RFP and DRFP Industry QandA 15 Aug 2011.docx

Industry Questions, Government Answers Draft Request for Proposal FA8750-12-R-0002 and Final Request for Proposal FA8750-12-R-0002

12 AUG 2011

DRAFT RFP Questions and Answers* *For reference, the draft RFP Q&As are inserted within the more recent related Q&A.

1. Can the Government expand upon the salient differences between the technical approach and management approach to the list of activities listed in question 14? For instance, can the Government explain the difference between the technical and management approach to configuration management?

“DRFP Question 14: The following duplicative requirements are requested in the Proposal Preparation Instructions for Volume III, Technical and Volume IV, Management: integration management, configuration management, quality control, certification and accreditation, software and hardware installation, and transition to operational environment. Clearly on p. 18, the Government states it desires this information related to the specific Task Order requirements to be included within Volume III, Technical. However, given the duplication and possible redundancy, what level of information shall the contractor provide for these requirements in Volume IV, Management?

RESPONSE: Volume III refers to the technical approach to meeting the requirement. Volume IV refers to the contractor’s management approach to meeting the requirement.”

RESPONSE: In general the management approach should be a high level generalized plan that the offeror will implement to ensure successful execution of overall contract requirements. The technical approach should provide detailed procedures for addressing specific technical requirements at the task order level. Where a management approach for configuration management may discuss the availability of persons with certain qualifications and particular methodologies, the technical approach for configuration management may discuss how those methodologies can be applied to the specific systems being developed. This principle can be applied to all of the items referenced above.

2. Regarding the Government’s response to question 25 shown below. RIK-L009 instructs that Offerors will organize the Technical Volume into 2 Sections, one for each Sample Order. Given the volume organizational constraint and size constraint, can the Government clarify how offerors should organize the volume in the same sequence and number as the SOW and the Work Descriptions?

“DRFP Question 25: (Ref RIK-L006) Does same sequence mean same paragraph sequence and number as SOW and Work Description? Please explain meaning of same sequence.

RESPONSE: Yes, same sequence means same paragraph sequence and number as SOW and Work Description.”

RESPONSE: Due to the agile nature of this effort, the government is seeking offerors that are able to respond to requirements in a highly organized, concise, and timely manner. This notion is reflected in the requirements of the ACT request for proposals. Outside of the guidelines set forth in the RFP, the government will not suggest “how” offerors should propose. Note: RIK-L009 of the final RFP instructs Offerors that the “Technical Volume shall consist of three (3) Sections, one for the Statement of Work and each Sample Order (Sample Orders 0001 and 0002),” not two sections as the question indicated.

3. Can the Government clarify responses to questions 21 and 31 regarding which resumes are required?

“DRFP Question 21. Sub-Section (c)(3)(ii) of RIK-L009 includes the words “ … names of persons to be assigned for direct performance” does this mean that an Offeror is required to provide the name of each individual it anticipates utilizing to accomplish sample Orders 0001 and 0002?

Also, do the resumes and/or biographies of each person to be assigned for direct performance need to list the applicable RFP/Contract Labor Category on it?

RESPONSE: Yes, the offeror is required to provide the name of each individual it anticipates utilizing to accomplish sample Orders 0001 and 0002. Yes, resumes and/or biographies need to list the applicable labor category.

DRFP Question 31. Sub-Section (c)(3)(ii) of RIK-L009 includes the words “ … names of persons to be assigned for direct performance.” Does this mean that an Offeror is required to provide the name of each individual it anticipates utilizing to accomplish sample Orders 0001 and 0002?

RESPONSE: An offeror is required to provide the names of persons to be assigned for direct performance that the offeror considers central to its performance. Due to a numbering error, the RFP sub-section to RIK-L009 will be (c)(2)(ii).”

RESPONSE: As a result of changes in the final RFP, offerors are now requested NOT to provide specific names of individuals as part of their proposals. “Resumes of engineering/scientific personnel may be appended to this volume; resumes are not counted toward any page limitation set forth elsewhere herein. List the applicable labor category on each resume. No specific names of personnel shall be provided.” Qualifications for personnel that would be assigned to sample orders 0001 and 0002 as well as qualifications for personnel that an offeror considers central to the performance of the overall effort should still be submitted.

