RFI 3 Questions and Answers.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION CENTER (AMIC)

DET 2 OL C, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

Questions & Answers for RFP # 3 – Enterprise Cyber Capabilities

Q1: 2.4.3.2. Will the date of the RFP be determined by the date shown in initial Final RFP or the last amendment?

A1: Last amendment

Q2: 1.13. Page Format: Are the page limitations identified in the scoring matrix attachment nine supposed to be an attachment to the Government's Attachment 8 referenced or part of it?

A2: The cross-reference matrix has been separated from the self-scoring matrix. A final list of attachments will be provided.

Q3: 2.3.3 OTHER INFORMATION: Government states to be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. All Offeror documentation related to responsibility shall be included in Appendix 1 of Volume I. To further assist the Contracting Officer in making the responsibility determination prior to contract award (in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, as supplemented by the DFARS 209.1), the following additional information is requested and shall be included in Appendix 1 of Volume I. Is there going to be a template Attachment provided by the Government to be filled in?

A3: The Government does not expect to require a specific template for collecting the information needed to make responsibility determinations and will identify the exact information needed by Offerors and request this information in the RFP. The Government expects Section L, Other Information to be updated as follows: The Contracting Officer will make a responsibility determination prior to contract award (in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, as supplemented by the DFARS 209.1). No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider any other information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

Q4: 1.13 Page Format: Please confirm that the margins for all submitted documents is ¾ inch for left and right margins and 1 inch for top and bottom on all submitted pages including pages with tables and graphics.

A4: All references to page format in Section L will be reviewed to ensure consistency. Generally, the use of 1 inch top and bottom and ½ inch side margins is acceptable.

Q5: 2.4.4, page 10 Section 2.4.3: The Offeror shall provide a Cross Reference Matrix which clearly identifies the exact location of the substantiating data within the work samples. In Lieu of the Cross Reference Matrix, would the government consider allowing the contractor to annotate the documents containing the substantiating data to ensure clarity and ease of scoring?

A5: Cross Reference Matrix will be provided IAW Section L & M

Q6: Draft Section L, Table 1 – Proposal Organization – Volume III Past Performance Paragraph 2.5.2 has no page limit for the Past Performance Submissions but 2.5.3 Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Letter section has a 30 page limit. Is this correct? Should the Past Performance Submissions page limit be 30 pages? If so, is there a specific page limit per past performance reference?

A6: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q7: Draft Section L, Paragraph 2.3.3.1 Financial/Other Resources. Evidence submitted may include official letter(s) from financial institutions demonstrating the Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitment. Is there a specific line of credit that is required for small business entities and for large business entities?

A7: The Government does not expect to require a specific line of credit and expects this requirement will be substantially changed or eliminated in the draft RFP. Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q8: Section L - On page 3, Paragraph 1.5 states …the Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort without discussion…. However, this is not stated in other areas of Section L or Section M.

A8: Please see 1.9 of Section M. Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q9: Section L - Page 4 Section 1.11 states...no earlier than 14 days prior to the proposal due date, and no later than 1 day prior to the proposal due date. The Offeror will receive an email from DoD Safe with a link…Confirming that the sentence beginning with The Offeror is part of the former sentence.

A9: Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. The final solicitation is expected to be posted using the PIEE Solicitation Module, (not DoD Safe) and this will require that all electronic proposals will be submitted via PIEE. PIEE Solicitation Module instructions will be provided.

Q10: Section L - Page 6 Proposal Organization Chart --The ITO Sections do not align with the Sections stated in Section M. For instance, in Volume 1 Chart names: 2.3/2.3.2/2.3.3/2.3.3.1/2.3.3.2/2.3.4 Vice Pages 6- 8 names:

2.3/2.3.1/2.3.2/2.3.2.1/2.3.2.2/2.3.3/2.3.3.1/2.3.3.2/2.3.4 Volume II Chart Sections:2.4/2.4.1/2.4.2/blank/2.4.4/2.4.4

Whereas Page 8-13:

2.4/2.4.1/2.4.1.1/2.4.1.1.1/2.4.1.1.2/2.4.1.2/2.4.1.3/2.4.2/2.4.3/2.4.3.1/2.4.3.2/2.4.3.3/2.4.3.3.1/2.4.3.3.2/2.4.3.3.3/2.4.

