DCRIOS_Draft_RFP_Questions_ _Responses_-_24_Feb_2016.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Defensive Cyber Realization, Integration & Operational Support (DCRIOS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8773-16-R-8002
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Defensive Cyber Realization, Integration & Operational Support (DCRIOS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DCRIOS Q&As
| DCRIOS DRAFT RFP FA8773-16-R-8002 Q&A | |||||
| Question # | Subject | Solicitation Location | Reference | Questions/Comments | Response |
| 1 | CMMI Level 3 Requirement | 2.3.3.4 | DRFP | Given the small number of SDVOSBs that possess CMMI 3, this requirement would appear to be excessively restricitive, especially given the nature of the work. Is this something that might be changed in the RFP? Are any of the current incumbent SBs CMMI 3 certified? | Market research indicates there are capable SDVOSB vendors with CMMI Level 3. |
| 2 | SDVOSB Set Aside | DRFP | Given the numerous changes to the acquisition strategy for this effort over the past two years, and the fact that it has always been F&O, are you confident it will stay as an SBSA, or is there a chance it might again be F&O? | The requirement shall remain a SDVOSB set-aside. | |
| 3 | Number of relevant contracts | 53 of 67 | Section L-1, E.4 | The solicititation states "Submit PPI on no more than five recent contracts that offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating ability to perform the proposed effort." Is there a minimum number of PPIs required? | No Minimum |
| 4 | Pricing for CLIN X006 | Page 56 of 67 | Section L-1, F.2.a | The solicitation states "The dollar value of CLINs X004 and X005 are amounts established by the Government and shall not be altered by the Offeror." Should this also include CLIN X006 Travel? | Yes, should be X005 & X006. |
| 5 | Applicable contractor fixed fee | Page 57 of 67 | Section L-1, F.2.c | The solicitation states "For evaluation purposes, Offerors are required to submit only FFP pricing. CPFF CLINs will be established at the basic contract level and cost/price analysis will be conducted as necessary in the event a CPFFTO is solicited." Does the government require the offeror to enter the applicable contractor fixed fee for the CPFF Item Nos. in Section B? | To be determined, but will be clarified in final RFP. |
| 6 | CMMI level 3 | Section J Attachment 1 | Draft PWS 2.3.3.4 | The solicitation states " The prime contractor shall hold and maintain Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 throughout the entire performance period of the contract, inclusive of ordering periods." Request the government allow for teammates to hold this certification and allow the Offeror to explain in the technical proposal how this will be incorporated into the services delivered. | The requirement will remain as written |
| 7 | Place of performance | Section J Attachment 1 | Draft PWS 2.3.6.1 | The solicitation states "The primary work location for this effort shall be 3515 S. General McMullen, Bldg. 4, San Antonio TX, 78226. Additional support may be required at different off-site locations for mission execution as determined by each Task Order or COR based on taskings provided to the 688 CW." The DD254 (11.a) indicates that in performance of this contract, the contractor will have access to classified information at facilities in addition to another contractor's facility or a government facility. Please clarify if any of the work performed will be at the Contractor's site. | The contractor shall be prepared to handle classified information as part of task completion in their facility in the event the government’s facility is unavailable or not practical at the time. |
| 8 | Work hours | Section J Attachment 1 | Draft PWS 2.3.6.2 | The solicitation states "During mission execution, the number of hours may exceed 8 hours per day, 40 hours/week, or 80 hours/2 week, and may include weekends and holidays with various shifts." Since labor is firm fixed price, will additional hours be negotiated as required? If these additional hours need to be included in the offeror's firm fixed price amount, request the Government provide historical data regarding the number of hours worked. | CLIN X002 is FFP and CLIN X003 is part of the CPFF CLIN Emerging Contingency Rquirements. PWS will be updated to add historical information. |
| 9 | Transition Plan | Section J Attachment 1 | Draft PWS 4.6 | The solicitation states "The contractor shall provide a Transition Plan and provide status to the COR weekly throughout the transition period." When is the Transition Plan due? The Transition Plan is not included in the list of deliverables and also not included in Section L or Section M. Does the Transition Plan have a page limit? Recommendation to the Government is to include the Transition Plan as an evaluated factor in the Offeror's Technical Volume response. | The transistion plan is not an evaluation factor. PWS will be updated to indicate when the plan will be required. |
| 10 | CSA | Section J Attachment 1 | Draft PWS 8.4 Appendix D | Please clarify which Knowledge Requirement in section 8.5 the CSA maps to. It appears to be the the Cyber Security Analyst but in the acronym list, CSA is Computer Systems Administration. | PWS Acronymn list has been updated to read correctly. |
