SAOSS_CRM_from_Draft_RFP_with_responses.pdf

ITEM # PAGE LINE COMMENT RATIONALE DECISION (A/R/M)

1 PWS

Para 2.4

N/A The PWS states the contractor shall submit a transition plan. There is no indication when that plan is due. With the proposals? X days after contract award? If with the proposal, how will it be evaluated? There is no mention of this plan in either Sections L or M. Please clarify the transition plan delivery requirement.

Clarity of Government requirement. The transition plan is not due with the proposal, but is a requirement during the performance of the contract. This plan will be used if future option years are not exercised.

2 PWS

page 7, para 2.4 and CDRLs A001- A003

PWS

page 7, para 2.4/

CDRL

A003- Status Report : Blk I, The following requirement for contract transition indicates the Government has no real interest in entertaining someone other than the incumbent:

“Provide transition plan delivered six months afterward, and updated annually”.

The transition plan should allow for the incoming contractor to transition people, roles, and responsibilities between each other starting Day-1 and with reasonable amount of time to reduce risk (usually 30 days) and re-hire key incumbent personnel.

Only the incumbent can meet this requirement. As written, assume no transition plan is required on Day-1 because the incumbent will be in place to deliver the transition plan six months later.

The Government has considered the concept of including a transition plan technical subfactor but assessed that this would not be an effective discriminator.

Although a transition plan is mentioned in the PWS, this is not a requirement of the RFP but a requirement for the successful performance of the contract. A transition plan is not requested, and will not be evaluated, in selecting a successful offeror.

3 PWS

Para 1.2.2, line 6

PWS Page 4 refers to “Special Compartmentalized Information”. This should state “Sensitive Compartmented Information”. Can the Government please update the PWS accordingly?

Correct Terminology Changed Special Compartmentalized Information”. to “Sensitive Compartmented Information” in PWS.

4 PWS

Att

VII

The table and instructions provided on PWS Page 76 are designed for an FFP type contract. Furthermore, these tables are provided in the PWS (not in section L) and therefore would not be included in Offeror’s proposals. Will the Government please confirm these tables are to be populated and negotiated post award?

Base and Option CLIN pricing for labor is all cost plus fixed fee.

Changing attachment VII would be consistent with the remainder of the contract.

The instructions on PWS Page 76 have been revised to include a new SAOSS Pricing Template attached to the model contract. The instructions to fill out the Pricing Template can also be found in Section L Para 7.4 The Pricing Template will utilize the following cost elements: Total Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Performance Incentive Fee.

5 PWS

Att

VII

The table and instructions provided on PWS Page 76 are designed for an FFP type contract. With the anticipation of a Cost Plus arrangement we have two questions:

1. Will the Government please consider removing the FBLR rate table?

2. Will the Government please clarify how fee will be determined for additional scope, FTE, or surge? Will these future efforts be included entirely in base fee or will there be a split?

3. If the Government intends to split the fee, how will the split be determined?

Clarification The instructions on PWS Page 76 have been revised to include a new SAOSS Pricing Template attached to the model contract. The instructions to fill out the Pricing Template can also be found in Section L Para 7.4 The Pricing Template will utilize the following cost elements: Total Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Performance Incentive Fee.

6 PWS,

and

3.1.4 and 6.1

PWS, paragraph 3.1.4, Line 10 states that vacancies shall be filled within 15 business days. However, paragraph 6.1, number 5 – Timely Hiring, states that the contractor has 30 calendar days to fill if a position is vacated.

Please clarify theses expectations of contract execution.

30 Days is the correct requirement. Note that this is a timeline for the contractor to submit a “clearable” person;

Government processing timelines for SAP access will not count against the contractor timeline.

7 PWS

Att IV Throug hout all position s

There are references to the Personnel Access Security System (PASS) identified in some of the Duty Descriptions. Please validate that system is still being used.

Clarity of requirements Updated to reflect JADE as the correct database for SAP information.

8 PWS,

page

74, Att

VI –

“Critica l”

Positio n

Assign ments

One of the position numbers is blank within Attachment VI. Please confirm whether position #1102 is a critical position.

Staffing accuracy Removed position 1102.

9 28 of

PWS

IV.4 Please confirm on which date the Activity Security Representative I position is scheduled to start on contract. This position does not appear to be listed on Attachment L1, Attachment L2, or Attachment L3 staffing matrix (Key Personnel, Day 1 or Day 30)

Offeror would like to ensure we are pricing our proposal correctly and that it is mapped correctly to all areas of the requirement.

There are currently no ASR I positions needed, but they will likely be required as part of future Contract modifications. The Government requests pricing data to meet anticipated future needs.

10 SAOSS

PWS

Draft (page 71 of 80)

P508 There seems to be inconsistencies between PO5

PSN 508.

In the Staffing Matrix the Government requires Cybersecurity Systems Security Engineer II (Para IV.10) however, in the PWS requirement (page 71 of 80) PSN 508 is listed as Cybersecurity System Security Engineer I not, II as stated in the staffing matrix (Day 1).

Clarification Updated personnel in PWS Attachment V, now matched Attachment L2 and L3.

11 SAOSS

PWS

11 of

Att L1

Att L2

Att L3

6.1.1(1 ) and 6.1.1(2

Attachment L1Key Personnel Staffing Matrix should be enhanced by adding additional personnel at varied locations to allow for elimination of the requirement for both Attachment L2 SAOSS Day 1 Staffing Matrix and Attachment L3 SAOSS Day 30 Staffing Matrix.