4/2.4.4.1/2.4.4.2/2.4.4.3/2.4.5/2.4.5.1/ETC

A10: The numbering has been updated in Section L&M to align and Sections L & M will be further reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q11: Section L - Page 8, Paragraph 2.3.3.2 states that …If the prime does not currently have an accounting system...then the prime shall submit (BLANK SPACE) and state that it will work…What should be in the BLANK

SPACE?

A11: Section L has been updated:

Accounting System. IAW FAR 16.301, no cost reimbursement contract may be awarded unless the limitations in FAR 16.301-3 are met. One of the limitations cited under FAR 16.301-3 requires that “the Contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order.” Unless exempt, the prime shall provide a current (within three (3) years prior to date of proposal submittal) letter or report from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)/ Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) that the Offeror’s accounting system has been approved or is adequate for cost-reimbursement contracts. If the prime does not have a letter or report from DCAA/DCMA from within 3 years, the Offeror shall provide the latest letter or report received and shall provide a statement that the accounting system has not changed since being reviewed. If the accounting system has changed, the Offeror shall provide a DCAA/DCMA certification indicating that the changes have not impacted the approval or adequacy of the accounting system. If the prime does not currently have an accounting system determined as adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order, then the prime shall complete and submit Attachment 16 – DCAA Contractor Accounting System Pre-Award Survey, and state that it will work with DCAA/DCMA to obtain the appropriate accounting system approval.

Q12: Section L - Page 13, Section 2.5.1 states shall be organized according to ERROR! Reference source not found.

Can the government correct?

A12: This reference and Table 1–Proposal Organization links will be corrected. We will release the corrected documents in pdf in the final RFP.

Q13: Recommend including instructions in L.2.4 for where Offerors are to provide/organize the documentation (excluded from page count) that demonstrates each work sample meets the recency and relevancy minimum requirements to be a work sample.

A13: The Government has provided organization instructions in section 1.11 where Offerors are to provide their proposals and section 2.2 for how to organize the documentation. The Government appreciates your suggestion and will update the criteria needed for Offerors to demonstrate that each work sample meets the recency and relevancy minimum requirements. Please note these criteria will primary be addressed in section M.

Q14: There is a disconnect with Table 1, Proposal Organization, associated paragraphs, and the Attachment 9 Self Scoring Matrix. Please clarify/cross reference Table 1 Proposal Organizational Table ITO Sections with Page Limits and paragraphs associated with 2.5.2 through 2.5.8 as well as the Attachment 9 Self Scoring Matrix.

A14: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q15: Since 1.13.4 states “Offerors shall provide each work sample as a single separate electronic file” means that each work sample would almost certainly result in use of partial pages for substantiation information and ultimately loss of available total page count, are each of the page limited sections of work sample substantiation information associated with individual functional areas and PWS requirement references to start at the top of a page?

A15: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q16: Per Section L paragraph 2.4.6, “The Offeror shall clearly identify the exact location of substantiating data within the work samples using the “Work Sample Cross-Reference” column of the Self Scoring Matrix”. This suggests cross reference for individual functional and sub-functional areas could point to the same substantiation data. However, work sample information must be provided in separate, individual files. Does this mean that bidders can provide cross reference across files? If not, please clarify the instructions?

A16: Cross Reference Matrix will be provided IAW Section L & M

Q17: There is a disconnect between Table 1 Proposal Organization section 2.5.5 Specific Content which has a 5-page limit and Section L Paragraph 2.5.5 which is Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS). Request clarification of page limit and correlation to the correct Section L requirement.

A17: The Government does not expect to require Offerors to submit CPARS. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q18: 2.5.5 of Table 1 – Proposal Organization states the information associated with section 2.5.5 Specific Content is limited to 5 pages. This section includes CPARs which are often more than 5 pages each. As multiple work samples may be required along with associated CPARs, will the Government consider making the page limit as No Page Limit?

A18: The Government does not expect to require Offerors to submit CPARS. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q19: Recommend to remove page limits. Allow Offerors room to provide sufficient information to support relevance/performance in task areas. For example, Offerors may provide work samples with multiple PWS areas touched across a single contract or TO. Because of the substantiation documentation requirements – the RFP language will require Offerors to provide excerpts of the contract documentation. This may hinder the evaluation and limit Offeror’s ability to fully demonstrate their performance capabilities.