| 11 | Knowledge Requirements | Section J Attachment 1 | Draft PWS 8.5 Appendix E | Please provide the Knowledge Requirements for the following positions listed in Appendix D: Cyber Planner, IA Compliance Agent (C&A Packing) and Configuration Management Specialist. | Cyber Planner knowledge has been updated in Appendix D, IA Compliance Agent is already listed in App D, for Configuration Management see Systems Requirements Planner. |
| 12 | Pricing Table | Section J Attachment 2 | Pricing Table excel spreadsheet | Column A lists the Item Nos. We believe Item X004 on line 35 should be Item X006 as Item X004 already appears on row 33. Please clarify. | Item 35 should reflect X006. |
| 13 | Level of Safeguarding required | Section J Attachment 3 | DD254 1.b | The solicitation states "The primary work location for this effort shall be 3515 S. General McMullen, Bldg. 4, San Antonio TX, 78226. Additional support may be required at different off-site locations for mission execution as determined by each Task Order or COR based on taskings provided to the 688 CW." If all work will be conducted on government site, request the DD254 be modified to read: Level of Safeguarding Required - NONE. If safeguarding is required please provide the reason for clarification to the offeror. | Final approved DD254 will provided when we issue the approved RFP. |
| 14 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Recommned the Government hold an Industry Day for interested bidders. | No Industry Day will be held. |
| 15 | CMMI Level 3 Requirement | Draft PWS | 2.3.3.4 | Comment: There is a difference between having the capability to assist the 688 CW with process improvement and being CMMI L3 certified. The certification applies to a company's internal processes; not its qualification to conduct external process improvement for a customer. The Government should consider changing this requirement to a specific PWS Section 3 task to conduct process improvement analyses and make recommendations for changes. | The requirement remains as written |
| 16 | CMMI Level 3 Requirement | Draft PWS | 2.3.3.4 | Comment: Requirement for CMMI Level 3 certification is inconsistent with SDVOSB set-aside. Many SDVOSB businesses that are qualified to perform the technical work may not have invested the necessary overhead to obtain and maintain certification. | MR revealed qualified SDVOSB vendors. |
| 17 | Reference to 92nd IOS | N/A | N/A | We recommend the Government replace 92nd IOS with 92nd COS. | 92nd IOS will be replaced with 92nd COS. |
| 18 | Section M | Section M, Subsection M-1 Para A | N/A | Para A states that “Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.” This paragraph suggests the Gov’t reserves the right to determine an Offeror’s technical submission as acceptable even if the submission does not meet the requirements as established in Program Work Statement (PWS). Please clarify the Gov’t intent in this regard. | Section M-1, Para A shall include "Will" in the final RFP. Also, if discussions are conducted an initially technically unacceptable, proposals may be evaluated as acceptable if the offeror corrects deficiencies during the discussions or at final proposal revision. |
| 19 | Section M | 3. Section M, Subsection M-1, Para A | N/A | Para A appears to conflict with Section M, Subsection M-1, Para C, which states “Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. | If discussions are conducted and initially technically unacceptable, proposals may be evaluated as acceptable if the offeror corrects deficiencies during the discussions or at final proposal revision. |
| 20 | Section M | 3. Section M, Subsection M-1, Para E | a. FAR 19.1405 (b).(2) provides that to set aside an acquisition for competition restricted to service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, the contracting officer must have a reasonable expectation that award will be made at a fair market price. | Para E, states ” Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, incomplete or unaffordable may not be considered for award.” The use of the auxiliary verb “may,” which is used to express possibility, versus “will,” which expresses an expectation suggest the Gov’t reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror who’s price may be unreasonable, unbalanced, incomplete or unaffordable. Please clarify the Gov’t intent in this regard. | Section M-1, Para E shall include "Will" in the final RFP. Also,If discussions are conducted and initially determined unreasonable, unbalanced, incomplete or unaffordable, proposals may be evaluated and determined differently if the offeror corrects deficiencies during the discussions or at final proposal revision. |
| 21 | Past Performance Questinnaire | Draft RFP | 5 PPI 53 of 67 | Will the Air Force accept CPAR ratings instead of Past Performance Questionnaires? | Questionnaires are required and applicable CPARS will be reviewed. |
| 22 | Configuration Management | Section J Attachment 1 | 3.1.1 | Do CDRLs A004/A006 exist or will the contractor create these documents? | Contractor will create based on the applicable CDRLs requirement and examples will be provided. |