If Attachment L1 is enhanced (see above) eliminate Attachments L2 and L3.

If Attachment L1 is enhanced (see above), add the requirement for a “staffing approach/staffing plan” section to Section L-Instructions to Offerors, Table 3 (Vol II Organization), Factor II (Technical) and to Section M-Evaluation Criteria, 5. (Vol II, Technical Factor).

The requirement to provide in the proposal the name (as well as provide the SSNs, experience, training, certifications, educations, etc.) of every individual who will perform on the contract within 30 days of award (Attachments L1, L2, and L3) severely hampers one of the most value-adding aspects of any non-incumbent’s offer;

i.e., the capability to hire those high-performing individuals currently assigned to the incumbent contract. It is likely that high-performing individuals on the incumbent contract will be unable/unwilling to share their resumes with any other offerors until after award. If the evaluation criteria that call for Attachments L2 and L3 remain in place, the incumbent contractor is being offered an unfair advantage.

The requirement to name (as well as provide the SSNs, experience, training, certifications, educations, etc.) of every

The Government has considered the concept of including a staffing approach/staffing plan but assessed that this would not be an effective discriminator.

The Governments requirement is well established with the number of personnel required for each location. Attachments L1-L3 show the known requirement today.

The attachments are for bidding purposes only and do not become a part of the resultant contract. A staffing approach/staffing plan is not requested, and will not be evaluated, individual who will perform on the contract within 30 days of award (Attachments L1, L2, and L3) would appear to be an effort to reduce start-up/transition risk. However, it introduces risks to both cost and quality of performance as the incumbent contractor is given an unfair advantage while potential offerors—who may represent both cost savings and superior performance—are discouraged from submitting a proposal.

An approach that may add greater value to the Government on the resulting contract would be to:

1) Enhance the number of positions designated as key in Attachment L1 and thereby garner both the names and resumes of those personnel who would fill those positions deemed most critical for successful Day One job performance.

2) Instead of requiring Attachments L2 and L3, Require a staffing approach/plan in the Technical Volume. This approach/plan, along with the past performance citations documenting the offeror’s ability to hire/retain staff for recent/relevant contracts, will satisfy the Government’s need for risk in selecting a successful offeror.

mitigation while, simultaneously, allowing for greater value as it relates to cost savings and performance quality. Additionally, this will almost certainly increase the number of submissions the Government receives in response to its RFP—especially from small business firms such as ours.

12 Sec L Multipl e

N/A Many of the tables do not have numbers, titles, etc., and hence aren’t referenced that way in the text of the document. Recommend giving each table a number and title, then referencing them as such throughout the document.

More smooth document flow; easier to understand what text refers to what tables.

Tables are now numbered

13 Sec L Para

4.8.7.2 Sec M Para 5.1.4

N/A Section L states a small business subcontracting goal of at least 8% of total proposed cost. Section M states the 8% is a “minimum quantitative requirement”. Recommend aligning the Section L verbiage to match the Section M verbiage.

Clarity of Government requirement. We assume the Section M language is the correct verbiage (requirement vs. goal).

L and M should be consistent.

Section L and M will be changed to match “requirement of at least 8% of total proposed cost”.

14 Sec L

Para 6.2.4

Sec M Para

6.2.1.2

N/A It is unclear how the submittal of information on “Important Personnel” will impact the Government’s scoring of the Past Performance Factor. One “Important Peronnel” would not seem to be able to realistically count as the “offeror” in terms of offeror past performance. Recommend removal of the submittal of information on Important Personnel.

Unless the Government can clearly demonstrate how the Important Personnel information will be used in the scoring, the Government runs the risk of having unclear rankings of Past Performacne. This is especially true since the Past Performance factor is significantly more important than the Technical factor.

Information of “Important” Past Performance Personnel is not required, but is for offerors/business associates who either have no prior recent and relevant contracts or do not possess recent and relevant coporate past performance or may lack past perfromance for a certain area.

If an offeror only has "important personnel" for some critical/functional experience - those important personnel would be evaluated for the org's past performance and a grade assigned accordingly.

15 Sec L Page 18-19 CLINs

N/A No mention of SMC/AD at Kirtland AFB, NM is mentioned. Is this accurate? Just confirming.

SMC/AD is “headquartered” at Kirtland and we just want to make sure we understand whether or not there are requirements there.

There are currently no requirements at SMC/AD Kirtland, AFB, however there is a requirement for SMC/AD at LAAFB

16 Sec L Page 18-19 CLINs

N/A Would the Government please clarify why CLINS 0009/0010, 1009/1010, etc. are both for SMC/LE at LAAFB, CA? This is the only Directorate listed twice like this.

Clarity of Government requirement. It appears from the PWS that the XX10 series should be assigned to SMC Staff vice SMC/LE.

Updated CLINs for correct office symbols

17 Sec L

SOC

Table

N/A Several of the “not bid below” percentiles are very low. For markets such as Los Angeles, it would be problematic to find the right people at this low a percentile. Recommend each percentile be at least 25% and consider going to 50%

We don’t recommend the Government “aim low” when it comes to salaries for skilled security personnel.

BLS rates and SOC Codes have been identified to provide the Offeror with the minimum rates for the purpose of meeting a realistic cost in the development of the cost proposal.

