be submitted?

a. Please send an email to robert.bennett.42@us.af.mil and andrew.gill.7@us.af.mil requesting the opportunity to provide feedback on the classified documents. Otherwise feedback can be sent via JWICS email to robert.bennett@nasic.ic.gov. Feedback can also be couriered to NASIC and delivered to Robert Bennett in Room E203, please email robert.bennett.42@us.af.mil to schedule a timeslot for drop off. As noted in the draft

RFP posting, comments and feedback were due by 1600 on 14 April 2021. Please still submit your feedback on this part of the package per the instructions above but note that the Government is not required to respond to that feedback.

14. The Contract Data Requirements List has a large number of required CDRLs. However, all of them are titled A001 Presentation Material. The Performance Work Statement para 8.0 lists the

CDRLs required in the contract. Suggest, that the Contract Data Requirements List be updated to match the PWS 8.0.

a. There was an unnoticed error in the system when compiling the CDRLs. The CDRLs have been updated and included with this posting. Please note that the content of the CDRLs has not changed. Only numbering has been updated to reflect the appropriate correlated title. The list in PWS paragraph 8.0 matches the full list of CDRLs.

15. The CDRL package accompanying the Draft RFP was incomplete. Will the Government provide the full CDRL package prior to the release of the Final RFP?

a. There was an unnoticed error in the system when compiling the CDRLs. The CDRLs have been updated and included with this posting. Please note that the content of the CDRLs has not changed. Only numbering has been updated to reflect the appropriate correlated title.

16. The CDRL listing includes only A001 Presentation Material; it does not currently include the other 48 CDRLs listed in the PWS. Recommend updating the Contract Data Requirements List to include instructions for all CDRLs identified in the PWS.

a. There was an unnoticed error in the system when compiling the CDRLs. The CDRLs have been updated and included with this posting. Please note that the content of the CDRLs has not changed. Only numbering has been updated to reflect the appropriate correlated title.

17. NOVASTAR Contract Data Requirements Lists. The information provided is only CDRL A001

(provided multiple times). Will the Government issue CDRLs referenced in PWS 8.0 Data

Deliverables (CDRLs A001 through A049) in advance of the final RFP release?

a. There was an unnoticed error in the system when compiling the CDRLs. The CDRLs have been updated and included with this posting. Please note that the content of the CDRLs has not changed. Only numbering has been updated to reflect the appropriate correlated title.

18. "Classified Information, states that “Volume II may be classified up through the TOP SECRET

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level,” however, although Block 10.e. of the

Solicitation DD254 is checked authorizing SCI access, Block 1.b. only reflects SECRET as the highest level of classified safeguarding at contractor facilities. Respectfully, we believe Block 1.b.

of the Solicitation DD254 should reflect TOP SECRET to facilitate production of a classified technical volume and classified scenario response at the TOP SECRET/SCI-level."

a. Item 1.b in the solicitation DD254 will remain marked secret at this stage of the acquisition. However, when the Government prepares DD254s for each prospective prime Offeror we will include a marking appropriate to the FCL and safeguarding capability of the provided CAGE code. (Ex. If your location has a TS safeguarding capability we will mark item 1.b as TOP SECRET but if you only have Secret safeguarding capability then it will be marked SECRET.)

19. As was stated in the beta.sam notice, we recommend the Government incorporate language into the Final RFP that reflects size standard is to be certified at time of NOVASTAR Final RFP submission and post ID/IQ award at time of submission for each Task Order.

a. IAW FAR 19.301-1, an Offeror is required to represent its size and socioeconomic status at time of initial offer. Offerors will not be required to re-certify upon each TO submission. Offerors will be required to re-certify if prompted by the Contracting Office, upon novation, and/or 120 days prior to the 5 year contract length.

20. Please confirm that the acronym List and Glossary both refer to the same item.

a. This is correct. The guidance for an Acronym List (L-8.2) has been removed. Please follow instruction in L-5.12. L-5.12 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count toward the page limitations for their respective volumes.

21. Please confirm that the Government intended to require Offerors submit their DCSA Verification inquiry showing that they possess a TS FCL in two places in the proposal (Entry Gate, Security, Volume II)

a. The second requirement for evidence of a TS FCL was removed from 8.7.5. This will only be reviewed as part of the gate criterion.