| 23 | Volume 2 Past Performance | Section L | L-1, C Table 1 (Proposal Organization) | A P/P page limit is specified for the Volume. However, no requirement is stated for the number of pages required per citation. Can the Government provide the number of pages reequired per citation? | No minimum or max numbers of citations required. |
| 24 | Proposal Organization | Section L | L-1, C Table 1 (Proposal Organization) | Table 1 Proposal Organization (within in binders) shows 4 copies of each volume is required for submission. However Table 2 Binder Organization shows an Original and 4 copies are required. How many total hard copies of the proposal are required? | Table 1/2 will be updated to reflect total copies required (1 original and 4 copies for a total of 5 by volume) |
| 25 | Proposal Organization | Section L | L-1, C Table 1 (Proposal Organization) | Table 2 Binder Organization provides a breakout of which volumes are required to be placed in each proposal copy. The number of volumes to be placed in each copy do not equate to the number of copies identified in Table 1. Example: The Orignal and Copies 1 thru 4 are to contain Volumes I and II. Volume III is only required to be placed in the Original and Copy 1. Volume IV is provided in the Original Copy. Where are offerors to place the additional copies of Volume III and IV if 4 copies are required to be submitted as stated in Table 1? Can the Government clarify the hard copy proposal submission requirement? | Table 1/2 will be updated to reflect total copies required (1 original and 4 copies for a total of 5 by volume) |
| 26 | Past Performance | Section L | L-1, E 3 Early Proposal Information | Offerors are requested to to subit past performance information for relevant contracts 14 days priot to the date set for reciept of proposals. If we submit the past performance early, do we also provide copies with the remainder of our proposal submission since the volumes are to be placed in combined binders? | If past performance information is provided early, offeror shall provide copies of the same information within Volume II in their proposal submissions. |
| 27 | Past Performance | Section L | L-1, E 5 a. PPI Questionnaires | As currently written, it seems to us that the offeror is to submit all PPI Questionnaires to the contract customers including critical subcontractors, teaming contractors and or joint venture partners. Can the Government verify this is the intent or can critical subcontrators, teaming contractors and/or joint venture partners submit their own questionnaire for their respective contract since they have the business relationship with the customer? | PPI Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror. |
| 28 | Past Performance | Section L | L-1 E 4 Relevant Contracts | Can offerors submit an IDIQ contract referencing the work acutally performed (Task Orders) under that IDIQ as a past performance reference? | Offerors can submit relevant tasks orders under an IDIQ. |
| 29 | Past Performance | Section L | K-b | The paragraph references 8a Joint Ventures, should it instead reference SDVO Joint Ventures since this is an SDVO set aside contract? | Section L K-b will reference SDVOSB. |
| 30 | Past Performance | Section L | K-b | If an 8a Joint Venture between a 8a Small Business and an other than small business (large) included an 8a that was also an SDVO it would it qualify as an SDVO for this proposal. In a situation where a 8a Joint Venture included a large and small business the companies would have to establish an SBA approved Mentor Protege Agreement (MPA) for the Joint Venture to be considered small. SBA will not even review a 8a Joint Venture between a large and small business until a SBA MPA has been reviewed and approved by SBA. Because the MPA must be approved prior to an 8a JV being reviewed there is significant risk for the Government if a potential 8a Joint Venture has not already recieved SBA approval for its MPA. The Government may award to a Joint Venture which does not have an approved MPA in place prior to proposal submission and thus cannot even be fully reviewed by SBA at submission meaning it would not be eligible for award as a small business. Would the Government consider adding this verbiage to the Section K - b paragraph (added text is bolded and underlined)"Per the Small Business Administration (SBA), Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set-asides; however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA PRIOR to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If the 8a Joint Venture is between a large and small business it most have recieved SBA approval for its Mentor Protege Agreement prior to submission of its proposal." If the Government elects to not add this text will it consider accounting for the increased risk (potentially being uneligible for award as a small business) of allowing an 8a Joint Venture between a large and a small business to submit a proposal as a small business without having SBA approval of its Mentor Protege Agreement. | Section L K-b will reference SDVOSB. |