The government understands that locality and security clearnces will effect rates, the BLS rates and SOC codes are provided to establish only a minimum rate to assist in the development of a realistic cost proposal.

18 Sec L-

Paragr aph 2.11

Will the proposal due date remain – “no later than 3:00 PM (Pacific Time) 22 December 2017?’ If not, will the Government please provide a revised proposal due date?

Proposals shall be received by the PCO no later than 3:00 PM (Pacific Time), 22 December 2017.

Proposal due date will be revised to permit offerors 30 days from RFP release to submission.

19 Sec L-

Paragr aph 4.0

Regarding “established security process performance metrics,” are there specific and documented metrics that are to be used?

DoD RMF and NIST provide the standard, however there may be specific additional measures defined for a specific project.

DoD RMF and NIST provide the standard for cyber security, but not all security processes as they relate to acquision programs. As stated in PWS para 4.0, metrics include “(e.g., reduction in adjudication timelines, reduction in accreditation timelines, reduction in cost/schedule for acquisition programs, etc.)” The Government seeks security cost and schedule improvements that will assist our acquisition programs and operations.

20 Sec L and 7

L.3.2.

4, L.4.1

Section L.3.2.4 states cost information can only be submitted in the Cost Volume, however, Volume I requires Attachment A, Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 which all require salary information.

Will the Government please update the Final RFP with the correct location for these documents or allow for sanitized versions to be submitted?

Cost information in non-cost volumes. Deleted, “Cost information shall not be included in any other volume.” from L.3.2.4.

21 Sec L and 10

L.3.2.

4, L.5.1

Section L.3.2.4 states cost information can only be submitted in the Cost Volume, however, Volume II requires Attachments L1, L2, and L3 which require salary information. Will the Government please clarify the correct location for these documents or allow for sanitized versions to be submitted?

Cost information in non-cost volumes. Removed salary information from L1, L2, L3.

22 Sec L

L.4.7, L.3.2

Section L.4.7, page 8 states the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) shall be no more than 10 pages. Table 1 in Section L.3.2 states that Volume I carries no page limit. Will the Government please remove the 10 page limit and allow Offerors to submit their complete PECP as an attachment to Volume I with no page limit?

Allow Offerors to submit their Company’s full Professional Employee Compensation Plan with no page restrictions. This document is a company mandated compliance document and cutting and pasting from this document puts both the Government and Offeror at risk.

Moved Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) to Vol I with no page limit.

23 Sec L Page 7, 10, 12

Table 2, Table 3, and Table

Section L Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 require an Executive Summary, however there are no Executive Summary requirements in Section L.

Will the Government please provide requirements and page limitations for this document?

Requested documents do not have instructions for submission.

Add Executive Summary requirement in section L.

Added, “The Executive Summary should concisely address the Offeror’s solution and its approach to meeting the Government’s requirements as it pertains to the Vol. The

Offeror should highlight any key or unique features or capabilities that tie into the performance of factors and sub-factors.

Any material presented in the Executive Summary will not be evaluated by the Government for purpose of award.”

24 Sec L Page 5, 13, 14

L.3.2, L.6.2.

2, L.6.2.

Section L.3.2, page 5 of 40, Table 1 Proposal Organization. Volume III does not state a page limit. However, L.6.2.6 states each FACTS sheet be no more than 6 pages. L.6.2.2 states “A summary page shall be provided…” Will the Government please update Table 1 Proposal Organization to show Volume III with a 25 page limit which will include the FACTS maximum page requirement and the summary page and include L7, L8, L9 and L10 as non-page constrained attachments?

Provide clarity in Section L requirements.

Updated Table 1, “One page summary plus four (4) FACTS sheets. FACTS sheet shall be no more than 6 pages each.”

25 Sec L

L.7.2.

Section L.7.2.1 page 19.

Will the Government please provide clarification and rationale behind the requirement for the Time- Phased, Person-Loading Graph? How is this graph to be evaluated? If there is no evaluation criteria we recommend removal of this requirement.

If the Time-Phased, Person-Loading Graph is required will the Government please clarify whether the Time-Phased, Person-Loading Graph is required for only the Base Year or Base Year and all Option Years of the contract?

Provide clarity in Section L requirements.

Deleted requirement for Time-Phased, Person-Loading Graph.

26 Sec L Page 5, L.3.2, L.7.0

Section L.3.2 Table 1 Proposal Organization lists the Cost volume as Volume IV, however, L.7.0 shows Cost as Volume V. Will the Government please update L.7.0 to reflect the correct volume number?

Administrative correction. Corrected to Volume

IV

27 Sec L

L.3.2.

Section L.3.2.2 provides font size requirements but not a font type requirement. Will the Government please include a Times New Roman font requirement in section L.3.2.2?

Provide clarity in Section L requirements.

Add Times New Roman font requirement in section L.3.2.2

28 Sec L Page 5-

L.3.2.

Section L.3.2.2 does not specify font type or size for tables and graphics. Can the Government please add to Section L.3.2.2 that tables and graphics allow for 10pt Times New Roman font?

Provide clarity in Section L requirements.

Add Times New Roman font requirement in section L.3.2.2 and font no smaller than 8 point font.

29 Sec L Page 6, Sec L.3.2.

4, L.5.2.