22. L-5.13 Labeling: Please confirm that this requirement applies only to the classified, paper-based portion of the Offeror’s submission.

a. The cover sheet applies to each of the five volumes anticipated as part of an Offeror's proposal submission.

23. Please confirm that the CLASSIFIED portion of Volume II Technical/Scenario, although submitted separately and described as an “addendum”, is within the 165-page-limitation given in Section L-

5.32.

a. Yes, any classified portion submitted as part of volume II will be considered part of the

165 page limit given in Section L-5.32

24. Does the Government intend to require a header for all subparagraphs? Please clarify.

a. Yes, please provide a header for all subparagraphs. Language has been included in section L-5.11 to reflect this requirement.

25. Given the different delivery modes for the proposal, can you specify further what is meant by

"Tab indexing"? Please clarify.

a. References to tab indexing were removed from this section of the L&M document.

26. Will the Government allow fold-out pages? Recommend allowing fold-out for clearer presentation of some material

a. At this time, per L-5.3.4 the Government does not anticipate allowing foldout pages.

27. Please provide clarity on what is being evaluated. L-5.4 states “An Offeror is not required to respond to every paragraph of the PWS.” However, in M-1.5 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions states that “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.” Is it the Government’s intent to communicate that all Compliance items need to be discussed in the proposal, but only Evaluation criteria will be rated Acceptable or Not Acceptable?

a. The statement "An Offeror is not required to respond to every paragraph of the PWS" has been removed from L-5.4. Offerors are expected to respond to the PWS in its entirety.

28. Response to Evaluation Factors: NOVASTAR is NASIC’s comprehensive S&TI mission contract for the next decade. As NASIC anticipates only up to 5 awards, each winning prime needs to bring the best possible team to meet all of NASIC’s S&TI mission requirements for the next decade.

The Government stated that “An Offeror is not required to respond to every paragraph of the

PWS.” This statement does not lead to teams capable of supporting NASIC’s S&TI mission and contradicts Section M.2.2.2 where the Measure of Merit states, “Offeror demonstrates a sound technical capability and understanding in each of the mission areas listed in PWS…” Request this paragraph be changed to require Offerors to successfully respond to every paragraph in the

PWS."

a. This statement has been removed from the section L-5.4. Offerors are required to respond to every paragraph in the PWS.

29. Please clarify how the 10-page Executive Summary will be evaluated, if at all.

a. The Executive Summary will be evaluated for compliance with Section L requirements

(i.e. including a narrative summary, table of contents, compliance matrix, and organizational chart) but no formal rating will be applied to this section.

30. Should the last sentence state “The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the contract documentation volume”, as opposed to “The Offeror shall make a clear statement in

Section A of the proposal documentation volume”?

a. The language for L-5.5 has been adjusted to the following:

i. L-5.5 Proposal Validity Date. The proposal acceptance period is specified in

Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the Contract Document Volume IV that the proposal is valid until this date. Block 12 of the Model Contract will also be adjusted to show 270 days as the valid period.

31. In order to comply with both of these instructions, shall rounding to the whole dollar and rounding to the nearest penny be applied only in the final step of each calculation? (i.e. apply a round formula on top of the sum formula in the "Loaded Rate" columns of the NOVASTAR

Proposed Pricing Worksheet)

a. Section L-5.8 has been updated to the nearest penny.

32. Section L-5.9 currently expresses that Volume II may be classified TS//SCI. However, adequately demonstrating an understanding of the NASIC mission requires the expression of TS//SCI information and contractor performance will require TS//SCI analysis and production throughout execution. In order to properly evaluate Offerors' understanding of the NASIC mission and the Offerors' ability to deliver services in a TS//SCI environment, recommend the

Government require TS//SCI responses.

a. The language shall remain the same and contractors should respond at the classification level they feel is most appropriate to appropriately satisfy the requirements in each mission area.

33. Please confirm or clarify that the hand-delivered classified volumes should be paper copies, versus hand-delivered electronic files on digital media (for example, a CD).

a. Additional language has been added to L-5.9 to clarify that electronic files on a CD can be hand carried to NASIC.