A19: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q20: If multiple pages are allowed for a functional area and/or PWS requirement reference but only a small amount of space is needed for substantiation and/or a cross reference statement is needed for reuse of substantiation information, are all pages considered used from the total Volume page count or may the pages be added to another functional area/PWS requirement reference area? Would the Government consider eliminating page count for work sample submissions?

A20: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q21: Separate electronic files for work samples, defined at the functional area level (such as 2.1 Operate and Maintain (O&M)), are used to provide associated data for proof of substantiation. But page allocation is defined at the sub level. If cross reference is used to point where relevant substantiation is located in the file, how are bidders to use the one or more page allowances at the sub-functional area level defined on the self-scoring sheet such as 2.2.2 Data Administration which has a 2 page limit, when information may only be a pointer to location of work sample information provided in files for each functional area?

A21: The final RFP may contain page limitation per work sample. To avoid confusion, the terms Functional and Program Areas are replaced with Categories and Specialty Areas moving forward. Specialty Areas will require cross-reference. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q22: Attachment 9 - Self Scoring Worksheet Column H titled Maximum Work Sample Pages indicates the total work sample response is limited to 85 pages with some nested Functional Areas only allowed 1 page for work sample proof. As SOWs, CDRLs, and other official documents are generally much larger or often written with high level requirements only, responses may span multiple pages of the documents (page breaks, etc.) or require more than one document to prove performance, it may be difficult to provide single page responses. Would the Government consider expanding or eliminating the page count to allow for page breaks and other document structural considerations?

A22: The final RFP may contain page limitation per work sample. To avoid confusion, the terms Functional and Program Areas are replaced with Categories and Specialty Areas moving forward. Specialty Areas will require cross-reference. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q23: The scoring spreadsheet page limits for work samples at the functional and sub-functional area level assumes some insight into how much substantiation information is available from contract documentation, i.e. Performance Work Statements (PWS), Statements of Work (SOW), or Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs). To ensure compliance and quality of input, provide insight into expectations of how bidders are expected to utilize page allowances that are driven by contract documentation and not by information generated by the bidder.

A23: The final RFP may contain page limitation per work sample. To avoid confusion, the terms Functional and Program Areas are replaced with Categories and Specialty Areas moving forward. Specialty Areas will require cross-reference. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q24: Section L & M are in conflict regard the definition of Past Performance. Attachment 5 Section L, paragraph

2.4.3.2 indicates work sample shall have been within the past 5 years. Attach 5, Section L paragraph 2.5.5 indicates sample work CPARS must be provide for the past 5 years. Attachment 6 Section M, paragraph 4.3.2 states recent past Performance shall have been within the past 3 years

A24: The Government expects to require at least six months of active performance and that performance shall have been completed within the last three years, from the date of that the RFP is issued. The Government intends to make this change due to the speed at which the Cyber environment changes/evolves.

Q25: Attachment 5, Paragraph 2.4.3.2 states the performance for work samples "shall have been within the last five years", Attachment 5 paragraph 2.5.2 states "Offerors shall only utilize contract references from submitted work sample pool", and Attachment 6, Paragraph 4.3.2 states that for Past Performance to be Recent the performance "shall have been within the last three years"

A25: The Government expects to require at least six months of active performance and that performance shall have been completed within the last three years, from the date of that the RFP is issued. The Government intends to make this change due to the speed at which the Cyber environment changes/evolves.

Q26: Is it the government's intention to allow work samples and past performance to be for up to five years, but only that performance within the last three years shall be considered recent in scoring?

A26: The Government expects to require at least six months of active performance and that performance shall have been completed within the last three years, from the date of that the RFP is issued. The Government intends to make this change due to the speed at which the Cyber environment changes/evolves.

Q27: EC2_Update_8_Attachment_5_Section_L_ (03NOV2021), page 4, Section 1.13.1: Please clarify whether table(s) of figures or tables shall also be included in the pages that shall NOT be counted.

A27: Figures and Tables will be counted.

Q28: EC2_Update_8_Attachment_5_Section_L_ (03NOV2021), page 6, table: Please provide page limit for Vol I, ITO Section 2.3 Executive Summary AND ITO Section 2.3.3 Other Information.

