Final_RFP_QAs_General_Statement.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

A B

Vendor Questions Government Responses

This paragraph reads: "Offeror shall submit ALL of the following information (see submission instructions below): a. Name (First, MI., Last), if no middle initial, please specify. b. D.O.B. c. Driver's License Number and State of Issuance Please confirm that the only information that Offeror must provide for base, building, and office access." Question: On previous visits to the base, we were asked for vehicle information as well; since we expect to have a rental vehicle, we are not able to provide that information in advance. Please confirm whether and what additional information will be required at the time we arrive on base.

Additional information (e.g. rental car agreements) are not typically required when a government employee is sponsoring contractors on to the base. Be sure you submit the required information within the response time. The guard at the Congressman Dickinson entrance will search the Entry Access List (EAL) for your name and information. Once that is done, you will be able to enter the base. Contractors are expected to leave the base once proposals have been hand delivered. Any other business on the base requires a different sponsorship.

The "Base Access Information" posted on October 4, 2017 states that the Offeror must provide certain information to gain access to the base. May the Offeror use a service such as FedEx to deliver the proposal response? If so, could the Government confirm that the requirement to provide information concerning the delivery person is waived?

Yes offerors may utilize delivery services such as FedEx to submit proposals. Carrier services do not require additional credentials to access the base. It is the offeror's responsibility to track packages and ensure they are received by proper personnel.

CDRL A002 states, "...the Cost of contract performance incurred for personnel means direct labor costs and any overhead which has only direct labor as its base, plus the concern's General and Administrative rate multiplied by the labor cost."

Due to the administrative burden of reporting these labor calculations on a monthly basis, would the Government consider revising this requirement to be reported on a quarterly or semi-annual basis?

Thank you for the recommendation; however, the government's requirement remains unchanged.

In this section, the following DFAR clauses are included: 252.242-7005

CONTRACTOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS; 252.244-7001 CONTRACTOR

PURCHASING SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION - BASIC; 252.244-7001 –

CONTRACTOR PURCHASING SYTEM ADMINISTRATION – ALTERNATE 1;

252.245-7003 – CONTRACTOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

ADMINISTRATION (and other related property management clauses). Will these systems be required for task orders issued under the SBEAS IDIQs?

The government is not able to predict what may be required at the task order level. "All" clauses must be incorporated at the IDIQ level to allow task orders to use it later, if necessary.

Will a Mentor/Protege SBA Approved Unpopulated Joint Venture, which 100% of the direct task order performance will be completed by the Joint Venture members via subcontract, be subject to the requirements of this FAR clause?

If the government awards an IDIQ contract to a JV, the members of such JV are not considered subcontractors. The contract is with the "JV", not the individual members. If the JV were to subcontract work on a task order to another company, this is when this clause would be applicable.

Will a Mentor/Protege SBA Approved Unpopulated Joint Venture, which no more than 60% of each specific task order direct performance will be completed by a Large

Business Mentor entity via subcontract, be subject to the requirements of this FAR clause?

Will a Mentor/Protégé SBA Approved Unpopulated Joint Venture, where no awarded work is to be performed by the Joint Venture, but through subcontracts to its member parties, be subject to the requirements of this FAR Clause

The RFP States “(c) If this contract has a value of $100 million or more, the

Contractor shall use an EVMS that has been determined to be acceptable by the

Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) (.…)"

When FAR 252.234-7002 refers to "this contract," is it referring to the SBEAS IDIQ level contract value of $100M+ or a Task Order valued at $100M+, or a collection of

Task Order that combined value $100M+?

No performance occurs at the SBEAS IDIQ level, therefore the "this contract" refers to an individual task order.

Ref. FAR 52.204-04, Does the Government want the submitted hard copy proposal volumes to be printed single sided, or double-sided?

The ITO has been updated to reflect the following change. Section 1.2.2 Page, Size, &

Format now reads…."Pages shall be single-spaced and printed double-sided. "

Given the requirement for cost reimbursable items within Section B, would the

Government consider adding a DCAA-approved accounting system as a consideration on the scoring sheet?

This paragraph states that “ODCs must be purchased in accordance with the contractor’s approved purchasing system, if applicable…”. Many small businesses may not have an approved purchasing system. Will this system be required for task orders issued under the SBEAS IDIQs?

All contractors must have an adequate accounting system in order to receive any cost type contracts; an "approved" accounting system is not required, this language will be removed from the RFP.

Page # 2 states that CLIN 0010 will be FFP with some variations allowed. If some of the software development and implementation work occurs under this CLIN, will the government allow for a FPLOE contract type to accommodate the software development and implementation efforts?

Section B of CLIN 0010 states, "all variations (not some) of contract types IAW FAR

16.2 Fixed Price Contracts may be awarded at the task order level." This would include

FPLOE.

In CROSS-REFERENCE MATRIX, in addtion to page number and paragraph number, can we also add the Section number we are writing (created) in the reponse?

Offeror shall submit CRM IAW with ITO instructions.