34. Please clarify what elements of the electronically-delivered Volume II, Technical/Scenario, should be duplicated in the separate, paper-copy Volume II Scenario submission. For example, should the paper submission have a table of contents, list of tables and drawings, and glossary?

a. There is no requirement to submit hard-copy proposals in response to this solicitation.

In Accordance With (IAW) Section L-3, the unclassified portion of the proposal shall be submitted electronically. IAW L-5.9 the Offeror may elect to submit classified information via hard-copy if electronic means are not available. IAW L-5.3.5 “covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, etc., will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal.” See L-5.3.4 and L-5.3.5 for specific instructions on formatting and calculating page counts.

35. Section notes "A sample matrix is at Attachment L-2". L-2 attachment was not include in the draft RFP package Please provide Attachment L-2, a sample compliance matrix.

a. Attachment L-2 has been attached with the rest of the package.

36. The Organizational Chart required in Section 7.1.1 will likely duplicate writing in Section 7.1.1

Narrative Summary. Recommend including Section 7.1.4 Organizational Chart requirements within Section 7.1.1 Narrative Summary.

a. The instructions in section L-7.1.4 state "The Offeror shall include an Organizational

Chart in the Executive Summary.”

37. Please provide additional guidance specific to how the Government would like an Offeror to confirm that no OCI exists. Does the Government require Letters from the Prime and each proposed subcontractor certifying that no OCI exists?

a. The following language has been added into the Section L&M document:

i. L-8.6.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest. Discuss Prime Offeror’s approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI issues and risks IAW FAR Part

9.5, including those resulting from teaming arrangements. Identify process to provide employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policy. Identify specific Prime experience or staff qualifications to substantiate Offeror’s capability to successfully address Organizational Conflict of Interest issues.

ii. M-2.3.1.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest. This Measure of Merit evaluates the Prime Offeror’s approach to detect, disclose, avoid, and mitigate organizational Conflict of Interest issues and risk IAW FAR Part 9.5 during the

NOVASTAR IDIQ contract execution. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Prime Offeror’s approach ensures detection, disclosure, avoidance and mitigation of OCI issues and risks, to include those resulting from teaming arrangements, at the NOVASTAR IDIQ contract and task order levels. The approach must include adequate employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policies and directives and include specific

Prime experience or staff qualifications to substantiate the Prime Offeror’s capability.

38. Volume Organization states Subfactor 1 should address Organizational Conflict of Interest but there are not instructions informing the Offeror on the type of information the Government will require. Are there specific elements the Government would like addressed? If no OCI is identified will a simple statement satisfy the Government? If OCI, or potential OCI, is identified what would the Government require as part of the OCI Mitigation Plan?

a. The following language has been added into the Section L&M document:

i. L-8.6.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest. Discuss Prime Offeror’s approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI issues and risks IAW FAR Part

9.5, including those resulting from teaming arrangements. Identify process to provide employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policy. Identify specific Prime experience or staff qualifications to substantiate Offeror’s capability to successfully address Organizational Conflict of Interest issues.

ii. M-2.3.1.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest. This Measure of Merit evaluates the Prime Offeror’s approach to detect, disclose, avoid, and mitigate organizational Conflict of Interest issues and risk IAW FAR Part 9.5 during the

NOVASTAR IDIQ contract execution. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Prime Offeror’s approach ensures detection, disclosure, avoidance and mitigation of OCI issues and risks, to include those resulting from teaming arrangements, at the NOVASTAR IDIQ contract and task order levels. The approach must include adequate employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policies and directives and include specific

Prime experience or staff qualifications to substantiate the Prime Offeror’s capability.

39. Within L-8.5 Volume Organization, please confirm that the “Intelligence Scenario” should be labeled as Subfactor 3.

a. Yes, that is correct. This has been corrected in the L&M document.

40. Please confirm that the Intelligence Scenario is Subfactor 3. Paragraph L-8.9 identifies the intelligence Scenario as Subfactor 3, but the volume organization in paragraph L-8.5 does not.

a. Yes, that is correct. This has been corrected in the L&M document.

41. Volume Organization includes Factor 2 – Price. Delete reference to Factor 2 - Price.

a. This reference has been removed from L-8.5.