A28: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q29: Please clarify Vol II 2.4.1 Work Samples page limitation, specifically "1.2 Limits are in Self Scoring Matrix, Attachment 9". Please clarify whether the work samples are to be included as separate attachments, titled, labeled and identified individually and included within the Vol II folder or if each sample is to be pasted into the section itself.

A29: The final RFP may contain page limitation per work sample. To avoid confusion, the terms Functional and Program Areas are replaced with Categories and Specialty Areas moving forward. Specialty Areas will require cross-reference. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. The Government will clarify the submission requirements in Sections L & M of the draft RFP.

Q30: Please clarify Vol II 2.4.1 Work Samples page limitation, specifically "1.2 Limits are in Self Scoring Matrix, Attachment 9". Please clarify whether the work samples are to be included as separate attachments, titled, labeled and identified individually and included within the Vol II folder or if each sample is to be pasted into the section itself.

A30: The final RFP may contain page limitation per work sample. To avoid confusion, the terms Functional and Program Areas are replaced with Categories and Specialty Areas moving forward. Specialty Areas will require cross-reference. All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. The Government will clarify the submission requirements in Sections L & M of the draft RFP.

Q31: Attachment 5, Table 1 (Proposal Organization) - In Volume II, the Self-Scoring Matrix is only allowed 1 page.

In a printing orientation, this matrix runs to 4 pages or so. Suggest removal of page limit for self-scoring matrix or otherwise note that this should be a separate attachment (Excel file) to Vol. II.

A31: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q32: Attachment 5 (Section 1.13.2 and 1.13.3) - There appears to be a discrepancy on margin sizes between 1.13.2 (1" top/bot, 3/4" side) and 1.13.3 (1/2" top/bot and side). Please clarify.

A32: All references to page format in Section L will be reviewed to ensure consistency. Generally, the use of 1 inch top and bottom and ½ inch side margins is acceptable.

Q33: Attachment 5 (Section 1.13.7) - Please provide further clarification on TOC requirements (1.13.7), specifically around what is meant by "delineating the subparagraphs within that volume".

A33: Each Volume must also have its own TOC in order to identify subparagraphs in each volume.

Q34: In L- 2.4.4, it states, “The Offeror shall fill in the Columns D “Offeror Proposed Self-Score Points” and G “Work Sample Cross-Reference” of the Self-Scoring Matrix.” It is unclear the method/and format we are to use to fill in the cells under Column G, Work Sample Cross-Reference. Can the Government please clarify how it wants information presented/referenced in Column G?

A34: The cross-reference matrix has been separated from the self-scoring matrix. A final list of attachments will be provided. Column G has been deleted from the Self-Scoring Matrix.

Q35: Atch 8, Section L, para 2.4.4 "Work Sample Cross-Reference". Will the Government please provide specific guidance/direction/acceptable example.

A36: Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised as necessary to provide specific guidance/direction/acceptability criteria.

Q36: Atch 8, Section L, para 1.12: The size of the proposals are expected to be very large with the numerous PWS's, SOWs, CDRLs, etc. included in Volume II. Is DoD SAFE capable of accepting files this large for submission?

A37: Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. The final solicitation is expected to be posted using the PIEE Solicitation Module, (not DoD Safe) and this will require that all electronic proposals will be submitted via PIEE. PIEE Solicitation Module instructions will be provided.

Q38: Atch 8, Section L, para 2.4.1.2: Will the Government accept highlights and comments within the contract documentation to identify EC2 Functional Areas?

A38: Cross Reference Matrix will be provided IAW Section L & M

Q39: In reference to "2.4.1.2. The work samples shall consist of only official contract documentation which may include Performance Work Statements (PWS), Statements of Work (SOW), or Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs). When contracts are used for work samples, the Offeror shall, also include the signed cover page associated with the contract (not counted against page limits). If a work sample substantiates multiple EC2 Functional Areas, each Functional Area must be identified within the work sample. Offerors shall only provide official contract documentation." We recommend the government extend contractual documents to include Task Order PWS, LCAT Descriptions, and Contract Deliverables (as long as these are signed off by a CO, COR, ACOR, or a GTM).