Should the CRM be submitted as a separate electronic file or is it required to be electronically embedded within Volumes II and III?

The ITO has been updated to reflect the following change: Section 1.2.3 CRM --…"the

CRM shall be submitted as Excel documents for both volumes"

"Insert the page and paragraph number in columns B through G, indicating where the experience for the Column A PAST PERFORMANCE ELEMENT is demonstrated in the PAST PERFORMANCE NARRATIVE section of the Past Performance

Volume.": Should Offerors explicitly number the paragraphs in the Past Performance

Narrative?

No, offerors do not have to explicitly number each paragraph in the PPN(s). Offerors shall count paragraphs and provide that number in the CRM.

The instructions require Offerors to include a copy of the CRM in both the Technical and Past Performance volume. When the matrix is pasted into the document, it does not meet the font requirements. Is the CRM exempt from the font requirements?

The ITO has been updated to reflect the following change. Section 1.2.2, "Line spacing, font size, margins, and other restrictions do not apply to the pages that are generated by the Cross-Reference Matrix, CMMI documentation, or Self-scoring Worksheet."

We assume that duly filled cross-reference matrix and self-scoring spreadsheet are supposed to be submitted as separate excel attachments, not to be copy pasted in respective Voluemes ( Volume II and III). Please confirm if our assumption is correct.

Yes, submit both the CRM and SSWS as an attachment, in Excel format.

Do we delete the instructions tab and example tab from the Excel file for final submission?

The government is not requiring offerors to make adjustments to the provided RFP attachments.

Are offerors allowed to add a header/footer to the CRM Tab? No, a footer is already included in the CRM provided in the Final RFP.

Would the Government please confirm that the cross references in columns B - G are only to be made to sections in Volume II within the Technical Narrative and not to

Volume III Past Performance sections?

No. The CRM addresses both Volumes II and III. Please refer to Step 3 and 5 of the instruction tab of the CRM Excel file and paragraph 1.2.3 of Section L.

For Sub-factor 2: Cybersecurity, offerors must demonstrate experience in all six (6) of the cybersecurity objectives and concepts to receive a score of VERY

RELEVANT, five (5) of the six (6) for a score of RELEVANT, four (4) of the six

(6) for a score of SOMEWHAT RELEVANT and so forth for lower scores.

However, the Attachment 4 Cross Reference Matrix combines three of the objectives and concepts in 2 rows for a total point value of 2. Using the 2 rows to demonstrate experience with up to 6 objectives and concepts, how should the offeror adequately represent whether it has experience in 1,2,3, 4, 5, or 6 of the objectives and concepts?

Please consider a separate row for each objective and concept.

CRM attachment has been updated to reflect a separate row for each Cybersecurity objective and concept.

For Sub-factor 3: IT Business Analysis, offerors must score "SOO Section

3.2.3 and at least two Functional Business Areas of Expertise" to receive a score of

VERY RELEVANT and "SOO Section 3.2.3 and one Functional Business Area of

Expertise" to receive a score of RELEVANT. However, the Attachment 4 Cross

Reference Matrix combines the requirement for FBAE into a single row. How should offerors demonstrate experience with one or two FBAE using a single row? Please consider using 2 rows, one for each FBAE.

The CRM has been updated to break out the specific criteria addressed.

Considering the complexity and breadth of the process areas in the RFP, it is in the

Government's best interest, to require each contract holder, at the time of proposal submission, to be appraised at Level 3 (at a minimum) for Capability Maturity Model

Integration (CMMI) rather than Level 2. Will the Government amend the solicitation to require CMMI Level 3?

What is the current technology stack that is being used on the SBEAS contract and associated applications?

SBEAS is an IDIQ and therefore does not currently have technology stacks being used.

Individual task orders will address the technologies required.

How will the government verify that the past performances match the requirements of the self scoring worksheet? We recommend that the government require that SOWs be submitted for each of the past performances.

The self scoring worksheet is used for the Technical Experience Factor. Past

Performance is a separate Factor. The two factors do not share the same evaluation criteria.

There have been frequent modifications to the solicitation since the 9/28/2017 release. Request and recommend a question submission deadline extension to allow for clarifications that may occur with forthcoming RFP modifications and released

Q&A. Also this could assist with any unforeseeable issues that would not be recognizable of this stage of the response (such as AMRDEC or PPI) that offerors my need additional information on submittal.

There have not been any amendments to the SBEAS solicitation. The government has released notices related to JVA and other information. Any amendment released will be titled as such.

The Final RFP document provided by the Government is not in sequence by section, attachment, nor page. Will the Government please provide an updated RFP document with the pages, section, and attachments accurately ordered.

The solicitation issued is IAW the Uniformed Contract Format. Section J (Attachments) has a list of attachments (see cover letter) that are appropriately numbered by section and page.

General Question: It is our understanding that no pricing information is to be submitted with this IDIQ. Please confirm or clarify.

IAW Section M paragraph 2.1 that "the Government will not evaluate cost or price for the IDIQ contract."

General Question: Can the Government list what documents need to be submitted in the contract documentation volume?

