Request for Proposal CRM.pdf

No. Doc Reference Comment/Question Government Response

In the draft RFP the past experience strength is stated as 5000 person and/OR $2B+ in budget/revenue. In the final RFP, the experience has changed to comparable to 6000 and $9B budget. Does the Government intend to deem experiences that are comparable in personnel size but not budget as not comparable?

We are seeking a contractor with experience in managing organizational change for organizations of our size and complexity. Neither the organization size or budget values are mandatory thresholds however, these values are representative of the size and scale of SMC. They will be used to assess the comparability of the offeror's experience to the subject effort. More comparable experience will be more highly valued in the selection decision.

Because some organizations within the US Government and Industry are equitable in size but not in budget (or vice versa), would the government please provide an explanation of the correlation between the SMC annual budget and the number of personnel?

We are seeking a contractor with experience in managing organizational change for organizations of our size and complexity. Neither the organization size or budget values are mandatory thresholds however, these values are representative of the size and scale of SMC. They will be used to assess the comparability of the offeror's experience to the subject effort. More comparable experience will be more highly valued in the selection decision.

Will the government consider changing the requirement to an organization with 10,000 people and eliminate the $9B budget requirement?

No, we are seeking a contractor with experience in managing organizational change for organizations of our size and complexity. Neither the organization size or budget values are mandatory thresholds however, these values are representative of the size and scale of SMC. They will be used to assess the comparability of the offeror's experience to the subject effort. More comparable experience will be more highly valued in the selection decision.

The changes in the PWS from the draft version to the final version seem to indicate that the government had already made a decision that amounts to pre-qualifying certain large, “big name” commercial consulting companies. Is that the intent of the government?

No. The Government has not 'pre-qualified' any offerors. The Government revised the final RFP to more closely align to the actual size and budget of SMC which will be a major component of the Field Command.

The RFP says that mission and client knowledge is not necessary, but these are critical elements to understand and successfully transform an organization. Will the government consider adding in requirements for mission and client knowledge? Technical knowledge is critical to lasting and meaningful change.

With this solicitation, the Government is seeking contractors with demonstrated expertise in organizational design and transformation and experience advising clients in both government and commercial industry that are comparable in size and complexity to SMC (i.e., approximately 6000 personnel and an annual budget of approximately $9B). While experience with SMC may be useful, the focus is on the organizational design and transformation expertise and mixed government/industry experience. As with SMC 2.0, insight from key stakeholders such as our civilians, military, and contractors will be critical to defining our future organization. Such insight will be part of our transformation process but is not a requirement for this solicitation.

Given the significantly increased emphasis on avoiding conflicts of interest in the final RFP in relation to the draft RFP/PWS, it would seem that USSF would welcome the proposals of not-for-profit organizations that have no conflicts of interest at all. However, given that many not-for-profit organizations cannot meet the 6000 person PLUS $9 billion requirement, the government is precluding offerors without OCI concerns from bidding on this procurement. Will the government consider removing the $9B requirement to encourage competition?

In regards to the OCI requirements, there are no changes from the draft to final RFP. The final RFP includes the SMC OCI Mitigan Plan Checklist which was not included in the draft RFP.

We are seeking a contractor with experience in managing organizational change for organizations of our size and complexity. Neither the organization size or budget values are mandatory thresholds however, these values are representative of the size and scale of SMC. They will be used to assess the comparability of the offeror's experience to the subject effort. More comparable experience will be more highly valued in the selection decision.

Acknowledging the urgency of the task, timeline for FOC, and magnitude and scope of this contract, will the government extend the proposal due date to June 19th?

No

Instructions to Offerors Page 2, Table 1. Volume Contents and Limits

In the table, Volume II, Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Organizational Design Approach, the due date specifies “Due at proposal receipt.”

L-5 Submission Factors, Page 3, Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach indicates, “required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2.”

The Volume Contents and Limits guidance conflicts with the L-5 Submission Factors. Since Factor 1, Subfactor 3 is only required if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2, will USSF please confirm that the written, maximum of four pages, Organizational Design Approach response is not due at proposal receipt but due at the Oral Presentation deadline?

Volume II, Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Organizational Design Approach, is “Due at proposal receipt.”

The following change incorporated in Amendment 1:

52.212-1 (Tailored), L-5, Volume II: Factor 1, Subfactor 3 changed to --- "Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach (evaluated only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2. See 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3)"

Instructions to Offerors Page 2, Table 1. Volume Contents and Limits Factor 1, Sub Factor 3 – Price

In the table, Volume III, Factor 2, Price, the due date specifies “Due at proposal receipt.”

L-5 Submission Factors, Page 3, Volume III: Factor 2, Price indicates, “required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2.”