Section L.3.2.4 states cost information can only be submitted in the Cost Volume, however, Section L.5.2.4 requires a Small Business Participation Commitment Document, which includes dollar information, to be provided in Volume II Technical. Will the Government please clarify the correct location for this document or allow for sanitized version to be submitted?

Cost information in non-cost volumes. Removed statement that cost information can only be submitted in the Cost Volume in Section L 3.2.4. The information required to be identified within the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) is not considered “cost information”.

The SBPCD is a standalone document and requires the dollar information as it will be an enforceable component of the contractual documentation.

30 Sec L

L.4.7 Reference is made to Section L, page 8 of 40, L.4.7, Professional Employee Compensation FAR 52.222-46 and Section I, page 156, FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Act of 1965 and page 157, FAR 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave under Executive Order 13706.

Since there are no Service Contract Act (SCA) type employees anticipated on the contract nor identified in the Draft RFP, the incorporation of FAR 52.222- 41 and FAR 52.222-62 seems to conflict with FAR 52.222-46 in that FAR 52.222-46 is compensation for professional employees while 52.222-41 and 52.222-62 are wages, H&W and Paid Sick Leave

Section L clarification. Far 22.1003-3 Statutory exemptions do not apply and the SCA is applicable.

for service type employees. Please delete the requirement at 52.222-41 (as well as 52.222-43) and 52.222-62. If not, please identify which position(s) are subject to 52.222-41 and 52.222-62.

31 Sec L

L.3.2.

Section L.3.2.6 specifies the file types allowed for electronic submissions which does not include PDF Acrobat documents.

Section L.7.1.3 lists the allowable electronic formats and includes PDF Acrobat files. Will the Government please update L.3.2.6 to allow PDF Acrobat as an acceptable format for electronic submission?

Files types for electronic submission. Certain documents will be required to be submitted in Word and excel and PDF version are not appropriate.

Revised L.7.1.3 to remove PDF allowability

32 Sec L and

L.3.2.

4 and L.4.6

Section L.3.2.4 states cost information can only be submitted in the Cost Volume, however, Section L.4.6 Services and Cost is a requirement in Volume I. Will the Government please move Section L.4.6 Services and Cost to Volume IV COST?

Added “Model Contract” to Vol I requirements in Table 2.

Deleted, “Cost information shall not be included in any other volume.” from L.3.2.4.

33 Sect L 35-36

Sec L.7.6.

Section L.7.6.3 provides Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Rates and SOC’s for offerors without an established FPRA/FPRR. Furthermore, “…Offeror’s are not to bid rates lower than the nationwide rate with the associated percentile for the base year.”

Would the government please remove the language “the offeror shall use the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Rates and SOC’s identified in the table below”.

Section L.7.6.3 has been identified to provide the Offeror with the minimum rates for the purpose of meeting a realistic cost in the development of the cost proposal.

Updated the language to state: “offeror shall refer to the BLS Rates and SOC’s”

34 Sec L 35-36

Sec L.7.6.

Section L.7.6.3 provides Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Rates and SOC’s for offerors without an established FPRA/FPRR. Furthermore, “…Offeror’s are not to bid rates lower than the nationwide rate with the associated percentile for the base year.”

The BLS Rates and SOC codes provided in the RFP are based on data collected on a nationwide basis, the percentages provided do not align appropriately with the place of performance on this contract nor do BLS Rates take into account the TS/SCI clearances required to perform on this contract.

Would the Government consider mandating a premium percentage to be applied to the BLS rates/benchmarks provided?

Section L.7.6.3 has been identified to provide the Offeror with the minimum rates for the purpose of meeting a realistic cost in the development of the cost proposal.

The government understands that locality and security clearnces will effect rates, the BLS rates and SOC codes are provided to establish only a minimum rate to assist in the development of a realistic cost proposal.

35 Sec L and 35, Attach ments L2 and

L3

Sec L.7.1 and L.7.5.

Section L.7.1 states “Pricing shall follow the skill mix as described in Attachment V of the PWS”

Attachment L2 and L3 dictate Labor Categories and FTE amounts for staffing on Day 1 to Day 30.

Section L.7.5.1 requires offerors to provide supporting data and rationale to substantiate proposed labor hour estimates

Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to derive and propose hours for staffing, after day 30, in accordance with the Labor Categories and Skill Mix as provided in Attachment V?

Yes, propose hours for staffing as requested in the instructions.

Attachments L2 and L3 are the minimum Government requirements.

36 Sec L

Sec L.3.2.

Section L.3.2.1 – Page Limitations. Can the Government please clarify whether or not the List of Tables (required in the organization of Volume I [L.4.1]; Volume II [L.5.1]; and Volume III [L.6.1]) is counted against prescribed page limits?

Clarification. Table of contents and lists of tables do not count against the page limit. However, actual tables will count toward page limit.

37 Sec L

Sec L.7.1.

Cost/Price Volume Organization. Can the Government please confirm that Volume IV is the only volume not required to include a List of Tables as part of its front matter?

Clarification. Cost Price Volume will not require a “List of Tables”

38 Sec L

Sec L.6.2.

Factor 1 – Past Performance. This paragraph references RFP Attachment L6 as the FACTS Sheet; however, the correct attachment is Attachment L7. Can the Government please update the reference to the correct attachment number?

Administrative correction. Verify/Correct

39 Sec L

Sec L.6.2.

Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form.