See Section 5.2, Volume IV of the ITO.

Can names be used in the proposal ? The government is not able to determine a rationale for the use of names in the proposal.

Is a contract that actually expired COB, 29 September, 2014 is eligible for use? We have such a contract and would appreciate some clarity from the Government if this contract is eligible for use.

Yes, IAW Section L, paragraph 1.6 "The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation."

Will there be an extension? At this time an extension is not anticipated.

Will the Government please release an unlocked version of the RFP PDF file so that

Offerors can work the file by highlighting, creating bookmarks and extract pages/sections as needed while preparing the response?

No, the Government will not release a non-PDF version of the RFP.

Since the relased PDF file is uneditable, and MS Word 2013 electronic files are required with the response, will the Government please release a MS Word version of the sections needed for Volume IV?

The government did not release any attachments/documentation requiring editing for

Volume IV.

Are the proposals due on October 31 or October 30? October 31 as stated in Section L, paragraph 1.0.

As the government stated, not all of industry has received confirmation of an approved or disapproved JV. Without confirmation of approval the cost burden is too high for industry to bear and will limit the pool of companies responding to the governments RFP. This is especially true for small businesses waiting on offcial JV notificaiton. In order to increase industry participation, and ensure all offerers have the same fair and reasonable timeline to respond, will the government allow a 30 day extension of the proposal submission deadline.

The notice submitted on 29 September 2017 was posted in response to offerors requesting confirmation of JVA submissions ( for the first time) several months past the

June 16, 2017 deadline. The notice was posted to ask any offeror who may have felt they submitted a timely JVA and did not receive a response from the SBEAS team to let us know. In addition, requests for JVA extensions would have been proper prior to the

June 16, 2017 deadline.

Will the Government please explain what is meant by “…..used in the performance of any contract….” (i.e. are corporate administrative functions considered

“performance”?)

This is referring to task orders. There is no performance at the IDIQ contract level.

Volume I, CMMI Appraisal. Can a company still submit a proposal and be evaluated if their CMMI appraisal expires 2 weeks prior to the proposal submission date of Oct

31, and they have their reassessment scheduled for November 13-17, 2017?

No. Offeror must have a current CMMI appraisal at the time of proposal submission.

For the purpose of hand-delivery, what documentation (e.g., drivers licsense, CAC, insurance card) does Maxwell AFB require for base access? Is any advanced coordination required?

Please see the document posted to SBEAS FBO site on 4 October about base access.

Is there a preferred file name convention (i.e. CompanyName_VolI_CMMI.pdf) for the electronic copies?

No. Each Volume's organization instructions does not include a file naming convention.

We plan to use a contract on which we are a subcontractor. We would have to submit a PPQ in this case. However, the Prime contractor's coroporate policy prohibits them from completing and submitting any PPQs to the government. What other options are available?

The government is not aware of any alternative methods.

If the hard copy proposal is submitted to the PCO via mail, will the PCO confirm receipt upon request from Offerors via e-mail? Or will delivery confirmation from the mail service (e.g. FedEx) serve as official confirmation of receipt?

If an offeror decides to use a delivery service, it is their responsibility to track the package to determine time of delivery. Offerors are always more than welcome to submit an email to the "SBEAS" email box for confirmation of receipt for package delivery.

Requirement states that all CPARs shall be submitted in Portable Document Format

(PDF), but the ITO, Page 2, Section 1.0, Paragraph 8, requires electronic copy of the proposal to be submitted in a format that is readable by MS Office suite of programs.

Can Offerors insert CPARs within the proposal volume as pictures? Or should

Offerors attach CPARs as separate PDF Files with the electronic submission?

Submit the CPAR as an attachment, in PDF

Please confirm the the AFLCMC/HIK address is in BLDG 884, Suite 1400I. The draft solicitation shows the address as BLDG 884, Suite 1400M

Please refer to the Final ITO proposal submission instructions.

Does a single award Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) fall under the same guidelines, maximum 3 TOs can be counted as one contract, as a single award IDIQ and single award BPA?

No. A BOA is not a contract.

When working as a sub to a prime, to what extent can task orders between the prime and sub be combined to form a contract reference.

Unless the task order fall within the guidance for single or multiple award IDIQs on

Section L paragraph 1.2.6, task orders cannot be combined.

Will the Government: Please consider creating a file naming convention similar to

OASIS, HCATS, and Alliant 2 for the submission of the softcopy files. This will create consistency from all bidders, a required file type (i.e. .PDF, .DOC, or .XLS) and ease of review for the Government. This list can also be used to update the

Volume Organization lists as EEOC was added to Volume 4 per Section 5.2.4.