42. Section L-8-7.3 states, "Experience is defined in the solicitation as the Offeror's involvement or participation in work that is similar in breadth, depth, and/or relevance to the appropriate evaluation factor. Cite specific prime experience managing fifteen or more concurrent task orders on an IDIQ and/or individual services contracts." The Government did not specify a years of experience requirement or a recency requirement for contract experience examples. How will the Government evaluate depth and recency of relevant experience?

a. L-8.7.3 is now L-8.6.3 and includes a recency requirement which states that cited examples must be from work performed within the last 5 years and includes 6 months or more of performance. See the updated language below:

i. L-8.6.3 IDIQ Management. The Prime Offeror must provide a sound approach to manage the NOVASTAR IDIQ contract. The Offeror must identify a management presence physically located within 25 miles of Wright- Patterson Air Force Base.

Cite specific Prime experience as appropriate to substantiate Prime Offeror’s capability to maintain continuity of mission support during transition following award and successfully manage the NOVASTAR IDIQ contract. Experience is defined in this solicitation as the Offeror’s involvement or participation in work that is similar in breadth, depth, and/or relevance to the appropriate evaluation factor. For all listed experience the Offeror shall include a description of the work performed by the Offeror, the dollar value of the work, and the period in which the work was performed. All cited work must have occurred within the last five years for at least six months of performance. Cite specific prime experience managing fifteen or more concurrent task orders on an IDIQ and/or individual services contracts.

43. Would the Government verify the PWS references in section L-8.8?

a. Missions are 1.1 and Disciplines are 1.2. This has been corrected in the L&M document.

44. This paragraph states, “The Offeror must describe a sound process to complete the relevant mission areas described in PWS …” Request deleting the word “relevant” as all mission areas are essential to a Prime team successfully accomplishing NASIC’s S&TI mission.

a. This has been corrected in the L&M document.

45. The Section L-9.3.1 suggests that proposed loaded hourly rates will be the "maximum allowable rates throughout the duration of this contract for CPFF task orders" and further describes that

"Hourly rates for FFP, CPIF, FPIF, T&M, or any combination thereof, will be negotiated at the task order level." However, as presented, the rate table is suggestive that the presented rates are applicable only to T&M task orders. Consistent with this understanding, we suggest updating the instructions to: "Proposed loaded hourly labor rates will be the maximum allowable rates proposed throughout the duration of this contract for T&M task orders; however, they may be discounted by the Offeror at the task order level. Hourly rates for FFP, CIPI, FPIP, CPFF, or any combination thereof, will be negotiated at the task order level".

a. The Government has considered your comment and the language will remain as written.

46. Section L-9.3.1 provides no instructions for Subcontractors to provide sealed package sensitive information to NASIC. Will there be a provision for Subcontractors to provide sealed package sensitive information to NASIC?

a. Subcontractors are not required to submit information under L.9.3.1 and only apply to the Prime Offeror.

47. Do the maximum allowable rates apply to the prime only or to the entire team including subcontractors?

a. Subcontractors are not required to submit information under L.9.3.1 and only apply to the Prime Offeror.

48. What is the anticipated mix of TO contract types?

a. At this time, the Government anticipates the following mix of TO composition for the initial year: 45% R&D, 40% O&M, and 15% Sustainment. However, final composition of

TOs is subject to change.

49. Are the loaded labor rates intended to be the maximum for just the Prime Contractor or for both the Prime Contractor and all Subcontractors?

a. Subcontractors are not required to submit information under L.9.3.1 and only apply to the Prime Offeror. Section L-9.3.1 Hourly Labor Rates states that the proposed loaded hourly labor rates will be the maximum allowable rates proposed throughout the duration of this contract for CPFF task orders.

50. Will the Government confirm these maximum labor rates will apply to the prime contractor only?

a. Yes, this applies to the prime only.

51. This paragraph states that it is in the “Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated.” Further this paragraph states, “This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work.” This directly competes and contradicts the Government’s decision to pursue

NOVASTAR awards based on LPTA selection criteria, as stated in M-1.1. Strongly request the

Government change NOVASTAR IDIQ selection criteria to Best Value and modify the Relative

Importance of Factors and Subfactors to prioritize Technical capability and experience over Cost.

a. The Government has reviewed this comment and the NOVASTAR IDIQ selection criteria will remain as is.