The Volume Contents and Limits guidance conflicts with the L-5 Submission Factors. Since Factor 2 is only required is Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2, will USSF please confirm that the Volumes III and IV responses are not due at proposal receipt but due at the Oral Presentation deadline?

Volume III, Factor 2, Price, is “Due at proposal receipt.”

The following change incorporated in Amendment 1:

52.212-1 (Tailored), L-5, Volume III: Facor 2, Price changed to --- "Volume III: Factor 2, Price (evaluated only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2. See 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3)"

Industry Day Question & Government Response, No.

The Government Response indicates, “…The Offeror must disclose enough information about its previous experiences for the Government to evaluate their relevance to this effort and their results.”

Will USSF please confirm that it will evaluate Experience examples that do not share the client (company) name?

The Government will evaluate experience examples that do not share the client (company) name however, the Offeror must disclose enough information about its previous experiences for the Government to evaluate their relevance to this effort and their results.

Instructions to Offerors Page 2, Table 1. Volume Contents and Limits Factor 1, Sub Factor 3 – Organizational Design Approach Industry Day Question & Government Response, No.

“maximum of 4 pages”

The PWS contains 5 pages of requirements. To provide the government with a sufficient, differentiated approach to this critical requirement we respectfully request that the government increase the page count to 8 pages. This allows us to respond to each requirements with an approach and be clearly differentiated and compliant in meeting PWS requirements.

The Government considers 4 pages sufficient.

Instructions to Offerors Page 2, Table 1. Volume Contents and Limits, Factor 1, Subfactor 2 - Experience

“maximum of 4 pages” Please clarify if the four pages is per experience write up or is the total for the two references combined. This refers to 4 pages total (2 references combined).

Industry Day Question & Government Response, No. 2, 4, 8, 22

Industry Day Question & Government Response, No 46

“6000 personnel and annual budget of $9B”

“5000 personnel and annual budget of $2B”

Please clarify if the government intends Offerors to provide experience related 6000 personnel and $9B or 5000 personnel and $2B.

As stated in the final RFP, the correct metrics are 6000 personnel and $9B.

PWS Section 4 - Administrative Requirements;

Pg. 4

Security Requirements. The Contractor shall ensure personnel, information, system, property, facility, and international security requirements are met.

We respectfully request that the Government elaborate on this requirement. Please provide full text of applicable Security requirements.

The requirements are DoDI 5200.02, DoDM 5220.22-M, DoDD 5205.02, DoDM 5205.02-M, and AFI 31-101. If additional security requirements become necessary during performance, they will be added via change proposal. The Government does not anticipate any changes at this time.

PWS Section 4 - Administrative Requirements;

Pg. 4/5

The Contractor shall comply with Government Security regulations including, but not limited to, DoDI 5200.02, DoDM 5220.22-M, DoDD 5205.02, DoDM 5205.02-M, and AFI 31-101.

The PWS text indicates “including, but not limited to” the specified security regulation. We respectfully request that the Government provide the full list of all applicable security regulations so we can comply.

The requirements are DoDI 5200.02, DoDM 5220.22-M, DoDD 5205.02, DoDM 5205.02-M, and AFI 31-101. If additional security requirements become necessary during performance, they will be added via change proposal. The Government does not anticipate any changes at this time.

PWS Section 4 - Administrative Requirements;

Pg. 5

The Contractor shall ensure compliance with DoDD 5205.02, DoDM 5205.02- M, and/or other applicable Government security regulations including procedures to protect classified and/or controlled classified Government projects and/or programs.

The PWS text indicates that the Contractor shall comply with “and/or other applicable Government security regulations.” We respectfully request that the Government provide the full list of all applicable security regulations so we can comply.

The requirements are DoDD 5205.02 and DoDM 5205.02-M. If additional security requirements become necessary during performance, they will be added via change proposal. The Government does not anticipate any changes at this time.

Instructions to Offerors, paragraph L-2: Does "Pages shall be numbered consecutively" mean by Volume or across all Volumes? In other words, should each Volume begin with page 1, or pick up where the prior Volume ended?

The Offeror may number pages consecutively within a volume or across all volumes

Instructions to the Offerors, paragraph L-2 and Table 1: This paragraph says that price information can only be included in Volume III, but the table shows Form 1449 to be included in Volume I, and the Form 1449 instructs "Offeror to complete blocks 12, 18, 23, 24, & 30"-blocks 23 and 24 and the SF1449 continuation pages ask for price information. Can you clarify whether we should include pricing information in Form 1449 and the continuation pages and/or whether we should include Form 1449 in Volume III instead of Volume 1?