A39: Thank you for your recommendation. The Government intends on reviewing and updating the list of documentation(s) that are acceptable. Sections L & M will be revised to ensure clarity and consistency. The updated list of acceptable work same documents will be the maximum options for Offerors while maintaining maximum efficiency for the Government to validate that the Offerors possess the background, experience, and past performance needed to receive an IDIQ award in accordance with the RFP.

Q40: Section M 1.6 IDIQ Ceiling. In this section, the Government states that …the overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at >$5.3B throughout the ten (10) years contract…. In the Q&A, the Government states in Question 52 that the contract will likely be a 5-year base with one or two two-year options. We recommend the Government align Section 1.6 to the same timeframe.

A40: The IDIQ will have a five-year base and one, five-year option. Language in Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised to ensure consistency.

Q41: Section M 3.1 Evaluation Methodology. In this section, the Government states that it intends to …utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology; however, cost will not be considered at the IDIQ level. We recommend to the Government to remove …however, cost will not be considered at the IDIQ level from this sentence AND then move the following sentence from Section 4.1 into this paragraph: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(C)(i), Cost/Price will not be evaluated during this source selection; Cost/Price will be evaluated for each individual task order. By doing so, this paragraph will be explicitly clear that cost is NOT a factor of the evaluation methodology.

A41: The Government appreciates your suggestion and will consider this verbiage. Sections L & M will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q42: How many and what portion of IDIQ awards are anticipated as set-aside for Small Business and set-aside for Other Than Small Business?

A42: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all “Highly Qualified Offeror’s.”

Q43: Does the Government anticipate awarding to all Offerors whose substantiated Past Experience and Past Performance meet a minimum threshold for the Highest Technically Rated Offeror(s)?

A43: Yes, the Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s.

Q44: If a Small Business offeror’s ratings are at or above award of Other Than Small Business offers, will Small Business replace a position potentially held by an Other Than Small Business Offeror?

A44: No

Q45: If a prime contractor is awarded a contract as a Small Business set-aside, is that contractor able to pursue Other Than Small Business orders under the IDIQ?

A45: Yes

Q46: 3.1 Will only the specific items listed in 2.1-2.5 and method(s) be used by the Government to determine the proposal to be responsive? (Basically, are you looking for the proposal to be complete and compliant prior to evaluating Factor 1 and Factor 2?)

A46: Responsiveness will be determined IAW FAR 9.104-1, to include items listed in Section L&M to be considered a complete and compliant proposal.

Q47: 4.3.5. Please define Positive Findings

A47: Anything satisfactory or above.

Q49: 4.3.6 Please define pool in the statement each pool. Is the Government planning on making separate small business pool such as WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, Small Business pools?

A49: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government anticipates to issue an IDIQ award to all “Highly Qualified Offeror’s.”

Q50: If a combination of small businesses resulting in two or more that collectively can cover all program and function areas, is there a need for the unrestricted pool?

A50: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government does not expect to restrict Offerors whose proposal includes multiple business entities.

Q51: Section M, Paragraph 4.3.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will assess Past Performance of Offerors with a qualifying Government-validated score within. IAW ITO 2.5.2, Offerors shall only submit a Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 12) for work samples used in self-scoring matrix. Paragraph 4.3.2 states Past Performance information will either be determined Recent or Not Recent. In order for the Past Performance materials to be determined Recent, at least six months of performance shall have been within the last three years, as of the date on the RFP Letter. In reviewing Section L paragraph 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.2, states Work Sample Qualifications. Work samples shall meet these minimum qualifications. At least six months of active performance shall have been within the last five years, as of the date of this RFP. To pose a question about this issue we do not have the ITO to see if it clarifies the two different time frames. Is the Government going to issue a draft ITO before the December 16th date for the RFI response.

A51: The Government is working diligently to issue the draft RFP in a timely manner but is not publishing timelines or expected issuance dates at this time. The Government expects to require at least six months of active performance and that performance shall have been completed within the last three years, from the date of that the RFP is issued.

The Government intends to make this change due to the speed at which the Cyber environment changes/evolves.

Q52: 4.3.2, page 5, we recommend that the more recent the program, the more weight in grading the program deserves. This is due to staffing challenges and work difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A52: The Government has considered your recommendation; however, we do not believe the additional complexity in evaluation is warranted. Please see revised Sections L&M released in the draft RFP.