52. Currently, under Section L-9 Instructions for Vol III, Price Volume, only L-9.3.2 requires subcontractors to submit pricing information as part of their total compensation plan. Are they any other subcontractor pricing requirements expected to be provided to the Government? If there are, please clarify and provide specific instructions for subcontractor pricing information

a. The Government does not anticipate any other requirements at this time but reserves the right to any changes for final RFP.

53. L-9.3.2 is clear that the Professional Compensation Plan applies to all professional employees who will do work under the contract. The paragraph states that it is part of the Price Volume.

Will Subcontractors be able to provide this data under sealed package or is their information to be included in the Prime's Professional Compensation Plan?

a. Yes, subcontractors and prime Offerors can send these separately to the

Government. Please have subcontractors utilize the same submission instructions listed for Prime Offerors.

54. Subcontractors generally do not reveal their fringe rate and details of compensation to prime contractors. Can subcontractors submit this information directly to the Government?

a. Yes, subcontractors and prime Offerors can send these separately to the

Government. Please have subcontractors utilize the same submission instructions listed for Prime Offerors.

55. Putting JV constructs into place is a time consuming process and has been exacerbated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please confirm that the JV needs to be in place prior to award.

a. The JV would need to be in place prior to award. JVs require a new Cage Code/name in

SAM, which the Offeror should be submitting their proposal under.

56. Given the anticipated ceiling ($4.7B) of the NOVASTAR IDIQ, it is likely that many of the teams competing for a prime contract may be extremely large. In order to limit the amount of information the Government will be required to review, will the Government consider limiting the requirement to submit Professional Employee Compensation Plans to the prime contractor and major subcontractors? A major subcontractor could be a company that is anticipated to perform at least 5% of the overall effort, or perhaps the 7 most significant subcontractors as determined by the anticipated % of overall work. This will allow the Government to determine if the overall team has the ability to properly and fairly compensate the anticipated employees, while also reducing the Government's time to review proposals.

a. The Government has identified "applicable subcontractors" that should submit professional employee compensation plans for evaluation. 'Applicable subcontractors' are those that are considered small business concerns of similar size and like nature, and the Prime's top three other subcontractors in terms of the scope of work they are anticipated to perform. Section L-9.3.2 has been updated to reflect this.

57. Section L-9.3.2 Professional Compensation states that the Prime and their identified subcontractors shall submit a total compensation plan. Many companies will assert that the

Professional Compensation Plan and the corresponding L-3 Attachment (Excel file) contain proprietary financial information (directly salary and indirect rate information). Will the

Government allow subcontractors to submit this information directly to the Government?

a. Yes, subcontractors and Prime Offerors can send files separately to the

Government. However, please note that the original Attachment L-3 file has been removed. Please have subcontractors utilize the same submission instructions listed for

Prime Offerors.

58. Section L-9.3.2 Professional Compensation states that the Professional Employee Compensation

Plan shall be no more than 15 pages total. Please confirm that the prime contractor and each subcontractor's Professional Employee Compensation Plan can each be up to 15 pages (Prime contact has 15 pages, Subcontractor 1 has 15 pages, Subcontractor 2 has 15 pages, etc.).

a. Yes, the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor can submit up to 15 pages each as part of this response.

59. Often a contract will allow substitution of education for experience and vice versa to meet labor category requirements. For example, 4 years of experience may be substituted for a Bachelor's degree. We recommend including the following statement as a note on the Personnel

Qualifications attachment: "Contractors can request a waiver to the labor category qualifications.

a. The following statement has been added to the Personnel Qualifications attachment:

Contractors may request a waiver to the labor category qualifications to substitute education for experience at the Task Order level.

60. The labor categories identified do not currently include Administrative and Financial support labor categories that are commonly required to support monthly deliverables, cost estimating, financial management, and financial reporting. These labor categories are currently approved on other related NASIC contracts. Will the Government add Administrative Support and

Cost/Financial Analyst LCATS?

a. Any proposed LCATs including Administrative Support or Financial Analysts are not expected to be major cost drivers for this contract vehicle and will not be assessed as part of this source selection.

61. Will the Government consider modifying labor category qualifications to recognize experience and technical certifications in lieu of education (e.g., 2 years of experience = 1 year education) as currently authorized on other related NASIC contracts?

a. The following statement has been added to the Personnel Qualifications attachment:

Contractors may request a waiver to the labor category qualifications to substitute education for experience at the Task Order level. The Government will not be modifying the overall labor categories at this time.