Para references RFP Attachment L6 as the FACTS Sheets; however, the correct attachment is Attachment L7. Can the Government please update the reference to the correct attachment number?

Administrative correction. Section L has been updated to reference the correct Attachment.

40 Sec L

Sec L.4.1

Volume I Organization (Table 2) and L.4.8.6 – Attachment 5. Can the Government please update the Attachment 5 title in Table 2 (Small Business Commitment Document) to reflect the title provided in Section L.4.8.6 (Small Business Participation Commitment)

Administrative correction. References to the Small Business Particpation Commitment Document have been updated in section L amd Attachment 5 accordingly.

41 Sec L,

3.2.6 The instructions in this paragraph to “Use separate

files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any” implies that the volumes are to be broken up into multiple parts (separate files) when saved to CD or DVD.

Is it the Government’s intent that each volume be broken down into multiple separate documents when delivered in electronic form?

Deleted sentence, “Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any.”

42 Sec L,

4.8.7.1 This paragraph requires the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan to be delivered with Volume I as Attachment 3. It is also implied in Paragraph 5.14.1, on page 12 of Sec L that this plan must also be submitted with Volume II as Subfactor 4.

Is it the Government’s intent that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be submitted in its entirety in both Volumes I and II?

Removed from Vol I.

Small Business Participation Plan (if applicable) should be included in Vol II only.

43 Sec L,

4.8.7.3 The 2012 NAICS Coding Manual has been

replaced by a 2017 version:

https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAIC S/2017_NAICS_Manual.pdf

Will the Government clarify which version must be utilized?

Updated to 2017

44 Sec L, 5.1, Table

The organization of Table 3 seems to direct that the elements of Volume II must follow in the presented order. However, in the supporting text to the Subfactors it is implied that the appropriate attachments flow in the order of the Subfactors.

Is it the Government’s intent that staffing matrices, resumes, etc. are presented within the Subfactor area they pertain to, or all at the end of the volume as attachments?

Staffing Matricies and resumes shall be attachments to the main Vol.

45 Sec L, 6.1, Table

Table 4 implies that the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and transmittal letters must be included as attachments when submitting Volume III.

Given that instructions clearly disallow offerors from possessing the completed PPQs is it the Government’s intent that the filled in transmittal letters and partially filled in PPQs are attached to volume 3?

Yes. The Government requests that offerors provide the necessary contact information for the past performance contracts they wish to have evaluated.

46 Sec L,

6.2.5 This paragraph requires that subcontractor/teaming

member consent letters be included as attachments to volume III. “The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) and/or critical subcontractors identified in your proposal.”

Are the subcontractor consent letters only required when a subcontractor contributes a FACTS sheet to the proposal, or are the letters required for all subcontractors identified in the proposal?

Subcontractor consent letters are required when submitting a “critical” subcontractor to be evaluated as part of the Offeror’s past performance.

47 L, Pg.

14,

6.2.5 This paragraph refers to the Subcontractor/Teaming

Member Consent Form. The Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form is not attached to the DRFP.

Will the Government provide the subcontractor/teaming member consent form?

Contractor format is acceptable.

48 Sec L, Attach ments, and

6.2.5 Not all of the Section L Attachment numbers and

titles match the section narratives.

Will the government review and confirm that the Attachment numbers and titles are correct?

Corrected.

49 Sec L Pg. 16 and Sec M, Pg.

7,

7.0 and 7.1.

Section L refers to the Cost Volume as Volume V. Section M refers to the Cost Volume as Vol IV.

Will the government confirm whether the Cost Volume is number IV or V?

Corrected, Cost Volme is number IV.

50 L, Pg.

7.1.1 This paragraph references Attachment CP1, CP2

and CP3 to Volume V. These documents were not provided within the Draft RFP. Question: Will the Government provide these reference attachments (CP1, CP2 and CP3) prior to the Final RFP’s release for contractor review?

CP1, CP2, and CP3 are to be developed by the Offeror as part of Volume IV.

51 Sec L, pages 5-6

3.2.2 This paragraph requires that font size must not be

less than 12 point.

Will the Government allow less than 12-point font to be used in tables/graphics?

Changed to no smaller than 8 point Font for Tables and graphics.

52 Sec L,

3.2.6 “Indicate on each CD or DVD the volume number and the title.” This seems to imply that more than one CD or DVD is required.

Will the Government allow a single CD or DVD to be submitted provided all the required files fit?

Yes

53 Sec L,

4.0 In reference to the signed copy of the model

contract, “The original copy shall be clearly marked and provided under separate cover.”

Is it acceptable to provide the signed copy of the model contract within the “original” version binder including all of volume I?

Yes

Sec L, 5.1, Table

This Table, outlining Volume II – Technical has a reference to Factor 1 – Past Performance.

Is it the Government’s intent that volume II includes a reference to the Past Performance volume?

Removed Past Performance Factor I and renumbered.

55 Sec L,

6.2.2 This paragraph refers to a “summary page” while

Table 4 (paragraph 6.1 on page 12) refers to an “Executive Summary.”

Are the summary page and the executive summary the same thing, and is there a page count limit?

The one page summary requested should outline the information in para 6.2.2. This is not the same as the executive summary.

56 Sec L,

7.1.1 There are two section 4’s identified. Will the Government clarify that the second section 4 should read section 5?

Corrected, added section 5.