Example:

SBEAS.VOL1.CMMI.COVERSHEET.PDF

SBEAS.VOL1.CMMI.CERT.PDF

SBEAS.VOL1.CMMI.ADS.PDF

SBEAS.VOL1.CMMI.FFR.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TOC.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.CRM.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.GLOSSARY.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.SSW.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TN1.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TN2.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TN3.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TN4.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TN5.PDF

SBEAS.VOL2.TN6.PDF

SBEAS.VOL3.TOC.PDF

SBEAS.VOL3.CRM.PDF

SBEAS.VOL3.PPN1.PDF

Offerors are free to use whatever naming conventions they choose for electronic proposal submissions. Note: Based on the formatting you provided in your example, the government would like to clarify that technical narratives are not separate/individual documents. The technical narrative shall be submitted as one document with a maximum page limit restrictions--same goes for the PPN, it is one single narrative document.

Will the Government: Please consider that the AMRDEC Safe file exchange allows uploads of 25 maximum files at a time. This solicitation may take as many as 34 or more files to be submitted to be compliant. Are we allowed to upload our electronic submission in multiple parts or are we allowed to roll up similar files into a single file?

See recommendation above with a file breakout structure that follows the solicitation requirements.

AMRDEC allows for the use of compressed files (ZIP) files.

Will the Government: Please provide a Test Upload ability before the final bid is due?

What happens if the SAFE site is down or inaccessible just prior to the due date and time? Is there a backup or alternate method for electronic softcopy delivery?

Offerors can test their use of the AMRDEC site now within their company if desired;

please do not test with the SBEAS email address at this time. The ITO will be updated to provide guidance for submission if SAFE is down or goes down on 31 October.

Will the Government: Please consider including a single Table of Contents (TOC) form in Volume IV to include the required file names, types, and volume location.

This will also help reduce the number of files for electronic submission.

Thank you for your recommendation; however the government's requirement remains

Will the Government: Please remove the requirement for including a glossary in all volumes and limit the requirement to Volumes II and III only since Volume I and IV do not include a Glossary in the required volume organization. (Per Sections 2.0, 3.1.1, 4.2, and 5.2) This will also help reduce the number of files for electronic submission.

The ITO has been updated to reflect the following change: Section 1.2.4--"Both volumes

II and III shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each."

Will the Government: Please change the round up phrase to reflect an odd number of

JV partners? Example: "the next even or odd number" or "the next number".

Thank you for your request; however the government's requirement remains unchanged.

The following change has been made to the ITO Section 2.0, "For approved JVs, a minimum of 50% of the individual members comprising the JV must hold the CMMI appraisal. Offerors with an odd number of JV members shall round up to the next even number BEFORE calculating the 50%.

Example: If the JV has 5 members…round up to 6 then calculate 50% to get a requirement of 3 members that must hold the CMMI requirement."

We have a task order on a Multiple-award IDIQ which has a different task order number for each option year. It is all part of the same task order, with the same title and statement of work. Can we list all of the task order numbers as a single reference?

Issuing a new task order number for an option period is not standard practice with which we are familiar. In addition, your request is not acceptable for this solicitation.

Page 6 lists the instances where an offeror can combine task orders (Single-award

IDIQ) and where they cannot (Multiple-award IDIQ). How does this apply to instances where an offeror is a subcontractor? The subcontractor may not have insight into the contract structure of the prime. For example, the prime may have received a single task order under a Multiple-award IDIQ but subsequently issued multiple task irders to the subcontractor. Recommend that subcontractor be allowed to combine up to three task orders issued by the same prime contractor on the same subcontract and that offerors include the subcontract number and the task order numbers.

Thank you for your recommendation; however, the government's requirement remains

Can we place Volume I documentation for the hardcopy in an Appendix? Assume you also want them combined for the electronic submission as well.

No. Each volume shall be submitted IAW ITO.

Can offerors reference the Single Award BPA/IDIQ PWS/SOW or contract documentation for the self-scoring worksheet, given that agencies using a single award vehicle may have very terse and interrelated PWSs at the task order level that refer to the BPA/IDIQ level PWS?

See section 1.2.6 of the ITO

On "Past Performance Narratives (PPNs) shall be submitted in sequential order": To what does "sequential order" refer?

An Offeror can have up to Six PPNs.

The Government is requesting the PPNs are submitted in their volume as PPN1,2,3,4,5,6, sequentially.

On "4.3. Past Performance Narratives (PPNs) The PPN section shall describe the

Offeror’s experience that supports the three (3) past performance sub-factors below.": The title "4.3 PPNs" implies that there are multiple narratives (one per contract for a max of 6), where as the first sentence suggests there is one single narrative that covers all contracts. Should Offerors (a) provide multiple narratives

(one per contract) or (b) a single integrated narrative that at different points references whichever contracts apply at various points in the narrative?

A combination of both options (a) and (b) you provided in your question. Be advised, the

PPN(s) is/are your past performance proposal volume. Offerors shall provide multiple narratives (up to 6) in a single volume.

On "Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each.": By "an explanation" does the Government mean to spell out each acronym (e.g., "AF = Air Force")?

Universal terms such as AF, DoD, USAF shall just be spelled out. All unfamiliar and unique program abbreviations and acronyms used in solicitation shall be spelled out and defined.

On "All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors.": Are white or black acceptable colors for the binder?

Yes, white or black are acceptable binder colors for unclassified binders.