62. The labor category qualifications are very specific; we believe the lack of substitution language may limit NASIC's current workforce from working on the NOVASTAR effort. For example, the

"Chief Engineer/Scientist" labor category requires a minimum of a Master's degree and 15 years of experience. The lack of substitution language would prevent an employee with a Bachelor's degree in engineering and 35 years of experience from qualifying for this labor category. We ask the Government to consider the following substitution language:

i. For all labor categories requiring a PhD

- Master's and 2 additional years of experience can substitute for a PhD

- Bachelor's and 4 additional years of experience can substitute for a PhD

- Associate's and 6 additional years of experience can substitute for a PhD

- HS and 8 additional years of experience can substitute for a PhD

ii. For all labor categories requiring a Master's Degree

- PhD can substitute for 2 years of experience

- Bachelor's and 2 additional years of experience can substitute for a Master's

- Associate's and 4 additional years of experience can substitute for a Master's

- HS and 6 additional years of experience can substitute for a Master's

iii. For all labor categories requiring a Bachelor's Degree - the following substitutions apply;

- PhD can substitute for 4 years of experience

- Masters can substitute for 2 years of experience

- Associate's and 2 additional years of experience can substitute for a Bachelor's

- HS and 4 additional years of experience can substitute for a Bachelor's

iv. For all labor categories requiring an Associate's Degree - the following substitutions apply;

- PhD can substitute for 6 years of experience

- Masters can substitute for 4 years of experience

- Bachelors can substitute for 2 years of experience

- HS and 2 additional years of experience can substitute for an Associate's

a. The following statement has been added to the Personnel Qualifications attachment:

Contractors may request a waiver to the labor category qualifications to substitute education for experience at the Task Order level. However, we do not plan to include these at the IDIQ level.

63. The Principal Engineer Scientist labor category currently serves as the labor category to capture

Subject Matter Experts (SME). The current requirement is for a PhD and 7 years of experience.

Given there is often a need for uniquely qualified SMEs who could have upwards of 40+ years of experience, suggest the Government add levels within the Principal Engineer Scientist (levels I, II and III) labor category structure to accommodate these SMEs. This is particularly important given the rates becomes ceilings for TO proposals. Suggest the following education and experience requirements by level:

i. Principal Engineer Scientist I – PhD and 7 years of experience

ii. Engineer Scientist II – PhD and 20 years of experience

iii. Principal Engineer Scientist III – PhD and 30 years of experience

a. The Government appreciates this comment but will not be changing the base labor categories. However, a waiver can be submitted on a case by case basis if a uniquely qualified SME is required to execute a requirement at the task order level.

64. The Government has flowed down Limitation on Subcontracting Deviation 2020-O0008, which allows for similarly situated entities to count towards the 50% Limitation on Subcontracting metric; however, the Government did not identify which option it will use to monitor compliance. Please advise how compliance will be measured.

a. At this time, the Government intends to check the box "By the end of the base term of the contract and then by the end of each subsequent option period;" However, the

Government is seeking feedback from Industry as to which box they believe should be checked and the associated rationale.

65. The LPTA nature of the evaluation criteria could result in direct labor rates that are unrealistically low creating less competition on the TO level and high mission turn over on the TO level due to bidding low rates where retention becomes a problem. To avoid these issues on the TO level will the Government either revise the LPTA criteria to Best Value or quantify the evaluation criteria on the total compensation evaluation by setting minimum salaries and benefits so that that companies who propose low salaries will be eliminated?

a. Per M-2.4.4 and M-2.4.5 the Government has provided sufficient strategies to mitigate the risk of an Offeror providing unrealistically low proposed rates.

66. NOVASTAR is an R&D contract, as indicated by the NAICS code – 541715. Therefore, it is a contract for knowledge-based professional services which is expressly prohibited for an LPTA approach, per DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1). This rule also prohibits DOD from using LPTA procedures when acquiring specific kinds of goods and services, such as: Information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services, which are included in

NOVASTAR Performance Work Statement. LPTA does not represent the best interests of the

Government for this highly technical NOVASTAR contract, which demands the very best and brightest ideas and innovation from all of industry. Request the Government evaluate

NOVASTAR proposal submission based on a Best Value solution and delete reference to the

LPTA evaluation method.

a. Thank you for the feedback. The Government has considered the information and is not changing the strategy at this time.