57 Sec L,

7.1.3 The separate electronic file submission instructions

(as distinguished from the instructions on page 6, paragraph 3.2.6) imply that a separate CD or DVD is required for the electronic copy of Volume IV.

Additionally, these instructions allow submission of PDF files while paragraph 3.2.6 requires only native file formats.

Will the Government clarify the definitive instruction set for submitting electronic files?

The Offeror can place all required documents on a single CD/DVD, size permitting. Certain documents will be required to be submitted in Word and excel and PDF version are not appropriate.

58 Sec L, of 40

Par 1.2.2

The use of the term “clearable” is assumed to mean person meets all security clearance requirements and is available to submit Nomination Package on Day 1.

Since non-incumbent personnel can not control the time required to receive approval of the SAP authorization, please confirm and/or clarify that clearable means the person is ready to submit nomination package on Day 1.

IAW DoDM 5205.07, we are defining “clearable” as an individual who: 1) Possesses a current, in-scope, TS background investigation (or open re-investigation) with SCI eligibility; 2) Submits a current (within the past 12 months) SAP Pre- Screening questionnaire and accompanying SAP templates (including evidence of Program Security Officer adjudication) for any “Y” answers; 3) Is willing to submit to a CI polygraph if the Government so requests. and has been added to the definitions in sections L &M Paragraph 1.0

59 Sec L, of 40

Par 2.10

Paragraph states the proposal will be due NLT 22 December, 2017

Please clarify if this date has changed due to delays in Final RFP release.

Date will be revised to allow ~30 days from formal RFP release

60 Sec L.,page 14 of

Par 6.2.5

The Reference to the FACTS Sheet in the first sentence has the wrong RFP Attachment number.

Further in that same paragraph it makes reference to a sample subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form. The attachment number is incorrect and there was no Sample Letter

Correctness Corrected for final

RFP.

61 Sec L., Pages 20-33 of 40

Par 7.3.1 Cost/P rice Summ aries table

Some of the CLIN items are not scoped in the PWS, i.e., CLIN 0008 and 0009, which are indicated as “Reserved”. Please clarify that completion of these items is required. If required, please provide the appropriate PoP and PWS reference.

Correctness “Reserved” CLINs are included for anticipated future work and for the purpose of structuring the contract to support additional Program Directorates or Units.

Offerors need not complete any data for these CLINs as part of their proposal, but successful Offerors should plan that they will eventually need to support the organizations identified.

62 Sec L

Rent Rental rates are listed through 3/31/2028 but the PoP for this CLIN is 16 Nov 2028. What rental rate is to be used when pricing beyond 3/31/2028?

Correctness An additional line for 04/01/2028-03/31/2029 has been included for proposal preparation purposes.

63 Sec L., 7.3.1

Offeror ’s Total Propose d Price

(TPP),

Table pages

20 – 33

For those CLINs that state “Reserved for Future Use”, i.e., CLIN 003, 0020, etc. is the Offeror required to fill proposed costs in these CLINs?

Clarification “Reserved” CLINs are included for anticipated future work and for the purpose of structuring the contract to support additional Program Directorates or Units.

Offerors need not complete any data for these CLINs as part of their proposal, but successful Offerors should plan that they will eventually need to support the organizations identified using pricing information for co-located (e.g. El Segundo, Lompoc, Colorado Springs) organizations or units.

64 Sec L, 7.3.1

Offeror ’s Total Propose d Price, Table pages 20-33.

The CLINs “Reserved for Future Use” within the TPP does not correlate with the “Reserved” CLINs within the PWS Attachment V. Please clarify which CLINs are actually “Reserved”.

Clarification Corrected for final

RFP.

65 Sec_L

_15_No v_2017

- Sec 7.2.1

To ensure we are in compliance, will the Government provide a template or format for the time-phased resourced loaded Graph?

Clarification Deleted requirement for Time-Phased, Person-Loading Graph.

66 Sec_L_

_15_No v_2017

- Sec 7.3.1

Will the Government clarify the current objective performance pool incentive, wherein Fee is capped at 5%. Furthermore, will the Government please clarify the CLINS to which these incentives are applicable?

Clarification Performance Pool incentive is detailed in the OPIP attachment.

Incentive fee NTE 5% is in addition to a 3% “base” fee, for a total fee NTE 8%.

Contractor can bid lower fee. Incentives apply to all Labor CLINs. Incentives do not apply to Travel/ODC CLINs.

67 Sec_L_

_15_No v_2017

- Sec 7.6.3

Should the offeror not hold FPRA's or FPRR's, are offeror's allowed to provide forecasted/budgetary detailed data to support the proposed indirect rates?

Clarification Yes, offerors are encouraged to provide data to support the government evaluation for any cost element if they do not possess an

FPRA/FPRR

68 Sec L of 40

L.5.2.

2.2

Reference: Requiring the submittal of the attachment L4, Personnel Security Pre-Screening Questionnaire.

The data in a completed PSQ is protected in accordance with DoD 5205.07-V2, SAP Manual:

Personnel Security, section 1.h (quoted below) and DoD 5400.11, DoD Privacy Program. Including this information in the RFP allows access by individuals (both in industry and the government)

PII Protection All doucments must be submitted in accordance with section L of the RFP.

All information will be safeguarded IAW with FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

whose duties DO NOT require access to the information.

Will the Government allow PSQs to be delivered separately from the RFP directly to the Government Security office?