Q53: Also, with regard to the above, will the government consider awarding to an Offeror that does not have an approved accounting system – with the understanding/term that they will not be able to propose on Task Orders with cost reimbursement CLINS?

A53: Award(s) will be made in accordance with section L & M.

Q54: Attachment 6; 1.5; Offeror would recommend a low threshold for off-ramping industry from the vehicle.

Responding to RFIs, RFPs, etc. costs industry money and time - especially if the unrestricted pool has many vendors;

the amount of opportunity for responses and "wins" may not be enough for everyone on the vehicle to remain.

A54: The Government will take this recommendation into consideration when drafting ordering procedures.

Q55: Attachment 6; 1.7; Will the Post Award Conference award ($3,000) apply to the unrestricted pool as well?

A55: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. Minimum guarantee applies to all awardees; however, minimum award amount is subject to change.

Q56: Attachment 6; 4.3.5: Adverse Findings. Will Industry have a chance to provide a response in the event any unanticipated adverse findings are identified? Or do these need to be addressed in advanced in the "Specific Content" sections referenced in Attachment 5; 2.5.8?

A56: Yes. Industry will have the opportunity to address adverse findings that have not previously been addressed.

Q57: Attachment 6, Section 4.0 - What is the weighting differentiation between Factor 1 (Past Experience) and Factor 2 (Past Performance)?

A57: The Government does not intend on using weighted values between Factor 1 & 2. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology intends on reviewing and updating instructions and evaluation criteria provided in Sections L & M of the RFP to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q58: 2.4.7 (4) Team Structure: Government states Provide verification of prime status for proposed team members. Offeror’s shall provide contract reference(s) that illustrate the team member acting as a prime. Can the Government be more specific as to what documentation they are requesting? What is a teammate has not held a prime contract? Are they automatically eliminated for this opportunity?

A58: The Government will clarify the documentation and submission requirements in Sections L & M of the draft RFP. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q59: 2.5.7 Organizational Structure Change History: Is this section applicable for a company who only made a name change but no mergers or having been acquired? For example company ABC, LLC now doing business as (dba) company XYZ, LLC?

A59: Now expected to be section 2.5.6. Yes, and all historical changes to structure to include name changes must be provided in order to clearly communicate the relationships among entities included as part of the Offerors proposal.

Q60: 2.5.5 Language Analysis - is this narrative or machine?

A60: Machine language, please see the Attachment 17 - EC2_Labor_Cats: i. AN-LNG-001

Q61: Teaming Arrangements. Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes.

A61: The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q62: Can EC2 Offerors bid as a subcontractor in the small business pool AND as a sub or prime in the unrestricted pool? See paragraph 1.13.9: Teaming Arrangements. Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes.

A62: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q63: Draft Section L 1.13.9 Teaming Arrangements. Draft Section L verbiage states: Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes. Please clarify if Prime Offerors under the Small Business Pool are able to propose as a team member or subcontractor under the unrestricted pool of EC2?

A63: The Government no longer expects to have separate unrestricted and small business pools and expects that primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q64: Draft Section L Paragraph 1.13.9 states prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor. Because Small Businesses and Unrestricted Business are not in the same group. May a Large Prime subcontract to a Small Business and/or a Small Business prime subcontract to an Unrestricted Business.

A64: The Government no longer expects to have separate unrestricted and small business pools and expects that primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q65: Update 8 Attachment 5 Section L Item 1.13.9: Can the government confirm that the limitation of submitting a prime proposal and subcontracting to another bidder is only within the pool? That is, a Small Business cannot submit as a Prime contractor on the Small Business Set Aside solicitation and subcontract to another Small Business. But a Small Business could submit a proposal as a prime on the Small Business Set Aside and subcontract to a Large Business who submits a proposal as a prime on the Full & Open solicitation. And conversely a Large Business could submit a proposal as a prime on the Full & Open solicitation and subcontract to a Small Business who submits a proposal as a prime on the Small Business Set Aside.