4. Given the Government’s response to question 33 shown below, is it the case that Small Business goals established for large prime contractors for this ID/IQ will be measured for each order awarded? Also, will Small Business goals be assessed for Sample Orders 0001 and 0002?

“DRFP Question 33. Reference Section I, FAR 52.219-14 and Section L, RIK-L007 Proposal Preparation Instructions – Contract Forms (Volume I), (a) (1) Section 1 (iii), page L-8 of 25, Information required by FAR 52.215-22, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort.

0. Can a small business prime offeror team with a group of small business subcontractors and collectively satisfy the small business subcontracting requirement of at least 50%?

0. Will the small business requirement of at least 50% be applied to each task order or the cumulative value of the task orders under the IDIQ as a whole?

0. Under a multiple award IDIQ, how can one determine (calculate) the total cost of work to be performed by the prime and each subcontractor?

RESPONSE:

1. Yes, but only if a small business joint venture was legally created and awarded as the prime contractor.

1. The small business requirement of at least 50% will be applied to each order that is awarded under a small business set-aside.

1. The intent of FAR 52.215-22 and 52.215-23 is to ensure that the Government does not pay excessive pass-through charges. The total cost of work to be performed by the prime and each subcontractor will vary based on each Offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements within each order. If an offeror intends to subcontract more than 70% of the total cost of work performed under the basic contract overall, and for Sample Orders 0001 and 0002, then information must be provided per FAR 52.215-22 so that the CO can determine whether excessive pass-through charges exist. This requirement will apply to each order awarded under the multiple award IDIQ.”

RESPONSE: Small Business goals established for large prime contractors for this ID/IQ will be measured for EACH ORDER awarded. Small Business goals WILL NOT be assessed for Sample Orders 0001 and 0002. Small business goals will be measured as they pertain to the umbrella Statement of Work and should be representative of the offerors efforts to utilize small business over the entire $300M effort. Please review the instructions located in RIK-L007(a)(4) of the final RFP for further details.

5. While the Government clarified submission requirements for the completed Attachment 5, it is unclear from this response if Offerors should use the labor categories listed in Attachment 5 for Sample Orders 0001 and 0002. Can the Government clarify?

“DRFP Question 14. RIK-L008: Section (h) of RIK-L008 states that “The Cost Volume shall consist of two (2) sections, one for each Sample Order (Sample Order 0001 and 0002)”, however, RIK-L008 does not include any definitive wording that would require each Offeror to submit a filled-out Attachment No. 5 – NTE Hourly Rate Tables as part of the Cost Volume. If an Offeror is specifically responding to the requirements of these two Task Orders it is highly likely that their proposals would not utilize many of the labor categories that are listed on Attachment No. 5. Please clarify whether or not the filled-out Attachment No. 5 needs to be submitted by each Offeror as part of Volume II – COST or if the filled-out Attachment No. 5 needs to be submitted as part of Volume I – CONTRACT FORMS.

RESPONSE: Attachment No. 5 will be included in the Cost Volume. Wording has been added to RIK-L008.”

RESPONSE: The purpose of the labor category descriptions in Attachment No. 4 is to normalize labor categories that typically vary, in title, among organizations. The government will use these titles and definitions when evaluating the “not to exceed” rate table for firm fixed price (FFP) tasks in Attachment No. 5. Since the sample tasks are both cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) orders, the offeror does not need to use the labor categories discussed in Attachment No. 5 for sample orders 0001 or 0002. Offerors may use their own labor categories as necessary to best represent their approach to solving the requirements. Cost proposal instructions do require Offerors to map their labor categories to Attachment No. 4.

6. Although it is clear that the Government has an interest in reviewing an Offeror’s staffing approach to the Sample Orders, would the Government reconsider the position taken below based upon the following rationale?

The approach taken to staffing the Sample Orders is not likely different than the staffing approach taken on the base contract; therefore, requiring an explanation of the approach within the Technical Volume which has severe page constraints will not likely provide information upon which to differentiate bids. Further, the effectiveness of the staffing approach will be clear in the Offeror’s response to the instruction relating to experience and qualifications and key personnel.