| 31 | Relevancy Criteria | Section M, Attachment 1 | Mission Operations - definition of Relevant | The requirement that an offeror's technical experience must be on a contract with an annual value of at least $5 million to be considered relevant is overly restrictive, especially on a small business set-aside contract with this size standard. Very few, if any qualifying small businesses are likely to have enough qualifying contracts to address all technical relevancy factors on contracts of that magnitude. In conjunction with the sub-requirements for relevancy, especially in the Mission Operations area, this represents a significant barrier to competition. If the Government is concerned with the ability of the contractor to manage an effort of this size and scope (we believe a legitimate concern), then writing requirements for the contractor to demonstrate the effectiveness of their management approach seems more reasonable, and less of a barrier to competition when the $5M/year standard is removed. Although Section M, paragraph M-1.D.2 (RFP page 63 of 67) states "Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Management Support, Mission Operations and Mission Support that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires..." Section M, Attachment 1 provides no relevancy criteria for "management support." We recommend that Section M, Attachment 1 be amended either to eliminate the dollar threshold for relevancy altogether, or to associate any dollar threshold only with an assessment of management capability and not with mission operations. | The Government does not consider this a barrier to competition. |
| 32 | Past Performance Instructions | Section L, page 53 of 67 | Past Performance Volume Instructions | Paragraph E.1 instructs offerors to provide past performance information 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." We read this as limiting the number of subcontractors or teaming partners for whom we provide past performance information. |
Paragraph E.4 instructs us to provide information on no more than three recent contracts performed by "each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors." We read this as requiring past performance from all teaming partners regardless of size or role as long as that past performance is "relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort."
| Please clarify the requirements for submitting past performance information, clearly identifying which of our subcontractors or teaming partners are required to provide such information. | Para E.1 - Consideration may be given to reduce the percentage and any changes will be provided in the final RFP. Para E.4 - The total of 5 includes any subcontractors or teaming partners; however, no more than three of recent contracts shall be submitted on your teaming partners and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. | |||||
| 33 | Relevancy Criteria | Section M, Attachment 1 | Mission Operations - definition of Relevant | The requirement that an offeror's technical experience must be on a contract with an annual value of at least $5 million to be considered relevant is overly restrictive, especially on a small business set-aside contract with this size standard. Very few, if any qualifying small businesses are likely to have enough qualifying contracts to address all technical relevancy factors on contracts of that magnitude. Perhaps an incumbent contractor has that capability, but writing a requirement that only an incumbent contractor can meet is at best an impediment to open competition. We believe the size of a contract has nothing to do with the quality or relevancy of an offeror's technical capabilities. We do believe contract size has value as an indicator of overall management capability (e.g., ability to manage a workforce and work scope associated with a $5 million-per-year contract; financial wherewithal to sustain a contract of $5 million per year; etc.). In Section M, paragraph M-1.D.2 (RFP page 63 of 67), the government states that "Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Management Support, Mission Operations and Mission Support that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires." However, Section M, Attachment 1 provides no relevancy criteria for "management support." We recommend that Section M, Attachment 1 be amended either to eliminate the dollar threshold for relevancy altogether, or to associate any dollar threshold only with an assessment of management capability and not with mission operations. | The Government does not consider this a barrier to competition. | |
| 34 | Past Performance Instructions | Section L, page 53 of 67 | Past Performance Volume Instructions | Paragraph E.1 instructs offerors to provide past performance information 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." We read this as limiting the number of subcontractors or teaming partners for whom we provide past performance information. |
Paragraph 4 instructs us to provide information on no more than three recent contracts performed by "each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors." We read this as requiring past performance from all teaming partners regardless of size or role as long as that past performance is "relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort."