A65: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q66: Attachment 5 Section L, Paragraph 1.13.9, Teaming Arrangements. This paragraph prohibits submitting as a Prime and a Subcontractor on another team. Does this apply to only the Small Business procurement or does it include the unrestricted procurement as well? Can you submit as a Prime under the small business procurement and as a Subcontractor to a large Prime under the Unrestricted contract? Conversely can a Large submit as an unrestricted Prime and as a subcontractor to a Small Business Prime? The Q&A from 20OCT21 does not assist in clarifying this paragraph.

A66: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q67: Attachment 5, Section L, Paragraph 2.4.7.1 stipulates "The teaming agreement summary shall detail the responsibilities of each teaming partner with consideration to the acquisition and identify the percentage of work to be performed in each EC2 Functional Area by each teaming partner." Whereas this is and IDIQ contract spanning 10 years it is impossible to accurately predict the forthcoming work over the next 10 years by each functional area with sufficient detail to allocate workshare to teammates. Recommend this be deleted.

A67: The Government no longer expects to distinguish between teaming partners, subcontractors, or partners. All entities and the agreements therein will be evaluated in the same manner as prime contractors such that the entity is capable of meeting criteria that will be clarified in the draft RFP.

Q68: Reference: Update 8, Attachment 5, Section L, Para 1.13.9, states, “Teaming Arrangements. Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes. Question: This statement limits small businesses from access to and involvement in the EC2 contract. As a qualified subcontractor and possibly a prime contractor, the Government is limiting our ability to grow and propose as a prime contractor. Will the Government consider removing this limitation from the solicitation and allow SB prime contractors to subcontract on UNR bids?

A68: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q69: Section L, Para 2.4.7, “2.4.7. Team Structure. The Offeror shall identify the team structure it will use to meet Government requirements. The Offeror shall identify the team structure within Attachment 11 – Team Structure. The Offeror shall:

1) Identify the team member’s name, address, CAGE code, and DUNS number.

(2) Identify the relationship between the prime, each team member.

(3) Identify EC2 Functional Area(s) in which the prime intends on utilizing team member(s) for performance.

(4) Provide verification of prime status for proposed team members. Offeror’s shall provide contract reference(s) that illustrate the team member acting as a prime.”

A69: The Government will clarify the documentation and submission requirements in Sections L & M of the draft RFP. The Government does not expect to request entire copies of Statements of Work or Performance Work Statements. Additionally, the requirement for prime status is expected to change such that primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q70: Recommend to remove page limits. Allow Offerors room to provide sufficient information to support relevance/performance in task areas. For example, Offerors may provide work samples with multiple PWS areas touched across a single contract or TO. Because of the substantiation documentation requirements – the RFP language will require Offerors to provide excerpts of the contract documentation. This may hinder the evaluation and limit Offeror’s ability to fully demonstrate their performance capabilities.

A70: All page limitations referenced in Section L, including Proposal Organization Table, will be reviewed and

Q71: L1.13.9 Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes. Will the government please clarify if team members on a SB pool team have to be small businesses can only use a work sample one time if they are on multiple teams can be a sub on the unrestricted pool?

A71: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q72: Attachment 5 Section L, Paragraph 1.13.9, Teaming Arrangements. This paragraph prohibits submitting as a Prime and a Subcontractor on another team. Does this apply to only the Small Business procurement or does it include the unrestricted procurement as well? Can you submit as a Prime under the small business procurement and as a Subcontractor to a large Prime under the Unrestricted contract? Conversely can a Large submit as an unrestricted Prime and as a subcontractor to a Small Business Prime?

A72: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q73: Attachment 5, Section L, Paragraph 2.4.7.1 stipulates "The teaming agreement summary shall detail the responsibilities of each teaming partner with consideration to the acquisition and identify the percentage of work to be performed in each EC2 Functional Area by each teaming partner." Whereas this is and IDIQ contract spanning 10 years it is impossible to accurately predict the forthcoming work over the next 10 years by each functional area with sufficient detail to allocate workshare to teammates. Recommend this be deleted.

A73: The Government no longer expects to distinguish between teaming partners, significant subcontractors, or partners. All entities and the agreements therein will be evaluated in the same manner as prime contractors such that the entity is capable of meeting criteria that will be clarified in the draft RFP.