“DRFP Question 30. RIK-L009: A response by an Offeror to Sub-Section (c)(1)(vii) of RIK-L009 would seem to fit better in Volume IV - Management rather than in Volume III – Technical as it would seem to work well in conjunction with Section (4) of RIK-L010 which requires an Offeror to provide an approach regarding the recruiting/hiring of technical personnel; is the Government willing to consider revising the Volume in which an Offeror responds to this requirement?

RESPONSE: The approach to recruiting/hiring of personnel is applicable to Sample Orders 0001 and 0002 in addition to the entire effort and is appropriate for Volume III. The words “…and during the life of the contract” have been removed from RIK-L009 (c)(1)(vii).”

RESPONSE: Because the government is interested in the offerors ability to access highly-specialized personnel to address specific urgent cyber requirements, the “staffing approach” discussion requirements in the RFP will not change.

FINAL RFP Questions and Answers

1. Does Volume V require a Cross Reference Matrix?

RESPONSE: Volume V does not require a cross reference matrix.

2. Please clarify the number of copies specified for hard copy delivery on page L6. Is the number of copies specified for delivery in addition to the original or does it include the original?

RESPONSE: The number of copies includes the original.

3. If a contractor possesses worldwide courier authorization, can that contractor hand deliver classified proposals to the location in the cited reference above versus delivering through the U.S. Postal Service, registered mail?

RESPONSE: Offerors who intend to hand-deliver their proposal are requested to make arrangements at least four days in advance of the delivery in order to arrange facility and gate access. To make arrangements, please contact Michael Graniero at (315) 330-1610 and Christopher Scialdone at (315) 330-7800. Proposals must be received in the Lobby of Bldg. 106 by 3:00pm local time on 01 September 2011.

4. Will the government allow an extension of beyond September 1, 2011 for proposal submission due to the requirement to submit classified proposals via U.S. Postal Service and to be in compliance IAW FAR 5.203 (NAICS 541712 R&D proposals shall be a minimum of 45 days?

RESPONSE: Offerors were given notice on 27 June that pre-registration for the final RFP documents was the best way to get the documents in a timely manner. Further, given that these documents were also made available in the draft RFP we do not anticipate extending the proposal due date at this time. Per the FAR, the 45 day requirement consists of 15 days for the presolicitation notice and 30 days for proposal submission. Since the presolicitaiton notice was posted to FBO more than 15 days prior to the RFP being released, the 30 proposal period is considered acceptable.

5. Would the government clarify if contractors are permitted to submit unclassified and classified proposal separately from one another as classified proposals are required to be submitted via U.S. Postal service.

RESPONSE: Contractors are permitted to submit unclassified and classified proposals separately, however all proposal sections must be received by the date and time specified on the SF33.

6. For the Senior Electronic/Electrical Engineer/Senior Software Engineer, Senior Systems Analyst, Senior Computer Engineer labor category, the degree requirement states BS/MS/PhD and the experience does not differentiate between a BS degree or an MS degree. Will the Government consider following the same format as the next labor category: X yrs directly related experience (X yrs with an MS Degree / X yrs with PhD Degree)?

RESPONSE: For the above referenced labor category the government has decided not to grant an exception to the experience applicable to a master’s degree.

7. On Section K, page 26 of 28, the last line of 252.234-7001, what does “Applicable to individual cost reimbursement orders $20 million and over” mean? The statement also appears on Section H, page 15 of 29, the last line of 252.234-7002: “(Applicable to individual cost reimbursement orders $20 million and over).”

RESPONSE: The statement “Applicable to individual cost reimbursement orders $20 million and over” means the specified clause is implemented in any individual cost reimbursement task order valued at $20 million or greater.

8. The line identifying Fee (Profit) in Attachment 5 – FFP NTE Hourly Rate Tables does not exist. Where in Volume II should the offeror outline their fees?

RESPONSE: In accordance with the instructions for Attachment No. 5 (FFP Hourly Rate Tables), Offeror’s proposed FFP NTE rates must include profit.

9. For Sample Task Order 0001 and 0002 work breakdown structure (WBS) per RIK-L008(g), does the government want a basis of justification for every hour bid to complete tasks? If yes, does the government want detail down to the labor category allocated to each work subtask and can the justifications be added as an appendix to Volume II?

RESPONSE: It is not necessary to provide a justification for every hour bid to complete the tasks or subtasks, therefore a separate appendix consisting of justifications is not necessary.