| Please clarify the requirements for submitting past performance information, clearly identifying which of our subcontractors or teaming partners are required to provide such information. | Para E.1 - Consideration may be given to reduce the percentage and any changes will be provided in the final RFP. Para 4 - The total of 5 includes any subcontractors or teaming partners; however, no more than three of recent contracts shall be submitted on your teaming partners and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. | |||||
| 35 | Mission Essential Services | Section L-Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidder | 252.237-7024 paragraph (b) page 48 | Where in the proposal should we include the plan describing how we will continue to perform the essential contractor services? | See Section L Para G Vol IV, 1 "Offeror shall include, in Volume IV, the Mission Essential Services Plan, as required by DFARS provision 252.237-7024(b). There is no page limitation for this document, and it is not included in the overall page limitation". | |
| 36 | Proposal Submission | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section C.2 page 50 | Please clarify the numbers of copies needed for Volumes III and IV. Do we provide 4 copies of all volumes or 2 copies of Vol III and 1 copy of Vol IV? | Vol I - 5 copies, Vol II - 5 Copies, Vol III - 2 copies, Vol IV - 1 copy. Section C.2 will be upadated to reflect the correct number of copies and volumes required. | |
| 37 | Proposal Submission | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section C.2 page 50 | Would the Government consider removing the binder size limitation for the Volumes with no page limit? | Binder size will be 2 inch. | |
| 38 | Proposal Submission | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section C.7 page 51 | Would the Government clarify the requirements that each volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in one, one-inch three ring binder? This guidance conflicts with Section C.2 which calls for a 2 inch binder. | Section C.7 will be changed to reflect 2 inch binder. | |
| 39 | Proposal Submission | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section C.8 page 51 | What is the file size limit for your email system? | Single email attachment limit is 10MB. | |
| 40 | Price Proposal | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section F.2 Section 4 page 56 | Please clarify, are we to provide a Pricing Table that contains only FFP Labor Rates (i.e. a labor rate proposal) or are we to provide an estimate of the cost needed to meet the requirements of the PWS? | The pricing table request FFP labor categories to meet the requiements of the PWS. This is being revised and will be included in the final RFP. | |
| 41 | Pricing Table | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section F.2 Section 4 item b.(1) page 57 | This paragraph indicates a blank column has been included in the Microsoft Excel Pricing Table to accommodate labor category titles that are different from those specified in the RFP. Are we to use Excel Column B for this purpose? | This is being revised and will be included in the final RFP. | |
| 42 | Relevant Contracts | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section E.4 page 53 | Is it the Government's intent to limit Past Performance contracts to no more than 5 total, or is should it be 5 contracts for the Prime and 3 contracts for the significant subcontractors, or is it 5 contracts for the Prime and 3 contracts for each significant subcontractor? | PPI's are limited to 5 total recent contracts. The total includes any subcontractors or teaming partners; however, no more than three of recent contracts shall be submitted on your teaming partners and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. | |
| 43 | CLIN Dollar Value | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section F.2.a page 56 | Would the Government clarify that the dollar value of CLIN X006 with also be established by the Government? | Will be provided in final posted RFP. | |
| 44 | SDVOSB Verification | Section L -1 Proposal Preparation Instructions | Section G.1 paragraph titled "Section K" page 58 | We would recommend that the Offeror be eligible for award under the specific NAICS code 541412 and as a SDVOSB at time of proposal submission to not overly constrain competition. Recommend requiring documentation to verify SDVOSB status to be submitted with the proposal. | IAW FAR 19.1403 Status as a Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concern. (a) Status as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern is determined in accordance with 13 CFR parts 125.8 through 125.13; also see 19.307. |
(b) At the time that a service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern submits its offer, it must represent to the contracting officer that it is a--
(1) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern; and (2) Small business concern under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code assigned to the procurement.