Only include price information in Volume III

Instructions to Offerors, paragraph L-5, Subfactor 3: This paragraph states the Organizational Design Approach is required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2, however Table 1 states it is due at proposal receipt. Can you confirm when the Organizational Design Approach is due?

Volume II, Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Organizational Design Approach, is “Due at proposal receipt.”

The following change incorporated in Amendment 1:

52.212-1 (Tailored), L-5, Volume II: Factor 1, Subfactor 3 changed to --- "Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach (evaluated only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2. See 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3)"

Instructions to Offerors, paragraph L-5, Volume III, Factor 2, Price: This paragraph states Volume III is required only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2, however Table 1 states it is due at proposal receipt.

Can you clarify when Volume III is due

Volume III, Factor 2, Price, is “Due at proposal receipt.”

The following change incorporated in Amendment 1:

52.212-1 (Tailored), L-5, Volume III: Facor 2, Price changed to --- "Volume III: Factor 2, Price ( evaluated only if Offeror is selected to enter Phase 2. See 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (Tailored), paragraphs M-1, M-2, & M-3)"

Instructions to Offerors, paragraph L-5, Subfactor 3: Will offerors invited to participate in Phase 2 have the option to present in-person to the Government Evaluation Team?

No; to ensure the safety of all parties, the Government will not host any in-person oral presentations.

Paragraph L-6 Other Information: Can you confirm that the OCI checklist is not required to be completed and included in Volume IV if no OCIs are identified in our OCI analysis?

Correct, the SMC OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist is not required if the Offeror does not identify any actual or potential OCIs.

Performance Work Statement, paragraph 1: FOC is specified in November 2020. Has a specific date in the month been established for FOC?

No we are wondering about requesting an extension to submitting our proposal. Do you have any information on a possible extension to the due date?

The Government is not extending the proposal due date.

For the scope of the organizational strategy work stream, are we correct in our understanding that a strategy exists from SMC 2.0 and the main thrust of this effort is to identify areas of misalignment in the new environment vs. build from ground up?

No, although the new overarching structure for the U.S. Space Force’s acquisition field command will have been largely selected and approved, this refers to the organizational strategy for the new USSF Field Command, of which SMC will be a piece.

For the scope of organizational design, are we correct in our understanding that a full org cascade was completed in SMC 2.0, and this is meant to focus efforts on areas where adaptations are now needed given the current environment?

The SMC organization is fully mapped. This effort will focus on standing up the USSF's acquisition Field Command of which SMC will be a piece.

For the talent and workforce workforce initiative, are we correct in our understanding that this is meant to diagnose areas of misalignment and remediation as the result of the current environment?

This effort will focus on standing up a talent management organization for the USSF Acquisition Field Command of which SMC will be piece.

L-2, Table 1, pages 1-2 We respectfully ask USSF to please confirm that all volumes (Volumes I, II, II, and IV) are submitted as separate files.

Volumes may be submitted as a single or separate files.

L-1, page 1 and L-2, Table 1, pages 1-2

To protect the Offeror’s proprietary information in each proposal volume, it is necessary to have a cover page, with proprietary disclosure statement, for each volume, when submitted as separate files.

Please confirm that a cover page for each volume, including the Orals presentation, is permitted.

Yes, a cover page for each volume, including the Orals presentation, is permitted and will not count against the page total.

L-1, page 1 and L-2, Table 1, pages 1-2

To protect the Offeror’s proprietary information in each proposal volume, it is necessary to have a cover page, with proprietary disclosure statement, for each volume, when submitted as separate files.

We respectfully ask USSF to please confirm that a cover page for each volume, including the Orals presentation, is exempt for the page limits for each volume.

Yes, a cover page for each volume, including the Orals presentation, is permitted and will not count against the page total.

PWS, pdf page 1, section 1:

Organization Strategy

Will USSF please clarify which conditions must exist for USSF to be declared at Full Operational Capability (FOC)?

The conditions for FOC will be defined by the government during contract execution.

32 RFP

To what extent has the new acquisition field command overarching structure been socialized and stood-up/staffed?

When the contractor comes on board, the new overarching structure for the U.S. Space Force’s acquisition field command will have been largely selected and approved.

The Field Command will not be stood up.

33 RFP

Approximately what is the size and make-up of the target stakeholder group(s) (i.e., installations) the acquisition field command would be servicing?

Acquisition field command size is TBD. SMC is a significant component of the field command and is approximately 6000 personnel and $9B+ budget.

34 RFP

Can the government confirm the current size of the acquisition field command? What is the target size at

FOC?

Acquisition field command size is TBD. SMC is a significant component of the field command and is approximately 6000 personnel and $9B+ budget.

35 Instructions

If a submission does not include a subcontractor(s) teaming partner, should the offeror include a proposed organizational structure for its own team?