10. Will there be a penalty during task order execution for exceeding the NTE rates?

RESPONSE: Offerors SHALL NOT propose rates in excess of the proposed NTE rates on any individual FFP task order; therefore applicability of any penalties is not appropriate.

11. Can the government post the RFP without password protection or encryption?

RESPONSE: The Government will not remove the password protection or encryption from the RFP. Documents contained in the RFP can be copied and pasted into a word document, however they would have to be formatted accordingly.

12. The following FAR provisions are out of date:

Provision in RFP Latest Version of Provision Source

52.204-08 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (JAN 2011)

52.204-08 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (MAY 2011)

52.209-02 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH INVERTED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS --REPRESENTATION (JUL 2009) 52.209-02 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH INVERTED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS --REPRESENTATION (MAY 2011)

Should Offerors use the latest provisions?

RESPONSE: After release of the RFP, the Government is not obligated to continually with the most current clauses. However, given that an amendment is currently in process, these clauses will be updated. Please check the FBO website for updates/amendments.

13. Will the government accept bid response packages (UNCLASSIFIED) via mail/Fedex? In other words, if we send our proposal package via USPS to the address in RIK-L013(a), is the government able to receive it and will the government consider the package a valid submission?

RESPONSE: Unclassified proposals will be accepted via mail/FedEx. Offerors are reminded that proposals must be received by the date and time specified on the SF33. Reference FAR 15.208 for further guidance on proposal submission.

14. Will the government accept hand carried Classified (Collateral SECRET) submissions (reference RIK-L013(b))?

RESPONSE: The Government will accept hand-carried classified (Collateral SECRET) and unclassified proposals up to the date and time specified on the SF33. For hand-carried proposals, Offerors are requested to contact Michael Graniero, (315) 330-1610 and Christopher Scialdone, (315) 330-7800, at least four days in advance in order to arrange facility and gate access.

15. Even though names must be excluded from resumes in the (Technical Volume III) appendix (RIK-L009(c)(1)(vi)(B), RIK-L009(c)(2)(viii)(B)), can names be included in the related experience sections (RIK-L009(c)(1)(vi)(A), RIK-L009(c)(2)(viii)(A))?

RESPONSE: The RFP instructions state that specific names of performers shall not be provided as part of the technical or management proposals. This includes the related experience sections.

16. In reference to RIK-L010(a)(5) (Management Volume IV), does the government consider the Project Technical Manager and the Assistant Senior Systems Engineer/Project Technical Manager as “types of management personnel” in addition to the Program Manager/Senior Manager?

RESPONSE: This is considered contingent upon the way in which the offeror proposes to use these personnel. In many cases a project technical manager (or others listed) may perform in a “hands-on” technical manner with the technical team whereas other approaches may utilize these personnel in less of a “hands-on” manner. The government does not yield preference to either approach on a surface level.

17. In reference to RIK-L010(a)(5) (Management Volume IV), can Offerors place management resumes in an appendix and have the pages excluded from the page count? In addition, does the government want to exclude names from these resumes similar to the requirement in the Technical Volume III (RIK-L009(c)(1)(vi)(B), RIK-L009(c)(2)(viii)(B))?

RESPONSE: Management resumes may be submitted as an appendix and will be excluded from the page count. Names of specific personnel should not be stated in any resume. RIK-L010 (a)(5) will be revised in the RFP to reflect this.

18. Reference 1: Section L, RIK-L007(a)(4)(iii), Past Promotion and Monitoring of SBs (Page L-10 of 27). While all businesses, including small SBs, must adhere to FAR 52.219-8 in promoting SB subcontracting to the extent possible, per FAR 52.219-9(a), SBs are exempt from submitting SB Subcontracting Plans, plans which include - in part - maintaining the very "metrics and records" (FAR 52.219-9(d)(11) being asked in Section L, RIK-L007(a)(4)(iii) of the solicitation. We see this as unfair for small business primes to provide three years' worth of records we are exempt - by regulation - from having to maintain (FAR 52.219-9(a)).