| 45 | Documents for DCRIOS | PWS | 2.3.3.2 page 5 | Request that the Government provide the documents listed in PWS 2.3.3.2 or provide a hyperlink. | The applicable hyperlinks will be provided in the final RFP and a library will be established at a location for vendors to view documents considered FOUO. |
| 46 | IQT Standards | PWS | 2.3.3.2 page 5 | Request that the Government identify IQT standards referenced in this section. | IQT requirements are listed in the 39IOS CVAH Syallabus that is considered FOUO, but a library will be established at a location for vendors to view applicable documents. |
| 47 | IQT Standards | PWS | 2.3.3.2 page 5 | When are the contractor personnel required to have the skills for IQT? | Contractor personnel should have the requisite IQT skills when placed on task, but must be complete prior to MQT entry. |
| 48 | IQT Standards | PWS | 2.3.3.2 page 5 | What are the timing requirements for new contractor staff to meet IQT standards? | Contractor personnel must meet IQT requirements prior to entry into MQT. Completion of MQT is a requirement for MR status. |
| 49 | MR Requirements for CPT | PWS | 2.3.3.3 page 6 | We are assuming all CPT contractor personnel are required to be MR. Is this correct? | Currently yes, although a review is underway to determine if this will change. |
| 50 | MR Requirements for CPT | PWS | 2.3.3.3 page 6 | We are assuming all CPT contractor personnel are required to be MR. Is there an estimate for how many contractor personnel will be required for each CPT element? | Estimated man-hours shall be provided in the PWS with final RFP. |
| 51 | Price Volume | Section L | Section F page 55 | Is the intent of the cost volume to establish ceiling rates that account for hours during mission execution that will be performed during weekends/holidays or various shifts as referenced in PWS 2.3.6.2 | The cost volume is to establish the ceiling rates for the the FFP/CPFF CLINs. Weekends and various shifts will apply to the CPFF CLIN. |
| 52 | Overseas Travel | PWS | 2.3.7.1 page 7 | Will travel be required to CSAR Level 4 or 5 countries? If Yes how should any cost difference be accommodated in the pricing table? | Travel to CSAR 4 or 5 countries is not envisioned in the foreseeable future. |
| 53 | First Task Order | Section I - Contract Clauses | 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY. (OCT 1995) on page 29 | Will the first task order be released in conjunction with the final RFP? | We envision that the first task order to be released at the time of award. |
| 54 | First Task Order | Section I - Contract Clauses | 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY. (OCT 1995) on page 29 | When will the first task order for the IDIQ contract be issued? | We envision that the first task order to be released at the time of award. |
| 55 | First Task Order | Section I - Contract Clauses | 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY. (OCT 1995) on page 29 | What work scope does the Government anticipate in the first task order? | We anticipate that the fist task order include CLIN X002 for recurring Support Servicces |
| 56 | Past Performance Relevancy | Section M Attachment 1 | Mission Operations | The current relevancy matrix requires that all 5 criteria areas (A,B,C,D,E) for each past performance submission to be relevant. This is overly restrictive for small businesses and a barrier to submission of past performance citations of significant benefit to the DCRIOS mission areas. Would the government consider potential bidders be allowed to submit multiple contracts that meet a subset of the criteria areas and as a whole meet all the relevancy criteria instead of a single contract that meets all the criteria. We believe this approach is more realistic and allows the government to assess a far more reaching pool of past performance citations and assessment of bidder capabilities. | The Government does not consider this a barrier to competition. The intent is to allow bidders to submit multiple contracts that meet a subset of the criteria areas and as a whole meet all the relevancy criteria instead of a single contract that meets all the criteria. |
| 57 | Past Performance Relevancy | Section M Attachment 1 | Mission Operations & Mission Support | The current relevancy matrix requires that past performance submissions must have annual revenues of $5M to be relevant and $4M to be somewhat relevant. This is an overly restrictive limitation for inclusion of small business past performance citations. The dollar value limitations also do not consistently measure size and complexity of past performance citations. Many past performance citations under $5M in annual revenues are highly complex requiring highly technical skills and management capabilities similar to the DCRIOS PWS mission areas and technical tasks. Would the government consider removing the dollar limit restriction on past performance citations in favor of addressing the ability of a potential bidder to manage the scope and complexity of DCRIOS tasks in the Management Section of a proposal. | The Government does not consider this a barrier to competition. |
| 58 | Socio Economic Team Construction | Section I (page 25) | 52.219-27 | Is the Prime SDVOSB required to perform 50% of the work when teamed with other SDVOSBs and large businesses? | IAW 13 CFR 125.6 (b)(1) - In the case of a contract for services (except construction), the SDVO SBC spends at least 50% of the cost of the contract performance incurred for personnel on the concern's employees or on the employees of other SDVO SBCs. Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern is a business not less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans, or in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans; the management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans, or in the case of a veteran with a permanent and severe disability, a spouse or permanent caregiver of such veteran. |
| 59 | Facility Clearance Level /DD254 | Section K (page 48); |
Section J (Exhibit 1);
M-1 A. (Page 60) Section K;
Section J (Exhibit 1) DD254;
M-1 A. For an offeror with an existing Facility Clearance Level (FCL) of Secret, will the Government sponsor the prime contractor for a Top Secret FCL either at proposal submission time or upon award of contract? Yes. How does a facility become eligible to be considered for a classified bid or quotation?