69 Sec L Subfacto r 4 - Samll

Business Participa tion Sec

5.2.4.1

Please confirm that the Government requires all offerors, both large and small to provide Small Business Participation Commitment Document?

Clarification Yes. The Government requires a Small Business Participation Commitment Document from all offerors.

70 Sec L Volume III - Past Perform ance

6.2.2 Past Perfor mance format

In section 6.2.2 Past Performance Format, the Government requires "Each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate FACTS Sheet for four (4) active or completed contract(s)" further down the requirement, the Government further stipulates that "Business associates shall account for no more than two (2) of the FACTS sheets and each offeror shall only submit a maximum of four (4) FACTS sheets."

Questions: Will the Government confirm that the total Fact Sheets to be submitted is 4 (four) and business associates accounts for no more than 2 (two)?

Clarification Correct. Four (4) FACTS sheets in total, no more than two (2) of which can be for business associates.

71 Sec L Volume III - Past Perform ance

6.2.2 Past Perfor mance format

Please clarify that the Government is classifying "Business Associates and Critical Subcontractors" as the same?

Clarification

Is a critical subcontractor a subcategory of a business assosiate

“Business associates” would include any subcontractor.

“Critical Subcontractors” are defined in the past performance volume as those subcontractors performing > 20% of the total effort.

72 Sec L 5.1 Organiz ation

Attach ments

The government requires that we provide the Staffing matrices as part of Factor II – Technical as Subfactor’s 1 through Subfactor 3. However, in the Attachment’s area, the matrices are called out as L1- L3 which takes it off the page count (20) requirement.

Question: Will the Government please confirm what type of deliverable the Government requires for Factor II if the staffing matrices are provided at the end of the proposal volume?

Clarification The Offeror should provide their approach and how they plan to perform security services in keeping with the requirements of the PWS.

73 Sec L Table 3

Volume

II

Organiz ation of 40

Will the Government please confirm that it wants to have a copy of Volume III (Past Performance) to Volume II Technical as Factor I?

Clarification Removed Past Performance Factor I and renumbered.

74 Sec M, Pg 2, para 5.1.1 and Att L2 (Day staffing)

As written, the evaluation criteria provides barriers to competition and clearly favors the incumbent in the areas of staffing. Other than the incumbent, Day- 1 staffing for 33 FTEs is not realistic.

At SAOSS industry day, the Government team noted key personnel on Day-1 would consist of the contract PM and no more than 5 FTEs to lay down the foundation and work a transition with the incumbent if needed.

Only the incumbent can meet this requirement.

Recommendation: Day-1 staffing should be reasonable

1 FTE: PM

4 FTE: Key personnel

All other personnel should be phased in during transition over a 30-day period.

The Government has a need to continue critical functions upon contract award. The 33 FTEs needed on day one as this effort supports multiple program offices at multiple geographically separated locations.

This requirement can be met by any offeror who proposes to provide “clearable” (See definition in comment #58) personnel to the government for in processing. The time it takes the Government to process clearances will not be counted against an offeror.

75 Sec M, Pg 2-3, para 5.1.3 and Att L3 (Day staffing)

Day 30 staffing should allow contractor to fill/on-board the remaining positions aside from the Day-1 key personnel. This should be part of the transition plan.

This should align with prior comment regarding Day-1 staffing in order to make this a fair and competitive solicitation and ensure the Government gets the best value for their money.

The Government has considered the concept of including a transition plan technical subfactor but assessed that this would not be an effective discriminator.

Although a transition plan is mentioned in the PWS, this is not a requirement of the RFP but a requirement for the successful performance of the contract. A transition plan is not requested, and will not be evaluated, in selecting a successful offeror.

76 Sec M

M.4.1 Section M.4.1 states the Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. A Professional Employee Compensation Plan does not provide a management approach to support this type of evaluation.

Will the Government please consider including a 20 page Management Approach section to be included in Volume I and update evaluation criteria to include:

Evaluates an offeror’s management strategies, processes, ability to manage personnel in SAP positions, and their ability to understand specific work environments and to recruit and retain personnel necessary to meet PWS requirements.

The offeror’s proposal must achieve an “acceptable” rating in each of the following areas:

SAP Personnel Management Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s management approach clearly and logically demonstrates an understanding of global SAP personnel management, SAP-specific personnel security requirements, and position disciplines described in the PWS. This understanding must correlate with PWS requirements.

Recruitment

Identifies evaluation criteria that does not currently have a Section L requirement.

IAW FAR 52.22-46.

As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.

As such, an additional separate requirement to submit a “Management Approach” will not be required.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates effective strategies and concepts necessary to ensure adequate recruitment of personnel to fill vacated SAP positions or newly identified SAP positions with cleared, qualified personnel. These strategies and concepts shall provide for initial staffing and complete staffing, in accordance with Attachments L1, L2, and L3.

Timely Hiring and Retention Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror describes an effective and comprehensive plan for timely hiring of SAP personnel. This plan shall also include the entire hiring cycle, to include realistic times necessary for security clearances and placement that will meet PWS requirements in PWS 6.1.1. Describes an executable approach that demonstrates an ability to meet retention requirements as defined in PWS 6.1.1 (4), critical position turnover rate, and 6.1.1 (6), overall position turnover rate.