RESPONSE: SB Offerors are not required to submit a SB Subcontracting Plan, but are required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan as stated in RIK-L007 (4)(ii). RIK-L007 (a)(4)(iii) is requiring all offerors, including SBs, to include in this Section a description of the Offeror’s performance, over the past three calendar years, in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, including description and available documentation of the methods employed to promote small business utilization and the internal methods used to monitor such utilization. 52.219-8 (b) states that the Contractor further agrees to cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be conducted by the United States Small Business Administration or the awarding agency of the United States as may be necessary to determine the extent of the Contractor's compliance with this clause. While SBs are exempt from the requirements under 52.219-9, they are required to cooperate with the awarding agency as stated in 52.219-8.

19. Reference 2: Section L, RIK-L007 (a)(3)(i) (Page L-9 of 27), regarding Earned Value Management System (EVMS). Can the EVMS requirements be removed from the solicitation (Sections H, K. and L) since the DoD EVM Implementation Guide (10/2006) exempts IDIQ contracts from having EVM systems. If the Government disagrees, what particular proposal submission information, if any, is required concerning an Offeror’s EVMS? Per the DoD EVM Implementation Guide (2006), Section 2.2.3.4.3, Non-Schedule-Based Contracts are exempt from EVMS. Non-Schedule Based Contracts include IDIQ contracts where task orders may or may not be schedule-based.

Section I – FAR Contract Clauses, 52.216-19 Order Limitations (Oct 1995) RFP page 21 of 29. In accordance with the RFP, an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is only “Applicable to individual cost reimbursement orders $20M and over” (per page K - 26 of 28). Since the maximum order value is $20M under the above “Order Limitations”, wouldn’t that allow exclusion of the EVMS requirements? Possibly more small businesses could respond if the Earned Value Management System plan were removed.

RESPONSE: The requirements for inclusion of EVMS are cost or incentive contracts valued at $20M OR more. Since the maximum order amount is $20M, the EVMS clauses are applicable.

20. Question 1: Section L, RIK-L008(h), Fixed-Price Not To Exceed Hourly Labor Rates Tables (Page L 14 of 27 and Attachment 5). What information, if any, is required from subcontractors in regard to the Fixed-Price Not to Exceed (NTE) Hourly Labor Rates Tables contained in Section J (Attachment No. 5)?

RESPONSE: Subcontractor information contributing to the Fixed-Price NTE Rate Table is not required. The Offeror’s proposed NTE rates are applicable to all the work performed by the Prime and all subcontractors. Offerors are reminded that these rates will be applied to notional hours and contribute towards the evaluation of the total evaluated price (TEP).

21. Reference Section L, RIK-L008(e), Subcontractor proposals must be similarly structured (Page L 13 of 27). Is this requirement concerning only subcontractor(s) participating in: (a) Sample Task Orders 0001 and/or 0002; or (b) Sample Task Orders 0001 and 0002 and the Fixed Price NTE Labor Rate Tables?

Reference Section L, RIK-L008(e)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),&(6)Offeror to provide an analysis of subcontractors’ cost proposals (Pages L 13&14 of 27). Are these requirements concerning only subcontractor(s) participating in: (a) Sample Task Orders 0001 and/or 0002; or (b) Sample Task Orders 0001 and 0002 and the Fixed Price NTE Labor Rate Tables?

Section RIK-L008(e)(1) through (6) discusses subcontractor detailed proposals and the necessity to provide a price analysis on subcontractor proposals. Since (e) refers to Table 15-2, usually reserved for Cost Reimbursable contracts, are these requirements only for subcontractors involved in Sample Task Order 0001 and Sample Task Order 0002, and not necessary for IDIQ Fixed Price Hourly Labor Rates?

RESPONSE: The requirement for subcontractor proposals is applicable to Sample Task Orders 0001 and 0002 only, NOT the FFP NTE hourly rate table. Information regarding any subcontractors not participating in Sample Task Orders 0001 and 0002 should be included in the offerors Technical Volume III.

22. Since the Government modified the draft RFP response requirements for Volume III – Technical to include a response to the SOW in addition to the Sample Task Orders, would the Government increase the volume response page limit to 80 pages?

RESPONSE: The government will not increase the page limit which is considered reasonable for offerors to adequately describe their technical approach.

23. Will the Government provide instructions on how offerors can submit questions on sections of the RFP marked Export Controlled or For Official Use Only? Can these questions be provided via email or only through hard copy?