The same process used in the case of an unclassified procurement is involved. The facility must qualify as a bidder to a Government procurement activity or to a prime contractor or subcontractor performing on a Government contract. If the bid or potential subcontract involves access to classified information, the procuring activity or cleared prime contractor submits a request to clear the prospective bidder. Personnel from the Facility Clearance Branch at Defense Security Service (DSS) evaluate the request and assure that the request is valid. Part of this validation includes confirmation that the facility has a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings. Further, the contractor and its key managers must not be in a "barred" status from participating in Government contracts.
| 60 | Existing Contract | RFP Cover page | - | What is the contract number of the current contract that this contract will replace? | Contract number will be determined at the time of award. Contract number for the current effort is FA7037-11-D-0003. |
| 61 | Proposal Binder Size | L.C.2 and L.C.7 | L.C.2 and L.C.7 | L.C.2 (page 50) states "Binders shall not exceed 2"." However, L.C.7 states "Each volume of the proposal shall be bound in one-inch, three-ring binders." Please clarify maximum binder size." | The binder size shall not exceed 2". Update to L.C.7 will be made to the final RFP. |
| 62 | Transition | PWS 4.6 | In order to ensure the lowest risk possible, will the government be evaluating the transition plan? If so, what expected actions will be evaluated? | Transition is not a evaluation factor | |
| 63 | Facility Security Clearance | Page 48 / FAR clause 5352.215-9000 (Facility Clearance) & |
Page 60 / Section M-1.A. / PWS 4.1.6
| Referenced FAR clause states the FCL must be in place by the time of award. PWS 4.1.6 states a TS FCL must be in place before access to classified is granted (which can only happen post award). However the Section M langauge states the TS FCL must be in place at the time of proposal submission. Which one is correct? Given that the contract start will not be until Mar-2017, the FAR and PWS clause requirements seems to make the most sense and may also increase competition for the government. | The TS FCL must be in place at the time of proposal submission as stated in Section M. How does a facility become eligible to be considered for a classified bid or quotation? The same process used in the case of an unclassified procurement is involved. The facility must qualify as a bidder to a Government procurement activity or to a prime contractor or subcontractor performing on a Government contract. If the bid or potential subcontract involves access to classified information, the procuring activity or cleared prime contractor submits a request to clear the prospective bidder. Personnel from the Facility Clearance Branch at Defense Security Service (DSS) evaluate the request and assure that the request is valid. Part of this validation includes confirmation that the facility has a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings. Further, the contractor and its key managers must not be in a "barred" status from participating in Government contracts. | |
| 64 | Facility Security Clearance | Page 48 / FAR clause 5352.215-9000 (Facility Clearance) & |
Page 60 / Section M-1.A. / PWS 4.1.6
| Can an SDVOSB Jont Venture utilize its managing member's current TS FCL to meet the FCL requirements for DCRIOS? | Yes, as long as the prime has the appropriate FCL. | ||||
| 65 | Cross Reference Matrix | Page 50 / Section L-1.C.1. | Please clarify if "matrices" also includes the required Cross Reference Matrix (CRM), and if so, confirm that the CRM will not be included in the Technical volume's page count? | CRM is not included as part of the page count for the Technical Volume. | |
| 66 | Present/Past Performance Information | Page 53 / Section L-1.E.5. | Other than Attachment 4, PPI Questionnaire Tracking Record, do we have to submit the Questionnaire Cover Letters as part of Volume II? | Questionnaire cover letters are not required as part of Volume II. | |
| 67 | Present/Past Performance Information | Page 52-55 / Section L-1.E. | Since we are required to use the PPI tool, are we to populate this tool and then simply print the results for inclusion in our final Past Performance Volume II? For the elctronic submission of Vol II, does the PPI tool allow for output in a MS Office format, and if not, what format would be accpetable? | Vendors are required to use and populate the PPI Tool and can print the results for inclusion in Vol II. The PPI inputs are manually populated in the format required by that system, not aware of other allowable formats. | |