Yes, "proposal submissions under this Subfactor [F1, SF3] shall include a proposed organizational structure..."

36 Instructions

Will the Government allow additional page length in Factor 1, Subfactor 3 - Organizational Design Approach to address our approach to performance in light of the health issues presented by the current pandemic and our proposed organizational structure?

No, the Government considers 4 pages sufficient.

37 Instructions

If selected for Orals, should the offeror only present the technical approach, approach to performance in the midst of the pandemic, and the team organizational structure, or should it also include Experience and Key Personnel?

The Offeror should only present their Organizational Design Approach (F1, SF3). Personnel (F1, SF1) and Experience (F1, SF2) are evaluated in Phase 1 and shall not be re-evaluated in Phase 2.

38 RFP

Has the location(s) for US Space Force FC organization been determined? If so, what are the locations? No, the Government has not publicized the location(s) for the U.S. Space Force Field Command

39 Instructions

Can you please confirm that an OCI Mitigation Plan is not required if the contractor’s OCI analysis leads the contractor to believe there is no OCI concerns (actual or potential)? Can you please provide guidelines as to the level of detail required to be submitted in the proposal in order to “detail the methodology used to identify actual or potential OCI issues”; or define “methodology”?

The SMC OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist is not required if the Offeror does not identify any actual or potential OCIs. The Offeror shall use their judgement in determining the appropriate level for the analysis.

40 Instructions

The offerer is requested to propose two-three month option periods. Will the option periods be evaluated seperately as part of the overall technical response evaluation?

The option periods will be evaluated as part of the overall technical response evaluation.

41 RFP

Can the government elaborate on the current data architecture and management system including number and type of systems such that the contractor can properly scope the effort?

No. The Contractor will partner with the government team to determine how to improve the current data architecture and management system, and then design the targets and metrics that will be used to measure and manage the field command’s performance as an enterprise. During performance, the Government will provide information regarding the technology and Government environment. The Government will be responsible for implementation on Government systems.

42 General

Are offerors permitted to submit a cover letter with each volume? This would be separate from the cover page.

Yes, a cover letter for each volume is permitted and will not count against the page total.

43 General Are the offerors allowed to submit a TOC with each volume? Yes, a TOC for each volume, including the oral presentation, is permitted and will not count against the page total.

44 Factor 1

Are Offerors required to submit Factor 1, Subfactor 3 – Organizational Design Approach (excluding the PowerPoint presentation)? According to the Table on p. 2 of the RFP, it states that the written proposal is due at proposal receipt (4 page limit). However, in Section M-2 Phase 1 (p.5), it states, “The Phase 1 evaluation shall only be inclusive of Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and Factor 1, Subfactor 2.”

Yes. Subfactor 3 written narrative (4 page limit) must be submitted with the initial proposal. However, Subfactor 3 will not be evaluated in Phase 1. Slides will be submitted if the Offeror is invited to participate in Phase 2.

Attachment 1: 52.212-2 Evaluation- Commercial Items (Tailored)

L-5

Volume II: Factor 1 Subfactor 3 states that the “Proposal submissions under this Subfactor shall include a proposed organizational structure and any prime/subcontractor or teaming arrangements.” Can the government confirm that the proposed organizational structure and any prime/subcontract or teaming agreements will only be included in the Oral Presentation Slides?

As part of Subfactor 3, the offeror will provide a written narrative (4 page limit) with the initial proposal. Slides will be submitted if the Offeror is invited to participate in Phase 2. Proposed organizational structure can be included in the written narrative, the slides, or both.

Attachment 4:

PWS

Can the government provide the following information with regard to the metrics dashboard outlined in Sections 2f, 3, and deliverables of the PWS –

•What are the government’s expectations on the technology (e.g., Tableau) that will be used to develop the metrics dashboard?

•Will the metrics dashboard reside in a government environment?

•Will the metrics dashboard be connected or integrated with government systems and networks? If so, does the government intend on providing the team with the necessary network and system access as well as government furnished equipment?

The Contractor will partner with the government team to determine how to improve the current data architecture and management system, and then design the targets and metrics that will be used to measure and manage the field command’s performance as an enterprise. During performance, the Government will provide information regarding the technology and Government environment. The Government will be responsible for implementation on Government systems.

Attachment 4:

PWS

In development of the metrics dashboard, does the government team include a technical developer with the proper access to government networks and systems or will the government rely solely on the offeror for this development?

The Contractor will partner with the government team to determine how to improve the current data architecture and management system, and then design the targets and metrics that will be used to measure and manage the field command’s performance as an enterprise. During performance, the Government will provide information regarding the technology and Government environment. The Government will be responsible for implementation on Government systems.