RESPONSE: Offerors may submit FOUO questions via mail to Michael Graniero, Contracting Officer, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, NY 13441-4514. Offerors should consult with their Facility Security Officer, Defense Security Service, or Department of State to determine the proper document markings and procedures for conveying FOUO export controlled information. Government responses to any such questions will be mailed to all prospective Offerors who request a copy. In order to submit questions and receive answers in a timely manner prior to the proposal due date, Offerors should make every effort to submit questions that are not subject to export control.

24. RFP Sections RIK-M001(c) and RIK-M001(d) references the DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1, Table 1 to be used for Source Selection. Can the Government provide the referenced information so all bidders may understand how their proposals will be evaluated.

RESPONSE: The DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1, Table 1 can be found at the following link: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

25. The Technical Subfactor 4: Small Business and Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution Participation evaluates information requested in a volume other than the Technical Volume (III). Specifically, the Contract Forms Volume (I) requests the Small Business Participation Plan. In addition, section RIK-L009 (b)(1) states that Subfactor 4 would be evaluated in Section 1 of the Technical Volume (III). Duplication of the Small Business Participation Plan in the Technical Vol (III) would waste the limited number of technical Volume pages. Can you confirm the evaluation of Section M Technical Subfactor 4 is based on the Contracts Form Volume (I) and the information is not required to be repeated in the Technical Volume (III)?

RESPONSE: The Cross-Reference Matrix will be revised to correct “Small Business Participation” to reflect Volumes I and III. Offerors do not need to duplicate information. However any small business participation information pertaining to the SOW not already addressed in Volume I, but is applicable to the Technical Volume, shall be included in Volume III.

26. Paragraph RIK-L007(a)(4)(iii) requires “Large Business offerors also address “available documentation” in complying with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, including documentation of their accomplishments of the goals established under Subcontract Plans of prior contracts. Can the Government confirm that Large Business Offerors should report on their accomplishments for both these requirements of the goals established under Subcontract Plans for the prior three year period?

RESPONSE: Yes, Large Business Offerors should report on their accomplishments for both these requirements of the goals established under Subcontract Plans for the prior three year period.

27. It appears that Section RIK-L008(i) 2-2 “Summary by cost element and fee for each Sample Order (Use format below)” and (i) 2-3 “Summary for each cost element using the format in Item 2 above.” are asking for the same information. Please clarify the difference between these two requirements?

RESPONSE: Section RIK-L008 (i) 2-2 requires a summary of the total dollars for each cost element while (i) 2-3 is requires a more detailed summary/breakout of how the dollars for each cost element were derived.

28. Paragraph RIK-L008 (i) 2-11 requires offerors to provide Computer Use by type, rate and quantity even if this is an indirect cost. Would the Government please reconsider the requirement in the Cost Volume of providing this information if this is an indirect cost?

RESPONSE: The Government requires this information for direct costs only. If an indirect cost, the Government only requires the indirect rate percentage.

29. As a Bill of Materials is not provided for Sample Order 1 and the offerors are free to define the problem for Sample Order 2, material estimates will vary widely across the proposals and not provide a fair evaluation of the cost offers. Please provide a material plug number for each Sample Order for all offerors to propose.

RESPONSE: It is anticipated that material estimates will vary due to a wide range of approaches among Offerors. For this reason the Government does not want to limit this range by providing a set dollar amount for materials, nor does the Government want Offerors to perceive the existence of a pre-established notion of materials required to accomplish the tasks.

30. Subparagraph (iii) on page L-10 requires a Large Business to address “available documentation” in complying with FAR 19 with respect to meeting subcontract goals on prior contracts. Does this apply to just ARFL/ USAF/DOD contracts or all Offeror contracts? Paragraph A directly following iii on page L-11 requests offerors to provide “substantive evidence.” What is difference between “available documentation” in (iii) and “extent of substantive evidence” in Paragraph A?

RESPONSE: Subparagraph (iii) on page L-10 applies to all DOD contracts that the Offeror has performed. The “substantive evidence” referenced in paragraph A on page L-11 is relating to that “available documentation” the Offeror provides.

31. RIK-M001(1)(ii) states that Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 2 applies to SOW, Sample Order 0001 and Sample Order 0002. However, L009(b)(1) (SOW) states this section will be evaluated using Factor 1, Subfactors 3 and 4. While L009(b)(2) and (3) (Sample Order 0001 and Sample Order 0002 respectively) states this section will be evaluated using Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and 3. Please clarify which volumes or which sections of the Technical Volume will be evaluated using Factor 1, Subfactor 2 (Management Approach).