On "For Offerors proposing as a JV, contract references submitted shall represent work performed by the approved JV, if available AND a minimum of one (1) contract reference shall be submitted, for Volumes II and III, by each member comprising the

JV (see CFR 13 125.8(e)).": Please confirm that "if available" means that it is acceptable for a JV to have no contract references, and that all references are submitted by each JV member.

The government understands most Joint Ventures are formed for the purpose of doing business under a specific contract. It is not a requirement that references be provided for the JV itself.

On "The process by which source code is converted into a stand-alone form that can be run on a computer or to the form itself.": what does "to the form itself" mean?

"To the form itself" means the source code is executable within the standalone form.

On "Sub-Element 6a: Platforms/Environments (Mainframe, Mid-tier/Client-server, or

Web Services)

Offeror shall describe its experience implementing an IS into any of the following:

mainframe, mid-tier/client-server, web services.

Sub-Element 6b: Platforms/Environments (Customer’s Facility)

Offeror shall describe its experience providing support services in the customer’s facility (e.g., not the offeror’s home office) of a non-DoD or DoD mainframe, mid-tier/client-server or web services.": Can the same example satisfy both 6a and 6b

(e.g., implement IS into mainframe at customer facility)?

Offerors shall submit any examples of technical experience that will meet the requirement(s) under each technical element section. Unless it is annotated in the ITO, it is not the governments intent to direct an offeror as to what examples they shall or shall not use.

On "Offerors are allowed to submit a maximum of six (6) recent contracts to address the criteria of the past performance sub-factors (see ITO Section 1.2.6 Contract

References).": Would the Government consider allowing Offerors to use more than 6

(e.g., 8) contract references, given that the Statement of Objectives covers an extremely wide range of types of work, from Internet of Things to Mainframe to

NoSQL databases, etc. An Offeror may have supported DoD in almost all areas but the likelihood of a contract or task order satisfying many heterogeneous areas is low.

Using 8 references would allow highly qualified firms to show their capability to satisfy the entire SOO.

Will the Government accept past performance references for commercial contracts? Yes. Commercial contracts can be used as past performance references.

Past Performance Questionnaire. While this form contains an editable signature field, all other fields are static. Will the Government please provide a version of the PPQ which contains editable fields in all areas required to be completed by the Offeror or

Customer?

The PPQ provide in the 28 September solicitation is editable in the fields that require input.

Proposal Organization. We interpret this instruction to mean our final hard copy submission will consist of 3 binders. 1 binder containing Volumes 1 and 2, one binder containing Volume 3, and one binder containing Volume 4. Would the Government please confirm?

Correct. This is what Section L paragraph 1.2.5 states.

RFP Text "The Government will assign a relevancy rating for each sub-factor in accordance with the criteria set forth below in 3.2.4.1." Will each PPN be assigned an individual (stand alone) rating for each subfactor, or will all 6 PPNs be evaluated for a single subfactor and assigned one comprehensive rating? For example, based on section 3.2.4.1.1

Relevancy Assessment for Sub-factor 1, will each individual PPN need to demonstrate past performance in 12 of the 14 requirements to obtain this rating, or will they need to demonstrate performance in 12 of the 14 requirements across all

PPNs?

If each PPN is rated separately, how are the ratings aggregated to determine a final rating for each subfactor in accordance with Table 3 on page 15? For example, if one

PPN rates as "very relevant" for a subfactor, does that determine that the subfactor will be rated as "very relevant"?

Section M paragraph 3.2.2 states " the Government will assign a relevancy rating for each sub-factor." Individual PPNs will not be provided a relevancy rating.

Due to the 20 page restriction to describe all 10 requirement areas, may the FCL be submitted as a single page outside of the page limitation?

Please read Section L paragraph 1.2.1 titled Page limitations to see all the documents that are NOT included in the page count--this list includes the FCL documentation.

"Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume."

Given that components of the electronic submission must be submitted in different formats (for example the self-scoring worksheet must be submitted in Excel separately from the remainder of Volume I, while the CPARS must be submitted in

PDF), may the offeror number pages by Volume and Tab, provided that both the tab and page number are clearly identified on each page, and both the tab and page number are used in the CRM and Self-scoring references?

The ITO has been updated to reflect the following change. Section 1.2.2--"Pages of each document shall be numbered sequentially within each volume."

If an offeror is the lead (managing) partner of a Joint Venture (but not the JV that is the offeror for SBEAS) and the JV received a CPAR for one it its projects, can the offeror use that project's CPAR?

No, unless the CPAR states the name of the individual company the offeror is now proposing under as a member of the SBEAS JV.

If an offeror completes relevant work as part of a JV (but not the JV proposing for this effort) and under a subcontract, who should complete the PPQ--a POC from the

JV or from the Government?

If an offeror is using work performed as a subcontractor, the PPQ must be filled out IAW the PPQ instructions.

When using a single award IDIQ as a contract reference, and including 3 task orders, will the Government accept one CPAR that references all 3 task orders?

Yes if all task orders are referenced in the CPAR

On some single award IDIQ contracts, such as for NASA, task orders are issued for specific functional services such as configuration management, IT data center management, software development, etc. The limit of 3 task orders per contract reference limits the ability to demonstrate the full spectrum of services we provide across the contract. WIll the Government considering increasing the number of task orders referenced on single award IDIQ contracts to demonstrate the full scope of services on those contracts?

Thank you for your recommendation; however the government's requirement remains

Please confirm that only one member of a Joint Venture (JV) needs to submit verification of an Facility Clearance Level (FCL) in order to obtain points.

No. For JVA, the FCL must be in the name of the JV. This is DSS requirement, not

SBEAS.

Are Offeror's allowed to submit affiliate quals? (Thus the CPAR won't match the name of the offeror/JV member)

No. Please see Section L paragraph 1.2.6. "The Government will not consider sister or affiliated company past performance."

Request an extension to Proposal Submission date to November 22nd due to requirements to ensure Past Performance Questionaires are coordinated and submitted by proposal due date and the need to coordinate multiple PPQ's with multiple individuals.

At this time an extension is not anticipated.

Request an extension to Proposal Submission time from 1000 CST to 1400 CST to allow for non-DoD credentialed offerers time to process through security for visitors, be escorted and still submit proposals on time.

At this time an extension is not anticipated.

"Submission of Hard Copy Proposal Volumes

One hard copy of the proposal shall be submitted and clearly marked, addressed, and mailed or hand-carried to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) at the below address no later than 31

October 10:00 a.m. Central Standard Time (CST)."

Question: Will the government provide a list of couriers who have base access?

FedEx and UPS are known to deliver on base.

"Submission of Electronic Proposal Volumes

One copy of the proposal shall be submitted electronically by uploading a copy to the

Army’s

Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx no later

31 October 10:00 a.m. CST. The following email address shall be entered into SAFE for the Recipeint’s List: AFLCMC.BES.SB_IDIQ_RFP@us.af.mil. With the exception of the information submitted via the PPI Tool, the content, format and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. The electronic copy of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office suite of programs dated no higher than

2013."

Question: One copy, still means multiple files: MS Word, Excel, PPI tool. Is this correct?

Correct. The Government expects multiple documents in the AMRDEC submission.

The formation of a JV with multiple partners will give an unfair advantage as this procurement is an experienced and score-drive procurement. Could the government only consider the JV with a Mentor Protégé relationship? Or Limit a JV member size to 2?

It would be unfair to only allow one specific type of Joint Venture; therefore, the government is allowing all JV types.

For the IDIQs and BPAs, the government states that “A maximum of three (3) task orders issued against a single-award IDIQ can be combined and counted as one (1) contract reference to address the criteria. A method of quality assessment shall be obtainable to the Government (i.e. CPAR/PPQ) for each contract reference.” We are not sure how up to three separate task orders or call orders are going to be evaluated at a collective level and how CPARS can be combined?

The three orders/calls are treated as a single contract reference. The contract reference shall address how it meets the criteria within Section M. The individual contract references will not receive a rating; the rating is at the sub factor level. In addition, CPARs are not combined, an individual CPAR would need to be provided for each of those task orders.

For the JV companies, we recommend that the JV entity should possess the CMMI

Level 2 or higher appraisal, not the individual members comprising the JV.

Would an entity with CMMI Levels 3, 4, or 5 receive a higher evaluation score? No, Offerors will not receive additional points for having a higher CMMI level.

Factor 1 and Factor 2 appear to be similar in nature, except that Factor 2 contains a

PPQ. Should the six references in Factor 1 be identical to those in Factor 2? If not, why would they differ?

Yes if six contract references are used for Factor 1, the exact same references must be used in Factor 2 (Section L. 4.1)

“The offeror may submit a maximum of six (6) technical narratives; each technical narrative can only reference one (1) contract. Each technical narrative can be used to support points claimed under one or multiple technical element(s). In order to verify points, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated experience in the technical areas for which points are being claimed.” Could you please confirm the following assumptions: 1. We can only reference a total of 6 contracts. 2. Each

Technical Narrative is a write-up of ONE contract only. 3. We can use more than one narrative to support points under each technical element.

All of your assumptions are correct as it is stated in the solicitation.

For the Factor 2 evaluation, the past performance should be evaluated by the relevant scope, size, and complexity. Could the Government provide clarification as to how such relevancy can be established? As an example, for a size consideration, one could establish a tier rating based on the contract value (up to $5M, $5-10M, $10-$25M, and $25M+).

Please see Section M paragraph 3.2.1.1. for magnitude considerations and 3.2.4.1 for relevancy considerations.

The contract reference has a “recency” requirement of 3 years. Is there a requirement for an on-going contract such as a minimum period of performance?

No minimum period of performance is provided.

Under Sub-Element 4b: Programming Languages for Life-cycle Software Services, it states, "The Offeror shall describe its experience providing Life-cycle Software

Services using any two (2) of the following: JavaScript, Perl, SQL, Python, PHP."

Will PL-SQL qualify as one of the two examples of programming languages for provding life-cycle software services?

Offerors shall submit any examples of technical experience that will meet the requirement(s) under each technical element section. Unless it is annotated in the ITO, it is not the governments intent to direct an offeror as to what examples they shall or shall not use.

For sub-element 4a and 4b, when the government wants examples of experience of using 2 programming languages to support life-cycle software, did it mean to have 2 languages required on one past performance example in the same middle-ware category (Java, COBOL, PowerBuilder, .NET, ColdFusion, C#)? Generally programs only use one middleware language, and combine them with SQL, PL/SQL, Javascript, Python, PHP, or Perl.

Offeror shall have experience using any 2 programming languages in each (4a, 4b, 4c) in order to receive points.

The FAR allows sister company past performances to be utilized and the government has set precedent over the years that they be allowed. If a member of the JV Team has sister companies with strong relevant past performance is submitted to demonstrate technical experience and past performance, will the government evaluators consider it?

Please see Section L paragraph 1.2.6. "The Government will not consider sister or affiliated company past performance."

The Technical Assessment evaluation section states that in the self-scoring worksheet

“The Government will deduct points claimed by the offeror for a technical experience element when a technical narrative does not demonstrate the required experience.”

Does this mean that if we put in two claims for a sub-element, and one is deemed to meet the claim and one is not, that the points will count and not be deducted? Can you please confirm that if Technical Narrative 1 and 2 both claim sub-element 1b, and

Technical Narrative 1 is deemed to not get the points for 1b, but Technical Narrative

2 does meet the 1b requirements, the offeror will received the points? Can this be reworded to state, “ While offerors may submit multiple responses to each sub-element across the Technical Narratives, the Government will allow points claimed by the offeror upon the first instance of a claim that meets the required experience for a sub-element, at which time no other claims for that sub-element will be reviewed.”

If the offeror claims points in the self scoring sheet and the government determines the technical experience was not demonstrated then the government will deduct those points.

If the offeror claims points in the self scoring sheet and the government determines the technical experience was demonstrated then the offeror will receive those points.

In terms of rewording, thank you for the recommendation; however, the government's requirement remains unchanged.

The section J Attachment 7 Table of Contents does not match the following items in

Section J Attachment 7 starting with item number 2The Section J Attachment 7 Table of Contents does not match the following items in Section J Attachment 7 starting with item number 2. Will the Government confirm that the definitions provided in

Attachment 7 are final, or will there be updates based on the differences between the table of contents and the actual definitions? Will the Government confirm that the definitions provided in Attachment 7 are final, or will there be updates based on the differences between the table of contents and the actual definitions?

Attachment 7 will be updated in the Amendment.

Technical Narrative 1b – Section M states, “*The Government will accept points claimed by the offeror for a project which only includes re-creating or updating the

IS’s documentation as re-engineering in the realm of life-cycle software services.”

Please confirm that creating/updating the documentation is not the only way to get the points for this Sub-element. Will the Government, please confirm that an offerer can get the points by actually performing the “re-engineering” as defined in Section J7

#61 (Section J Attachment 7 page 22 of 28 or PDF page 219)?

For sub element 1b, the Government confirms that an offeror can get the points by performing the “re-engineering”.

Please clarify where Section L and M guidance states “any of the following.” Is that the same as saying “one or more” of the following OR does “any” mean “one and only one” of the following? One example exisits in Life-cycle Software Servcies

Sub-element 1a as "Obtaining, verifying, or providing data for any of the following:

the performance, operational capability, and suitability of systems, subsystems, components, or equipment items; or vulnerability and lethality of systems, subsystems, components, or equipment items

"Any of the following" means one or more.

May CMMI-based processes for source code quality and security review by groups of staff be successfully substituted in place of software tool use in Sub Element 5a

Tools/Development Methodology (Security) or 5b (Quality)?

No. CMMI-based processes for source code quality and security review cannot be substituted software tool use in Sub Element 5a or 5b

Can this requirement be demonstrated through mobile applications developed for the company’s private use, or must the work have been accomplished on a Government contract?

This requirement can be demonstrated in either scenario, as long as it meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Will additional credit or greater consideration for award be given if both a CPAR and a PPQs are provided for each contract reference?

No. Additional credit or greater consideration for award will not be given if both a CPAR and a PPQs are provided for each contract reference.

Will the hardcopy self scoring work-sheet be used a place holder, while the electronic excel document would be used as satisfying the requirement? In addition, what is the best method to provide a hard copy version of the self-scoring worksheet?

No it is not a place holder. The best method is to provide all documents IAW the ITO.

The period of performance for a CPARS is typically one year and not the entire length of the contract; recommend removing the sentence, "Additionally, the CPAR shall also be inclusive of the same period of performance stated in the PPN".

This is correct; however, the CPAR Pop shall not conflict with the contract reference

Pop. Both shall be in line. Ex. Contract XX has a period of performance of 1 March 2015

- 28 Feb 2017; the associated CPAR shall include dates within this timeframe.

Contractor’s Performance Assessment Report (CPAR): If a vendor has been continually performing the same work, on the same project, for the same customer over multiple consecutive contracts (non-IDIQ), can the CPARS from previous contract be used with the new contract number if there is no CPARS for the latest contract (less than 12 months from date of most recent award)?

In this instance no.

Is the explanation that is required for each abbreviation and acronym the same as a definition, and should the format mirror attachment 7?

The government does not have a preference.

Item 3 under Section 3.1.2 directs respondents to enter the page number and technical narrative section corresponding with the chosen technical element and provide an example. However, the sections of the technical experience volume are defined in item 3.1.1 Volume organization as (1) Table of Contents, (2) CRM, (3)

Glossary, (4) Self-scoring worksheet, (5) Technical Narrative and the CRM shows the reference to include page number and paragaph number. Is item 3 under Section

3.1.2 asking for the page number and section number in the technical experience or for the page number from Volume II and the section number from the Self-Scoring worksheet? If the latter, our respondence is being directed to format Volume II

Section 5- Technical Narrative with numbered sections from 1-10 corresponding with the section numbers on the self-scoring worksheet.

The self-scoring worksheet has been updated. See Amendment 1

Section 4.3 directs offeror to describe experience that supports the three past performance subfactors. Is the requirement asking for the offeror to address each contract reference under each sub factor or address each sub factor under each contract reference?

Offerors shall address how each contract reference meets the requirement of the sub factor for which it is being used.

Sub element 1a Lifecycle Software Services - developing/implementation says design, build, test, and implement information system. Information system is defined as "A discrete set of information resources organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information." Software is only one piece of an IS and bullets 3 and 4 do not specify software implementation but rather systems/solution. Please clarify.

The government does not see a need for clarification.

Can the government please confirm that the technical narrative's content should only include content that directly supports the points claimed in the self-scoring worksheet, and that any other technical capabilities are not expected to be included in the technical narrative? For example, if the offeror is claiming points for sub element

1b, but not for sub element 1d, the technical narrative will only include content for sub element 1b.

Yes, this is correct.

If an offeror is using multiple technical references to develop a technical narrative and listing these on the self-scoring worksheet separated by a semi colon, and if they are on the same page in the same section, how will the government distinguish between the technical narratives since both will be identified as for example "page3, section 2" on the self-scoring worksheet" Can we assume the government will use the sequential order on the CRM as a guide.

Yes, the government will use the self scoring worksheet and the CRM as a reference.

Please confirm that CMMI level 2 is required at time of proposal submision. Yes, this is correct.

If the JV is unpopulated, will it need to have a CAGE/FCL? Unpopulated or not, FCL are issued to awardees, in the case of a JV it would be the JV, not individual members.

Section L and M define recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Must the work described for the technical or past performance sections of the proposal to demonstrate performance have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation? For example, assume a contract being referenced has a period of performance of Oct 2012 to Oct 2015. If modernization was performed only in 2013, but not in the 3-year recency period of

Oct 2014 to Oct 2017, can that work performed in 2013 be used to successfully demonstrate modernization performance? Or, will it be rejected because it was not performed or ongoing in the past three years?

The Final RFP was issued 28 Sep 2017. IAW Section L, paragraph 1.6 "The

Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation."

We have an effort which was recompeted and won back to us this year. Are we able to list the previous contract and current contract under the same PPN? And would this be considered "on-going" work?

No. This would be considered as a separate reference. See Section 1.2.6 of the ITO for instances when references may be combined.

We assume that the project summary in the PPQ must include all factors and sub-factors that the offeror is claiming in its Past Performance Narrative. Is this assumption correct? If this is not the case, offerors could claim credit for experience for past performance sub-factors in the Past Performance Narrative and the

Government would have no validation from the PPQ that this work had actually been performed.

Yes, this is correct.

Section 3.1.1 states that the Self-scoring sheet shall be submitted in the Technical

Experience Volume however, in Section 3.1.2 the Government states "A .pdf document will not satisfy this requirement and shall not be submitted."

Question 1: Will the Government please confirm that Offerors should also provide the

Self-Scoring worksheet in the technical experience printed and electronic volume?

Question 2: Can the Government please confirm that when this is provided as part of the Technical Experience volume a pdf copy of the worksheet will not make the offeror non-compliant with the instructions?

Yes, the Self-scoring worksheet shall be submitted in the technical experience volume, both printed and electronic. The self scoring worksheet shall be submitted as an Excel document.

Sub-Element 3d: IT Business Analysis (Functional Business Area Expert [FBAE])

Offeror shall describe its experience providing FBAE as Life-cycle Software service.

Offerors shall also demonstrate FBAE experience assessing either the “as is” or the

“to be” operational/functional business process, identifying inadequacies or deficiencies affecting the ability of the technical solution to meet stakeholder requirements (SOO Section 3.2.2).

Will the Government please confirm the Offeror is to describe how the FBAE will provide support to the Life-cycle Software service?

The Government can confirm that the offeror shall describe experience providing FBAE as…