QA_V1.pdf

FA8773-14-R-8002 Questions/Comments and Answers (Q&A)

Q1. With regards to the CMMI requirement in the PWS which I have listed below, does the prime need to have these credentials or will a sub-contractor having these credentials satisfy the requirement?

A1: As the contractor responsible for providing 50% of the overall requirement, at a minimum, the prime is required to have the CMMI level II or above credentials.

Q2. In 2.10 of the PWS, there is a requirement that the Contractor be ISO and/or CMMI certified. Do you anticipate that this will remain a firm requirement? Obviously it greatly affects teaming agreements that are already in place, if the anticipated Prime is not certified in one of the 4 areas cited in this section.

A2: CMMI level II or above is required for the Prime and will remain a firm requirement. The PWS, paragraph 2.10, has been updated to remove the ISO requirement.

Q3. Does the Prime Contractor need to be ISO/CMMI certified or the Team?

A3: See A2.

Q4. Can the Prime be in the process of its ISO certification or does it need to be a completed ISO certification?

A4: See A2.

Q5. There appears to be a conflict between Section L and M. Section L allows a subcontractor to submit a PPI if they are performing 30% or more of the effort, or performing aspects that are considered critical to success of the contract. Section M states that a relevancy determination will be made only on those Subcontractors performing more than 30% of the effort. Would you consider changing Section M to align with Section L?

Section L states:

“E.1. Each offeror shall submit Present/Past Performance Information (PPI) with its proposal IAW the format contained in paragraph eight below. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 30 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.”

Section M states:

“4.a.iii. RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present/past performance, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) performing more than 30% of the effort will be made based upon the definitions below. In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract reference is being reviewed and evaluated.…”

A5: The RFP, Section M, 4.a.iii; has been revised to remove “major and critical” and “performing more than 30% of the effort”

Q6. The past performance criteria related to contract value appears to be too stringent. Especially when the last contract award was for less than $4M annually and the scope does not appear to have increased since that award. We believe that the criteria in Section M, 4.a.iii.(1)-(3) are a better indication of scope and relevancy than contract value. Would you consider changing Section M to allow a contract value of $3.5M or higher as relevant; $2.5M - $3.5 as somewhat relevant; anything below $2.5M not relevant?

According to Section M, 4.a.iii.

“To be relevant, Offeror’s PPI submissions shall include demonstrated experience with contracts valued at $4M per year or above in two of the following areas. To be somewhat relevant, Offeror’s PPI submissions shall include demonstrated experience with contracts valued at $3M per year or above in one of the following areas. If the Offeror provides PPI submission that does not demonstrate experience with contracts valued at $3M per year or above in at least one of the following areas, the Offeror will be considered not relevant.”

A6: Based on the scope and scale relevancy of this requirement, the Government will not change the amounts. The price on the current contract is a factor of multiple transitions periods, not a full year price of the entirety of the effort. Had all functions of the current contract been employed the entire year then the price would have been approximately 25~30% higher pushing the value to $6M. The dollar amount associated with the Relevancy Assessment is to demonstrate relevant capacity to scope and scale from previous efforts, or lack thereof.

Q7. Could you also please clarify the periods of performance for this effort, both for the transition period and the base period? We find the following references related to the period of performance:

a. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, CLIN 0002, shows Period of Performance Begin: 17 Jul 15 and Period of Performance End: 16 Jun 16 (No dates in CLIN 0001).

b. Section F - Deliveries or Performance, CLIN 0001 shows Delivery Date of POP 17-JUN- 2015 TO 16-JUL-2015 and CLIN 0002 shows a Delivery Date of 17-JUL-2015 TO 16-JUL-2016.

c. Finally, the pricing worksheet (Atch_1_Pricing_Table_AF_DCO_M&E_6_Mar_14), references a 1 month transition period in FY15 and 11 months in the base year spanning FY15 and FY16.

A7: a. RFP has been updated to add the POP (17 Jun 2015 – 16 Jul 2015 = 1 month) to Section B, CLIN 0001.

b. Section F, CLIN 0002 is correct (17 Jul 2015 – 16 Jun 2016 = 11 months)

c. Correct, the 12 month base period(s) span 2 fiscal years (FY15 and FY16)

Q8. General observation: As presented the Solicitation is extraordinarily restrictive thereby seriously restricting competition. The requirement, as specified in the solicitation, precludes contractors with like capability from being seriously considered. Demands of this solicitation, as presented, most certainly denies the customer the opportunity of evaluating many support alternatives derived from industry wide system experiences.

A8: Based on the scope and scale relevancy of this requirement, the Government does not consider the solicitation too restrictive.

Q9. Acceptable Past Performance citations must be directly relative, operating within the last year, and have a value in excess of $3m in one year. Again that minimum requirement shuts the door on many small businesses interested in supporting this Air Force Mission.

A9: See A6

Q10. It would be in the best interest of the government and this customer’s mission to reconsider the prohibitions inherent in the solicitation.

A10: Since no details are provided, see A8.

Q11. Response to these issues will directly influence our team’s ability to respond. Delaying answers to these issues until 26 June with a proposal due date of 8 July limits the ability of a contractor to plan its strategy and make an appropriate bid/no bid decision. Suggest reconsideration and appropriate adjustments be applied.

A11a: proposal due date has been extended to 29 Jul 2014.

(PWS REFERENCE): 4. FACTOR 2-PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE:

“To be relevant, Offeror’s PPI submissions shall include demonstrated experience with contracts valued at $4M per year or above in two of the following areas. To be somewhat relevant, Offeror’s PPI submissions shall include demonstrated experience with contracts valued at $3M per year or above in one of the following areas. If the Offeror provides PPI submission that does not demonstrate experience with contracts valued at $3M per year or above in at least one of the following areas, the Offeror will be considered not relevant.”

Solicitation requires a minimum of 4 past performance citations, three of these can be from the designated team members. One past performance must be from the Prime entity. The Past Performance value of $3+M for one year is prohibitive and will significantly reduce competition from the small business communities. Request consideration of the entire team presentation and accept projects within the last 6 months of $1M value.

A11b: See A6.

(PWS REFERENCE): 2.10 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Requirement?

The PWS requires the contractor to possess one or more of the following: ISO 9001- 2000, ISO 9001-2008, CMMI Level II - DEV, or CMMI Level II - SVC. It is assumed that this qualification may be met by the Prime entity or its designated teammate/subcontractor? Please verify.

A11c: See A2.

(RFP REFERENCE): 7.d.(3)(i) Summary Sheet & Atch 1 - Pricing Table, row 27

The RFP appears to have contradicting information regarding the contract period of performance. It is understood that there will be 1-month Transition Period followed by an 11-month Base Period. The RFP states that there will then be five 1-year Option Periods followed by an option to extend services for 6 months. However, the Pricing Table (row 27) shows four Option Periods followed by a 6-month extension. We assume that the RFP is correct, but are requesting verification.

A11c: Atch 1 – Pricing Table, line 27 has been updated to reflect 5 option periods.

(RFP REFERENCE): Section L: E. PART II – PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.

General. Each offeror shall submit Present/Past Performance Information (PPI) with its proposal IAW the format contained in paragraph eight six below. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 30 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of present/past performance. Each offeror shall submit Present/Past Performance Information (PPI), including joint venture partner(s).

Solicitation indicates that a Past/Performance citation is required from both members of a Joint Venture. A joint venture is a single entity and therefore require on one past performance, which can be from either party of the venture. Please clarify.

A11d: The RFP, L-1, E., 1 has been updated to reflect “paragraph six below” instead of “paragraph eight below”.

A11d: The RFP L: E. 1 has been updated to reflect

Each offeror shall submit Present/Past Performance Information (PPI). Past performance of either party in a joint venture counts for the past performance of the entity.

Q12. Reference: SF33 Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award B. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 5.

Factor 3—Price Evaluation a.

Reference Text: Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine fair and reasonableness. The price evaluation will document reasonableness, completeness, balance, and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price Comment/Question: To demonstrate reasonableness, metrics that measure suitability, stability, and low risk should be considered. Given events that can happen (such as sequestration or long transitions), the Government may consider requiring a demonstration of the prime’s financial stability and requiring the offeror possess at least $1.5Mil in available cash to support payroll and subcontractor invoices during a 90 day transition.

A12: The government is required to award to a responsible contractor. Financial stability and capability to operate a contract is one element of that determination. Reasonableness is defined in Federal Acquisition Regulations. Both reasonableness and responsibility will be evaluated.

Q13. Reference: SF33 Section L-Proposal Preparation Instructions C. Organization

Reference Text: TABLE 2 – BINDER ORGANIZATION (within binders)

COPY PARTS TO INCLUDE

ORIGINAL I, II, III, IV

COPY 1 I, II

COPY 2 I, II

BINDER SIZE LIMITATIONS: Binders shall not exceed 1”.

Comment/Question: The original binder requires all parts of the proposal. If the entire proposal is too large, will the Government allow offeror to submit in either two (2) binders, or a larger sized binder?

A13: The RFP, Section L, Table 2 BINDER SIZE LIMITATIONS has been revised to “Binders shall not exceed 2”.

Q14. Is the successful contractor expected to provide any hardware (ACD Sensor equipment, etc) as part of this award?

A14: No. As stated in PWS paragraph 5.1, the Government will provide the hardware.

Q15. Para 2.3.1.4 AFI 11-202V3 stipulates that all personnel working on a MR position "weapon system" will have at least 12 hours of crew rest between shifts. Contractor shall ensure they provide sufficient contractor personnel to allow for 12 hour rest. Which positions in Section 3 of the PWS are considered MR positions?

A15: PWS paragraph 2.3.1.4 has been updated to state:

2.3.1.4 AFI 11-202V3 stipulates that all personnel working on a MR position (DCO Training and Stan/Eval) "weapon system" will have at least 12 hours of crew rest between shifts. Contractor shall ensure they provide sufficient contractor personnel to allow for 12 hour rest.

Q16. Electronic Documents. The offeror shall submit electronic proposal documents via email in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, and MS Office Power Point 2010, as applicable. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate attachment to an email addressed to amy.byars@us.af.mil and donna.williams.6@us.af.mil. Does this mean if we send a electronic submission then we don’t have to send any hard copies?

A16: Both electronic and hard copies are required IAW RFP, Section L-1, C., 1

Q17. Do we send 5 copies of each Part or 5 of Part I and II and 1 of III and IV?

A17: IAW L-1, C, 2, Table 2, the one original (include Parts I, II, III, and IV) and four copies (include Parts I and II).

Q18. In 2.10 of the PWS, there is a requirement that the Contractor be ISO and/or CMMI certified. Do you anticipate that this will remain a firm requirement?

A18: See A2.

Q19. In the estimate of hours provided (Appendix B to the PWS) we only see one FTE Engineer. We understand there have historically been three engineers, one each for the areas of Virtualization, Infrastructure, and Sensor Engineering. Is the intent the three areas will be under the control of supported by one FTE Engineer?

A19: The PWS Appendix B additions include:

ACD Network/Systems Administration - 1,900 account creations and deletions ACD Network/Cyber Readiness (Forensic) Network System Administration - Exercise support 10 hours annually.

ACD Network/Junior Virtualization/UNIX Engineering - Exercise support 10 hours annually.

ACD Network/Infrastructure Technical Services - Exercise support 10 hours annually.

ACD Network/Database Administration - Exercise support 10 hours annually.

Infrastructure/Virtualization/Sensor Engineering - Responded to 120 unscheduled network outages (critical/priority/routine), 300 sensor outages & Historical workload effort is Infrastructure Engineer 1920, Virtualization Engineer 1920 and Sensor Engineer 3840 hours annually. Exercise support 10 hours annually.

Q20. With the historical estimate of hours provided (Appendix B to the PWS) it is difficult to reconcile the $6.4M estimate with current contract value of $3.9M. Can you provide any additional clarification on the estimated budget versus the current contracts anticipated value?

A20: See A6.

mailto:amy.byars@us.af.mil mailto:donna.williams.6@us.af.mil

Q21. Are both paragraphs 3.4.4.10 and 3.4.4.11 of the Performance Work Statement solely related to the maintenance of SharePoint sites?

A21: The two PWS paragraphs have been updated.

Q22. Section B. General Instructions (1) on page 86 of the solicitation states, “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and Contract Security Classification Specification, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.” Section 2.10 of the PWS specifies a number of certifications.

However these are not actually made mandatory in the Instruction to Offerors or the Evaluation Criteria.

We assume that Section B(1) of the solicitation governs and that such certification is indeed mandatory since it is in the technical requirements. Please clarify how the Government will be assessing conformance to PWS Section 2.10 in the absence of any mention of this in the evaluation criteria and if offerors who do not meet Section 2.10 will be considered non-responsive.

A22: RFP, Section M, Subfactor 4: a, has been updated to add paragraph 2.10.

Q23. Must the offeror submit a "Mission Essential Services Plan" in their proposal in conformance with 252.237-7023/7024? If so, which "Part #" of the proposal volume should it be placed inside? If so, is it limited by page count?

A23: Yes, it is required. RFP, L-1, C, 2, Table 1, Part IV, has been revised to include the Mision Essential Services Plan. As stated in the RFP, there is no page limit in Part IV.

Q24. FAR 52.216-1 states that an FFP and Cost Reimbursable contract will be issued. Is the only thing that is cost-reimbursable on this contract travel? Besides travel, are there other Other Direct Costs (ODCs) which the Government will reimburse?

A24: Yes, travel is the only cost-reimbursable item. ODC’s are not expected.

Q25. C(1) on p. 86 of the solicitation states, “Each page shall be counted except cover pages, table of contents, matrices, and glossary.” Please clarify if all matrices are not counted or only certain matrices.

A25: All matrices are not counted.

Q26. C(8) on page 89 of the solicitation states, “Each volume shall be submitted as a separate attachment”. This proposal only has one volume although there is the version with all four parts and the version with only parts 1 and 2. Please confirm that the Government wants one attachment with all four parts. Please clarify what the maximum file size attachment restrictions are for e-mail.

A26: RFP, C(8) on page 89, has been revised to clarify electronic proposal submission.

Q27. D(2) on page 90 of the solicitation states, “Each volume shall be submitted as a separate attachment”. Please clarify if the percentages being given in Part I are percentages of the USD total price the offeror is bidding?

Updated to: D(2) on page 90 of the solicitation states, “The proposal shall provide a clear distinction of functions to be performed by the prime and subcontractor to include the following: ... and the percentage of overall effort performed by each subcontractor in each area of service provided based upon the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel (See FAR 52.219-14 (b)(1) -- Limitations on Subcontracting, Services).” Please clarify if the "percentages of overall effort" being given in Part I by the offeror are percentages of the USD total price the offeror is bidding? For example 25% = $250 of an overall $1000 worth of effort, etc.

A27: For each technical factor or subfactor in the prime’s proposal, the offeror shall identify a percentage of how much of the work will be performed by the prime and percentage of how much of the work will be performed by the Sub.

Q28. F(1) on page 95 of the solicitation states, “Price Reasonableness, Completeness, Balance, and Affordability. This section is to assist you in submitting information other than cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness, completeness, balance, and affordability of the offeror’s proposed price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal.” Will the Government conduct price realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.4, and if so, on what basis will the be done?

No, price realisms will not be conducted for the proposed prices in response to this RFP.

Q29. M-1(B)(1) on pp. 101-102 of the solicitation discuss evaluation ratings of acceptable, potentially acceptable if corrected, and unacceptable. Please clarify if these are the only ratings which will ever be applied to Factor 1. Also, please clarify if each of these ratings will be applied each of the five subfactors of Factor 1. Would any other ratings (such as “outstanding”, “excellent”, etc.) ever be applied to Factor 1 and its subfactors?

A29: Yes, Acceptable and unacceptable are the only ratings that will be applied to Factor 1 and to each of the five subfactors of Factor 1. Also, if discussions are held, unacceptable proposals with correction potential will be considered to determine for inclusion in a competitive range.

Q30. In the evaluation criteria, the Air Force discussed the “Unknown Confidence” rating. How would an Unknown Confidence rating affect the consideration of a proposal which was rated by the Government technically acceptable for Factor 1? Specifically, the “Government has reserved the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of ‘Satisfactory Confidence’ or lower”. On the list on page 109, the category “Unknown Confidence” was listed lower than “Satisfactory Confidence”. However, the GAO has determined in numerous decisions that it is improper to penalize offerors for lack of a performance record. Please explain how the Government will judge the technically acceptable offeror without a performance record.

A30: The offeror with an “unknown confidence rating” will be considered as per FAR 15.305(a)(2) (iv), which states, “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.”

Q31. PWS 3.4.2.5: Please estimate how many user accounts are requested to be created in the typical month that the offeror would be responsible for.

A31: 160

Q32. PWS 3.4.2.5: Please estimate how many user accounts are requested to be deleted in the typical month that the offeror would be responsible for.

A32: 15

Q33. What is being used (OEM, software) as the 33 NWS ticketing system?

A33: Remedy

Q34. The evaluation criteria for subfactor 4 states, “a. An organizational structure that provides qualified and appropriately commercially certified personnel resources, to include any subcontracting and teaming arrangements, in an organizational structure and labor categories, security clearance and minimum acceptable qualifications IAW PWS Sections 3 and 7 at initiation of contract.”

A34: Yes this is correct, however, the Government cannot determine the intended question for the above paragraph.

Q35. Will the Government furnish a communication device to any or all contractor staff (e.g., cellphone, Blackberry, radio, pager, etc.)?

A35: No.

Q36. With regard to the Services Summary, historically, approximately how frequently does a CRITICAL network outage occur in a typical month?

A36: See revised PWS, Appendix B.

Q37. What is the frequency (per typical month) of “Priority” Trouble Calls/Tickets (how many)?

A37: See A36.

Q38. What is the frequency (per typical month) of “Routine” Trouble Calls/Tickets (how many)?

A38: See A36.

Q39. With regard to the Services Summary, historically, approximately how frequently does a sensor outage occur in a typical month?

A39: See A36.

Q40. With regard to the Services Summary, usually, “providing sufficient personnel to meet mission requirements” is judged by a customer via consideration of whether the contractor can meet its service level commitments or misses on performance standards. How will the Government in the case of this contract, judge if the contractor has provided sufficient personnel to meet mission requirements?

A40: The contractor will be required to perform all of the work addressed in the PWS and in accordance with the PWS Section 4, entitled, “Services Summary and Deliverables”, please refer to the Performance Objective and Performance Threshold for providing sufficient personnel which is listed as Performance Element 5.

Q41. This solicitation is for “FA8773-14-R-8002”. The Government will also be releasing “FA8773-14-R- 8001” in a few weeks. For this particular solicitation, FA8773-14-R-8002, who are the incumbent contractors, what are their contract numbers, what are their respective periods of performance, and the contract dollar values for the performance periods?

A41: Current contractor is CoSolutions EIS JV (CEJV); Contract number FA8773-13-F-0008; PoP Aug 13 thru Oct 14; Total value of $3,827,557. The total value of the current contract, Computer Response Team (CRT), can be misleading as CRT is a reflection of functions from three contracts transitioning at different times.