67. There appears to be an incomplete sentence "Contracting by Negotiations, as supplemented by the DFARS" Please clarify.

a. This has been corrected in M-1.1 to read as "This acquisition will utilize the LPTA source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 Dec 2019, and Air Force

Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

68. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded states “The Government intends to award up to five (5) contract(s) for the NOVASTAR ID/IQ.” We recommend the Government retain its flexibility to make awards at Source Selection by updating this language to “The Government intends to award approximately five (5) contract(s) for the NOVASTAR ID/IQ.” Rationale: The Government will be able to assess the submitted proposals and the teams for each Offeror, instead of locking in a specific number of awards based only on market research. This will benefit NASIC by ensuring the NOVASTAR awards will mitigate the risk to NASIC, ensure significant competition and diversity in contractor support still exists, and enhance the flow of new and innovative ideas to address current and future intelligence production and development needs. The Source

Selection Authority can then determine if fewer or more than five proposals are warranted based on the evaluation of the proposals received.

a. The NOVASTAR Source Selection Authority indicated their preference for the language of "up to X number of contract(s)" utilized in the L&M document so this language will remain the same. The Government has determined that no more than 5 contracts will be awarded as part of this source selection but the Government reserves the right to award less than 5 contracts as well.

69. Would you please consider including Past Performance (PP) Volume as part of your selection criteria? Without PP it is hard to evaluate technical experience of competitors.

a. The Government has determined that past performance will not be an evaluation factor utilized in this source selection. Vendors can communicate past performance as part of their technical volume when communicating technical understanding if they find it beneficial for explaining their ability to meet the requirements of the NOVASTAR PWS.

70. Concerning the Entry Gate: How does the Government intend to evaluate compliance? Please clarify.

a. “Entry Gate: Compliance” is being evaluated as the Technical Gate, Top Secret Clearance

Facility. This section was included further down in the Section M. It has been moved to be included under this header for consistency.

71. This section lists one of the Measures of Merit as being a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission. Will the Offeror be required to maintain a facility cleared to the

Secret or Top Secret level within 25 miles of Wright Patterson Air Force Base to meet this

Measure of Merit, or would a Top Secret facility clearance outside this 25 mile radius sufficient?

a. The Offeror is not be required to maintain a TS FCL within 25 miles of WPAFB to meet this measure of merit; a TS FCL outside the 25 mile radius is acceptable.

72. This section identifies one of the Measures of Merit as being “a sound approach to perform approximately 75% of the work within 25 miles of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base”. Can the

Offeror presume that the portion of the work to be performed within 25 miles of Wright-

Patterson Air Force Base would actually be performed on-site at Wright-Patterson, or would a

Secret or Top-Secret facility outside the base, but within 25 miles, be required?

a. The majority of work for this contract is expected to be executed on-site at a NASIC facility. However, Offeror's with local facilities can propose to complete work at their own facilities if the requirement allows this work to be completed remotely and the

Offeror has a properly cleared facility.

73. M-2.5.4: This section states that unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Can you quantify the percentage of variance which would constitute

“significant”?

a. While there is no definition of "significant" in the FAR, the Government will use the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to detect unbalanced pricing. The analysis will consider both the magnitude of the unbalanced pricing and the risk to the Government.

The Offeror can strengthen its position by providing justification/rationale for any prices that may appear unbalanced as part of its Pricing submission.

74. If the Government will be using this criteria for its realism evaluation, will the Government provide the predecessor compensation levels as part of the NOVASTAR final solicitation? FAR

52.222-46 states that “...proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees.”

a. No, the Government will not be releasing predecessor contract rates as that is propriety information to those contractors. Offerors will be expected to be competitive among industry standards, which should inherently be comparable to any predecessor contracts

75. Please clarify or expand upon how the Government will determine cost/price realism. These 3

Section M-2.4.5 statements indicate a cost/price realism evaluation / determination, but do not clarify how the Government will determine cost/price realism. The FAR clause implies an evaluation of realism, and states “compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated”. The second statement indicates no analysis beyond what the FAR specifies will be conducted, and the third statement states that a realism determination will be made.

a. The Government will determine price realism using L-9.3.2 Professional Employee

Compensation.