RESPONSE: The Technical Volume will not be evaluated using Factor 1, Subfactor 2. Factor 1, Subfactor 2 will be used in evaluating Management Capability (Volume IV). Reference Attachment No. 6, Cross-Reference Matrix, as amended.

32. Does the RFP require bidders to break down and provide subcontractor dollars by small business category and/or by each individual subcontractor?

RESPONSE: Offerors do not need to provide subcontractor dollars by small business category, but do need to provide subcontractor dollars for each individual subcontractor. Reference RIK-L008 (e)(1) through (6) for further guidance.

33. Does the sample task order price/technical approach need to mirror an Offeror’s overall Subcontracting Plan allocations?

RESPONSE: The cost proposal and technical approach to Sample Task Orders 0001 and 0002 do not need to mirror the Offeror’s overall subcontracting plan since the amount of subcontracting will vary based on the Offeror’s approach to meeting the specific requirements of each sample task. However, there should not be any inconsistencies.

34. Given that this is a classified submission, is there any change regarding an extension of the due date?

RESPONSE: Given that these documents were made available in the draft RFP and Offerors were given notice on 27 June that pre-registration for the final RFP documents was the best way to get the documents in a timely manner, we do not anticipate extending the proposal due date at this time.

35. SectionL,RIK-L007(a)(5)(iii),page 11 of 27: “In the event that permission for such use of Government property is not authorized and the Contractor must furnish the property to perform the contract, identify the total cost impact, if any, to the proposed price.”

1) Can the government please clarify if Offerors explain this cost impact in this section of Volume I or in Volume II Cost within the Sample task Orders 0001 and 0002 or in both Volumes?

2) Should the offerors assume sample tasks 0001 and 0002 will be performed at the government site?

RESPONSE:

1) Offerors shall explain this cost impact in Section 5 of Volume I.

2) Offerors should assume Sample Tasks 0001 and 0002 will be performed at the contractor site.

36. Reference Attachment 5, Firm Fixed Price Hourly Labor Rate Tables and Mapping Worksheet (excel workbook). The “Notes and Instructions” within the Attachment 5 excel workbook state: “Do not add labor categories or change worksheet columns or rows.” 1) Will the Government revise each of the three worksheets of Attachment 5 so the “Principal Electronic/Electrical Engineer, Principal Software Engineer, Principal Systems Analyst, Principal Computer Engineer” labor category only covers one (1) row instead of four (4) rows? 2) Also will the Government remove any “merged” cells associated with a labor category in the Attachment 5 worksheets titled “FFP (GOV)” and “FFP (KTR)?

RESPONSE: The “Principal Electronic/Electrical Engineer, Principal Software Engineer, Principal Systems Analyst, Principal Computer Engineer” labor category covers only one (1) row in Attachment No. 5. Any cells that have been merged were done so to ensure all titles that fall into one labor category were able to fit in that particular row.

37. Reference RFP Section L, RIK-L007, Proposal Preparation Instructions - Volume I (a)(4)(ii)(B), Small Business Participation Plan (Page L 10 of 27). Please define “total contract dollars” as either $300M as identified in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements (Page L-9 of 27) or, as specified in Volume II, is it the Total Evaluated Price? Is the TEP and the sum of the two Sample Orders?

RESPONSE: “Total contract dollars” refers to the entire acquisition value of $300,000,000.00. The Total Evaluated Price is the sum of the two sample task orders and the FFP NTE Hourly Rate Tables.

38. Reference RFP Section L, RIK-L008(h) Fixed-Price Hourly Labor Rates (Page L 14 of 27). For proposal pricing purposes, should Offerors assume a start date of 09 April 2012?

RESPONSE: As stated in RIK-L008 (a), for proposal pricing purposes Offerors should assume a start date of 09 April 2012 for Sample Orders 0001 and 0002. With regard to the Fixed-Price NTE Hourly Labor Rates, Offerors should propose those rates that will be used for the corresponding Government fiscal year identified in columns E through J.

NOTICE TO POTENTIAL OFFERORS: In order to receive timely responses to questions, Offerors are strongly encouraged to have all questions submitted to the Government by 5:00pm eastern time on 18 AUG 2011.