Q74: Attachment 5, Section L, Paragraph 1.13.9, Teaming Arrangements. If Subcontractors can join as many teams as they wish, the source selection evaluation will be arduous to perform as there will be hundreds of small businesses that team with everyone in hopes of being on a winning team(s). The Source Selection team will need to review many qualified proposals with the same past performance references. To encourage vendors to choose teams wisely and reduce the evaluation burden we recommend that each vendor can only submit a past performance reference once as a subcontractor. Hence, if a subcontractor wants to participate on multiple teams, they will have to submit a different past performance reference for each team they joined. They would not be able to be a subcontractor to everyone and provide the same past performance to everyone.

A74: The Government has considered this scenario; however, teaming will not be restricted.

Q75: Attachment 5; 2.4.7.1; The Offeror shall provide signed teaming agreement summary between the Prime Offeror and each team member. The teaming agreement summary shall detail the responsibilities of each teaming partner with consideration to this acquisition and identify the percentage of work to be performed in each EC2 Functional Area by each teaming partner. XXX has a variety of different subcontract/teammate vehicles. We do not always execute teaming agreements with every partner. Would submissions of NDAs/PIAs be acceptable vs official Teaming Agreements?

A75: The Government no longer expects to distinguish between teaming partners, significant subcontractors, or partners. All entities and the agreements therein will be evaluated in the same manner as prime contractors such that the entity is capable of meeting criteria that will be clarified in the draft RFP. The Government expects to revise the requirement to provide percentages of work to be performed.

Q76: Attachment 5, Paragraph 1.13.9 states "Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime" Question: Would the government consider relaxing this requirement to allow Other Than Small Businesses to subcontract to a Small Business for the Small Business Set Aside? And also to allow for Small Businesses to be a subcontractor on the Other than Small Businesses set-Aside? This would have the advantage of fostering more small business interest and support to this opportunity and allow Other Than Small Businesses to meet small business subcontracting goals.

A76: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The anticipated approach is to issue the RFP on an unrestricted basis and set-aside task orders for small business concerns to the maximum extent practicable. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q77: Attachment 5, Paragraphs 2.4.2 and 2.4.3.3 would appear to conflict. Section 2.4.2 allows projects performed as a subcontractor to be provided toward Past Performance projects. However, scenarios where projects performed as a subcontractor (provided by the Prime Offeror or one of its subcontractors) is not specified in Section 2.4.3.3. As Attachment 5 Section L stands, it is not clear whether Offerors may put forward projects that are relevant and performed as a subcontractor.

A77: The Government will clarify the documentation and submission requirements for Offerors to include clarification on acceptable entity/team structures and the associated past performance information being requested in Sections L & M of the draft RFP. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q78: Section L, paragraph 1.13.9 states, "Teaming Arrangements. Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes." Question: Can an Offeror submit a proposal as a prime in the unrestricted pool and as a subcontractor in the small business pool?

A78: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q79: Section L, paragraph 2.4.3.3.2 states, "The Offeror may submit work samples performed by their proposed subcontractors and teaming partners." Question: In the small business pool, do the work samples have to be those of other small businesses, or can an Offeror propose work samples from a large business subcontractor?

A79: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Work samples can be from any sized teaming partner.

Q80: Section L, paragraph 1.13.9 states, "Teaming Arrangements. Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offeror in response to this solicitation are not permitted to submit a separate proposal under which they would be a Subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes." Question: Can an Offeror submit a proposal as a prime in the unrestricted pool and as a subcontractor in the small business pool?

A80: The Government expects references to “pools” to be removed from the solicitation. The Government expects to issue an IDIQ award to all Highly Qualified Offeror’s. The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q81: Atch 8, Section L, para 1.13.9: Please confirm that if you Prime, you cannot subcontract to another Prime. "No over/under"

A81: The Government expects that Primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted.

Q82: Atch 8, Section L, para 2.4.3.3.2: Is it necessary for a subcontractor to have performed as a prime contractor a federal contract? Suggest making this a requirement for the prime only.

A82: Verbiage has been deleted. Offerors may submit proposal, past experience, and past performance information from inside and/or outside of the Federal Government. The Government expects that primes will be permitted to submit as subcontractors or team members; teaming arrangements are not expected to be restricted. The Government will clarify the documentation and submission requirements in Sections L & M of the draft RFP.

Q83: Requiring three POCs from the prime vendor for qualifications where the bidder is a subcontractor could restrict the ability to provide qualifications as a subcontractor.