Q42. Is this current contract expected to be an increase in scope, decrease in scope, or about the same scope as the incumbent's current incumbent contracts?

A42: Overall scope is virtually the same with slight variance of some functions

Q43. Please confirm that the Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply to this particular contract.

A43: The Government has determined the type of services to be performed for this contract required are “professional services” of which the SCA does not apply.

Q44. PWS 2.8.1 “The contractor shall respond in case of emergencies, outages, alerts, and exercises, 24 hours per day, seven days per week.” Is there an estimate of the number of instances/hours contractor personnel have been required to provide support outside regular work hours? Are those work hours included in 7.2 Appendix B?

A44: Appendix B encompasses the anticipated hours on-site annually. The frequency of responsiveness is contingent upon the position and ranged from 0 to approximately 60 hours annually.

Q45. PWS 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 both address "AF Networks" and PWS 2.3.1.3.3 lists several systems including Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) as 33 NWS support systems. Can the Government clarify if JWICS requires DCO support under this effort?

A45: As Client System Administrators (CSA), the contractor provides account/systems administration support to the 33 NWS customers.

Q46. PWS 3.1.5 “The contractor shall provide classroom teaching of Government personnel or other contractors newly assigned to conduct the 33 NWS maintenance mission and technical support.” Will the Government provide the currently developed training plans and curriculum for the required training, or will this effort require new plans and curriculum?

A46: Access to existing material is granted. However, over time modifications and additional material development by the contractor may be required. At that time, additional material will be added to the contract via negotiated modification.

Q47. PWS 3.4.2.2 “The contractor shall support Systems Administration of the 33 NWS operational networks (Patriot and Defender), the 33 NWS COOP network, the training network, local base NIPRNet and SIPRNet Computer System Administration (CSA) actions, and AOL deployment maintenance analysis.” Is the Systems Administration support limited to 33rd NWS NIPRNet and SIPRNet CSA actions, or is the requirement for the “local base” (Lackland AFB)?

A47: The contractor shall provide local base network CSA actions to 33 NWS users’ accounts only; for 33 NWS networks, the contractor shall provide Tier I, II, and III system administration, and engineering factions as per the PWS.

Q48. It is unclear exactly what systems are considered to be "33rd NWS systems" throughout the PWS.

Can the Government provide a list of 33rd NWS supported systems and equipment?

A48: The PWS provides a general overview of the equipment (i.e. Defender, Patriot, CRN, training and Third Party CSP networks) for proposal preparation purposes. Details of specific sensitive and or classified equipment will be provided to the awarded contractor.

Q49. The RFP, para 252.237-7024(b) (page 83 of 113) requires submission of a written plan with offers describing how the offeror will perform the essential services in paragraph 6.2 of the PWS. Will this plan be included within the 50-page limit of the technical proposal or is it to be a separate document? If separate, does the plan have a page limit, and where should it be placed within the proposal?

A49: The plan is not included in the 50 page limit. See A 23

Q50. The RFP, Section L-1, paragraph 3 (page 85 of 113) requires offerors to provide the company’s street address, county and ‘facility code’. Will the government clarify what specific information it seeks for the ‘facility code’?

A50: The RFP, Section L-1, paragraph 3 has been updated. The facility code will be provided by the Government to the awardee.

Q51. The PWS, paragraph 3.7.4 requires the offeror to supplement exercise activities with additional manpower. Can the government provide details regarding the frequency, duration, and estimated number of hours per Required Labor Skill Classification (7.2 Appendix B) that will be necessary to support this requirement? Can the government also provide guidance regarding how this cost element should be reflected in the pricing table?

A51: The PWS, Appendix B, has been revised to address PWS, paragraph 3.7.4.

Q52. In 2.10 of the PWS, there is a requirement that the Contractor be ISO and/or CMMI certified. Do you anticipate that this will remain a firm requirement?

A52. See A2.