Staffing Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates they can provide the quantity, quality, and required placement of the work force as outlined in Attachments L1, L2, and L3. The offeror shall also clearly demonstrate that all applicable staffing requirements will be implemented in time for contract performance. The following items must receive an “acceptable” rating:

• Staffing approach provides a logical, complete, and effective staffing profile that outlines the planning, selection, processing, and placement of qualified personnel. This approach must clearly illustrate how it meets all PWS staffing requirements.

• Response includes an executable plan for obtaining the requisite security clearances for initial and sustained staffing.

• Describes a situation(s) where offeror has staffed SAP and/or TS/SCI activities where there were SAP and/or TS/SCI related personnel issues and how those issues resolved. This response shall demonstrate that the offeror was successful, flexible and responsive in resolving issues that impacted staffing.

• Demonstrates an understanding of staffing in the work locations identified in the PWS as well as other CONUS locations where SMC has an interest, considering policies, procedures, and constraints affecting this stationing.

77 Sec M

Sec M Propos al Evalua tion Sec

The volume titles for Volumes I, II, and IV do not match the titles provided in Section L. Can the Government please update the volume titles in Section M, as appropriate?

Administrative correction. Volume titles have been verified against references in Section L & Section M accordingly.

78 Sec M, page 2-3

5.1.1 – 5.1.3

Section M, 5.1.3 Subfactor Three – Day 30 Staffing states that “the requirement is met when the offeror’s Proposed Day 30 Staffing Matrix identifies qualified personnel for every position identified in the PWS Attachment V.” Recommend that the government replace this requirement from the competition with a technical approach to recruit and deliver qualified, non-critical personnel by day thirty of the contract.

The requirement to fully staff this effort with 25 non-key and non-critical positions for Day 30 within the proposal, via matrix, and provide completed Pre-Screening Questionnaires for every individual may result in an unsubstantiated representation of proposed personnel from competitors. The government

Based on past source selections, the Government assesses that including a separate technical approach for staffing would not adequately address the schedule risks associated with will receive a more accurate, honest, and realistic proposal by removing this requirement and allowing competitors to focus on the 39 minimum required key and critical personnel that are imperative to mission continuity. In addition to securing Day 1 personnel as required by Section M, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, the government will be able to assess the offeror’s plan and approach to deliver 100% staffing by day 30 rather than examining the staffing matrices for individuals that the Government desires but the contractor may not be able to provide to the program.

the 30-day staffing requirement.

79 Sec M,

6.2.1.1 The only contractor with material and Section M

scorable support to “AFSPC Operational Units” is the incumbent on both this contract and the Arthur contract.

Direct support to AFSPC Operational Units should not be an evaluation criterion as it shows an unbalanced advantage to the incumbent

Supporting AFSPC operational units comes with a unique set of requirements. The Government assesses that past experience with such requirements will assist in mitigating overall Program risk.

Sec M,

6.2.1.1 There are two paragraph 6.2.1.1s. Will the Government clarify that the second instance of “6.2.1.1” should be 6.2.1.3?

Corrected

81 Sec M 3.2 Revise relative importance of Past Performance to be less important than Technical factors, Placing Past Performance as the most significant criteria gives the incumbent contractor an unfair competitive advantage. How can any other offeror cite Past Performance more relevant than the incumbent contractor?

Past Performance is a key parameter of this effort as experience in this mission area is critical to successful performance.

Additionally, Relevancy is only one of three elements of Past Performance which leads to an overall Past Performance Evaluation Rating

82 Sec L/M Gener al Comm ent

In order to ensure a level playing field for all non-incumbent bidders it is requested that the technical factors in Volume II and corresponding guidance and evaluation criteria to Sections L & M, be broadened to include the ability to present a transition plan to the technical considerations to allow non-incumbents to demonstrate a credible ability to present a low risk technical option that can compete with the incumbent who already has the majority of the matrix completed.

Currently the evaluation critieria favor the incumbent and there is no gradable subfactors other than providing key resumes and a list of names with appropriate information in the staffing matrix to demonstrate how the offerer can present a low risk transition plan.

There is no identifiable place in the proposal to discuss how a non-incumbent can transition personnel without impact to the mission.

Although a transition plan is mentioned in the PWS, there is no place identified in Sec L or Sec M that provide instructions (Sec L) or critieria (Sec M) to discuss in Vol II how we would execute these plans on this contract other than past performance which may not directly correlate with the specific requirements of this RFP. The incumbent would have a significant low risk staffing matrix since they already have the existing contract filled thus not having a need for transition. In addition, they may also be the only offerer who would be able to identify a direct transition plan as the incumbent via the past performance with exact highly relevant past performance given

The Government has considered the concept of including a transition plan technical subfactor but assessed that this would not be an effective discriminator.

Although a transition plan is mentioned in the PWS, this is not a requirement of the RFP but a requirement for the sucesfull performance of the contract. A transition plan is not requested, and will not be evaluated, in selecting a successful offeror.

the existing critieria (Space Acquisition SAP programs). As currently written there is no guidance or opportunity to explain how an offeror would transition incumbent personnel after award to avoid loss of mission expertise. This provides a clear advantage to the incumbent.

83 Sec L/M Gener al Comm ent

In order to ensure a level playing field for all non-incumbent bidders it is requested that the technical factors in Volume II and corresponding guidance and evaluation criteria to Sections L & M, be broadened to include the ability to present a project management plan and a staffing…