76. Model Contract (Page 84). The Model Contract includes the requirements for DFARS 252.234-

7002 Deviation 2015-O0017 Earned Value Management System (EVMS). This class deviation increased the contract threshold from $50M to $100M and applies to cost or incentive type contracts and subcontracts, for which the contractor is required to have an EVMS. As a small business concern and exempt from CAS requirements, there would be significant implementation and administrative costs associated with the implementation of EVMS. Please clarify and confirm if DFARS 252.234-7002 Deviation 2015-O0017 is required for a small business concern under this Small Business set-aside contract.

a. The Government appreciates the feedback. The Government intends to pursue an

Applicability Determination Waiver to relieve this effort of the EVMS requirements. The intention is to have this in place by Final RFP release. Should the waiver be unsuccessful and EVM requirements be applicable to this effort, the Government will follow the

Department of Defense Earned Value Management Implementation Guide. This guide outlines various thresholds that will trigger both Earned Value Management and approval of an Earned Value Management System.

77. Model Contract 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist. 2014-01. Typically this clause is used only in solicitations requiring certified cost or pricing data. How will the IDIQ contract be impacted by its inclusion?

a. This clause will not be included in the Final RFP.

78. Model Contract 252.234-7002 Earned Value Management System. EVMS can be a significant investment for a small business. Will the CDRLs provide additional information with regards to the reporting requirements?

a. The Government appreciates the feedback. The Government intends to pursue an

Applicability Determination Waiver to relieve this effort of the EVMS requirements. The intention is to have this in place by Final RFP release. Should the waiver be unsuccessful and EVM requirements be applicable to this effort, the Government will follow the

Department of Defense Earned Value Management Implementation Guide. This guide outlines various thresholds that will trigger both Earned Value Management and approval of an Earned Value Management System. CDRLs will be updated if needed.

79. Model Contract F CLIN 001 Misc Text (page 13). Base effort and Option periods are to be 5 years; however, performance period end dates for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 1001 thru 1009 do not reflect 5-year periods. Request the Government clarify performance period/periods of

Option Years.

a. Base year CLINs will have an ordering period of 5 years. Option year CLINs will have an ordering period of 4 years. Overall contract period of performance is 10 years.

80. Model Contract F001. F002 lists a PoP of 2 Oct 2027 – 1 Oct 2031 for the option CLINs 1001

1009. The pricing worksheet includes two additional years: Performance Period A and Optional

Extension. Please clarify if the intent is a 4 year ordering period for the Option period, but a 5 or

6 year PoP.

a. The Ordering Period for the Option CLINs 1001-1009 will be four (4) years with a five (5) year PoP.

81. Model Contract F002. The PoP for CLINs 0001 - 0003 end 1 Oct 2026. CLINs 0004 – 0009 end 1

Oct 2027. Are CLINs 0001 – 0003 intended to end a year early or is this a typographical error?

a. Typographical error. CLINs 0001-0009 have a PoP ending 1 October 2027.

82. Model Contract Page 11 Sect. E Para. DFARS Clauses Inc. by Ref. DFARS Clause 252.245-7001 appears to be more aligned with Section D - Packaging and Marking Move this DFAR Clause to

Section D

a. The clause is auto-filled into the contract system and unable to be moved. Clauses will apply to the effort regardless of their location within the contract document.

83. Model Contract Page 124 Section K, FAR Clause 52.230-1. This is a total small business set-aside.

Therefore, only small businesses are able to respond. FAR Clause 52.230-1 Cost Accounting

Standards Notices and Certification is not applicable to small businesses. Request removal of

FAR Clause 52.230-1.

a. System error; this has been removed.

84. Model Contract Page 13 Sect. F Para. F001/F002. These sections are repetitive. Recommend using format of F001 for Basic CLINS POP, followed by Options.

a. F001 and F002 are two separate clauses. Appropriate format has been followed and will remain as is.

85. Model contract states total period of performance starts on 02OCT2022 and ends on

01OCT2031 - total POP of 9 years (assuming option CLINs are exercised); however, the notice on beta.sam states…