| 68 | Joint Venture | Page 58 / Section L-1.G.1.Section K.b. | Language references Joint Ventures being allowable for competitive 8(a) set-asides. Since this will be an SDVOSB competition (not 8(a)), please clarify what will be required for any SDVOSB JV's who submit a proposal. | Section L will be updated to include "provide a snapshot that an agreement was received by the SBA or approved". Section L-1.G.1.Section K.b. | |
| 69 | Section F | Section F | Please confirm if start dates for CLINS 0003 and beyond should actually reflect "24 MAR" instead of "24 APR". | Estimated POP for CLINS 0002 and beyond commence 24 Apr as a result of the transistion dates (24 Mar 17 - 23 Apr 17). | |
| 70 | Section F | Section F / Section M-1.E.4.d. | Budget numbers in Section M are presented as "FYXX" which is usually defined/interpreted as being Oct 1 - Sep 30 each year. Section F PoP dates reflect (after error fixing) Mar 24 - Mar 23 each year. For our budget and pricing efforts, please confirm that the "FYXX" budgets reflected in Section M would occur during Mar 24 - Mar 23 (e.g., FY18 = 3/24/18 through 3/23/19). | Yes, these are the projected numbers within a given FY that don't necessarily begin on 1 Oct - Sep 30. | |
| 71 | PWS | PWS 2.3.3.4 (page 6) | PWS section states that the prime must hold and maintain CMMI Level 3 for the whole period of performance. Please clarify that prime offerors are required to include their CMMI Institute provided appraisal number and certificate in "Volume IV - Contract Documentation" in order to substantiate current status. | Verbiage will be added to Section L that shall require prime offerors to provide their CMMI Institute provided appraisal number and certificate in "Volume IV - Contract Documentation" in order to substantiate current status. | |
| 72 | Price | Section M, E.2 Factor 3 - Cost/Price, pg 65 | Item #2, sentence #1 references the Pricing Table as Attachment 4. In the draft RFP documents, there is not a Section J_Attachment 4. The Pricing Table is Section J_Attachment 2. | The Pricing Table is in Section J Attachment 2. Change to Section M, E.2 Factor 3 will be incorporated in final RFP. | |
| 73 | Section B and Section M-1.E.4.d | Section B and Section M-1.E.4.d | Please clarify for CLINs X005 and X006 what the government’s estimated values are so we will know better the percentage for these items given the FYXX budget values presented in Section M (page 66). | The estimates will be provided in the final RFP that will be posted at a later time. | |
| 74 | certification requirement for CPT Ops contractors | PWS paragraph 2.3.3.2 | PWS paragraph 2.3.3.2 | Contractor personnel conducting CPT operations shall also be certified IAW USCYBERCOM Joint Cyberspace Training and Certification Standards (JCT&CS). These trainings or standards do not appear to be currently available. How do we get personnel certified? | The applicable hyperlinks will be provided in the final RFP and or a library will be established at a location for vendors to view documents considered FOUO. |
| 75 | Training requirements clarification | PWS Paragraph 2.3.3.2 | PWS Paragraph 2.3.3.2 | Need clarification on what "individual training requirements, squadron and team may be required". Will these additional training requirements be government funded? | Contractors will be required to obtain all DoDD 8570.01M and AFMAN 33-285 on their own. If the government provides specific certification training (for purposes of satisfying 8570 requirements) using in house assets, contractors may attend provided they pay for all related course materials/tests as well as not charging the government for the time for the training. CPT training is still under devlopment. Contractors are waived from the MR/CMR requirement to attend IQT; however contracts shall require requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet IQT standards. Training which is commercially available and is a required element of the training plan will be at the contractor's expense. The government will provide unique, non commercially available specific weapon systems training to contractors as well as Mission Qualification Training and Continuation Training. |
| 76 | CI Polygraph funding | PWS Paragraph 4.1.1.1 | PWS Paragraph 4.1.1.1 | Will the government fund CI Polygraphs for contractors supporting National CPTs? | The government funds CI Polygraphs supporting National CPTs. |
| 77 | Proprietary tools currently in use | N/A - General | N/A General | Are there any proprietary tools in use by the incumbent, especially where they are not using the MIS. | There are no propriety tools. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .