Master Industry Comment Resolution Matrix dRFPv3.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 79 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA881923R1000DRAFT
About this file
This draft request for proposal from the Department of the Air Force Space Command Space and Missile Systems Center seeks feedback on requirements for professional services to support Space Systems Command's Space Domain Awareness and Combat Power/Battle Management Command Control and Communications efforts under the Hemisphere program. Interested vendors are invited to submit written feedback on the draft solicitation, statement of work, evaluation criteria, staffing matrices, and other documents by July 19, 2023 to help the government ensure the final RFP clearly describes its requirements. The government intends to award multiple contracts for advisory and assistance services, with responses to the final RFP due approximately 45 days after its release.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 61 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions Please use this CRM to provide comments, questions, and suggestions on any of the provided draft RFP documents. Please use the CRM tab to provide all responses to all documentation.
Comments and Government responses will be posted for all Industry to view following resolution.
Column A - Document - Provide which draft RFP document you are making a comment against.
Column B - Page/Tab - Provide the page number for Word documents or tab label for Excel documents Column C - Line#/Cell - Provide the line number for Word documents or cell (row&column) for Excel documents Column D - Text - Provide the applicable text taken from the draft RFP document Column E - Comments - Provide all comments, questions, and suggestions
CRM
| Document | Page/Tab | Line/Cell | Text/Comment | Comment | Government Response |
| General | The most recently updated RFP established a reduced number of awardees with a Large Business (LB) award pool anticipated for only 3 LBs and a Small Business (SB) award pool anticipated for only 7 SBs. Would SSC assess viability of expanding its awardee basis by establishing a general Full and Open (F&O) pool and effectively consider issuing contract vehicle awards to a larger population of LBs and SBs? | Accepting more non-incumbent LBs and SBs would effectively foster a pool of contractor resources to be leveraged for when Task Order (TO) requirements, that are not based on an incumbent’s prior work, would receive the greatest chance of success if procured on a F&O best value basis versus being confined to a small pool of LBs and/or the limitations commonly associated with a small business set-aside (SBSA) procurements. |
An F&O pool would also give fair opportunity to compete to Non-Profit research and development (R&D) Government contractors with space technologies, engineering, acquisitions, programmatic, operations, cyber, architecture development, integrated logistics, and technical advisory qualifications relative to the scope of the Hemisphere vehicle. Qualified Non-Profit R&D tech/engineering firms would support a prime awardee environment offering a true diversity of thought, solutions, and services to meet the full range of TO scope possibilities, including those that may require niche subject matter expertise services for which the non-profit R&D community is known. Direct access to the subject matter expertise and technical reach back of non-profit entities is particularly beneficial to requirements with protracted lifecycles of ten or more years.
| The justification and benefit of establishing a F&O pool in consideration to what non-profit R&D firms could offer SSC on Hemisphere is also supported by the FAR’s recognition of such potential benefits in accordance with FAR 6.202(a)(3) Establishing or Maintaining Alternative Sources, “Be in the interest of national defense in establishing or maintaining an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center;…” | Based on the known requirements at this time, it is not in the government's best interest to have a larger award pool. | |||||
| General | When does the government anticipate releasing the final RFP? | The government anticipates an RFP release in February. | ||||
| General | How many days does the government intend to allow for final RFP responses? | 45 days | ||||
| Section L | 11 | 33-36 | The Offeror shall provide a separate organization chart that depicts how the Hemisphere program fits within the company….and include key names, titles, division names and location. | 1. Is this separate org chart to include subcontractors or, is the expectation that each subcontractor must include their own separate org chart |
2. Need to know what defines "key names"
3. Which Volume is this separate org chart to be included in? 1. Offerors may submit one org chart and include subcontractors in their org chart.
2. Key names are the company leadership who will be interfacing with the Hemisphere government team; contract management.
3. Volume I, 4.1.3
| Section L | 11 | 36-37 | The Offeror will clearly identify personnel likely to charge time to multiple Space Systems Command programs. | What level of personnel? No key personnel are identified and the sample Staffing Matrix (attach L.1) does not identify which positions are critical in any of the tabs. This could be an extensive list if all personnel are required to be listed. Or is the intent that the associated tab completed in Attachment L.1 meets this requirement? | The government understands the technical personnel will probably not be identified until the task order level. This refers to the company management as opposed to the individuals listed in the staffing matrix. |
| Section L | 14 | 13 | 4.2.4.1, Employee Roster | Which Volume is the "separate Excel file" to be included in? | Volume II. See Table 3.1 in Section L |
| Section L |
Section M
8 7-11
Footnote The personnel whose names are listed in the staffing matrix must 1) currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with within the past year. The Offeror’s signature on the SF 33 will represent that the individuals whose names are provided are currently on the contractor’s staff or are on a subcontractor’s staff AND meet 10 the security clearance requirements.
Ex3: Jenny works for Prime. Sub is a subcontractor of Prime and would like to submit a proposal for the Hemisphere IDIQ. Jenny can be included in the proposal because Sub has subcontracted with Prime within the past year. Draft Section L and Draft Section M are contradictory.
1. Can the government confirm or clarify that if an Offeror was a subcontractor to a Prime company within the past year the Offeror can use staff from their previous Prime company?
2. Can the government confirm that an Offeror can use a previous teammate's staff (whether as a prime or sub to the teammate) if within the past year for staffing? 1. Yes
2. Yes Section L 15 11 Table 4.2.4.4 Offerors are required to provide their plan to staff 50 FTEs and address each of the items listed in Table 4.2.4.4.
1. Will the government consider increasing the page limit to meet this requirement to 10 pages?
| 2. Will the government also allow 11x17 page format within a 10 page limit so Offerors can include charts to supplement their proposed event and task-based plan for staffing 50 FTEs? | Page count has been updated | |||||
| Section L | 16 | 22 | Evidence of the Offeror’s past performance in utilizing small businesses | What would be acceptable Evidence of past performance in utilizing small businesses? | Examples include but are not limited to: |
1) Actual prior use of small businesses
2) Use of small businesses in the socioeconomic categories
3) Types of work performed by small businesses
4) Complexity of the work performed by small businesses
5) Reporting of small business performance in CPARS
6) History of prompt payments to small businesses
| Section M | 8 | 15-24 | 3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staffing Gate 15 | ||
| The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix provides ten (10) filled-in positions out of the fifteen (15) available positions in ONE (1) of the three tabs of Attachment L1, Sample Government Reference Staffing Matrix. The Offeror shall provide only ten (10) positions corresponding to ONE (1) tab; if more positions are provided, the Government will only evaluate the first ten (10) positions listed in the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix. Proposed personnel must 1) currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with within the past year to ensure that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances1. The Government will compare the proposed knowledge and experience (column I) and proposed education/training/certification (column O) to the minimum knowledge and experience | Can a "proposed person" appear in multiple proposals? | Yes | |||
| PWS | 16 | 6-9 | 4.9.1 The Contractor shall operate and maintain an already built and accredited or can be accredited SCI Facility (SCIF)/SAP Facility (SAPF) for use by Government and Contractor personnel. Detailed requirements, to include information technology, workspaces, desk, offices, networks, and location of 8 the facility will be annotated | 1. Is this SCIF Contractor owned or Government owned? |
2. Is this SCIF required at the IDIQ or TO level?
3. Can an Offeror use a Subcontractor's SCIF until their own SCIF is built and accredited?
| 4.9.1 scope is included in the IDIQ PWS for use, if needed. The government is not seeking a new SCIF at this time. If a new requirement arises in the future, it will be required at the TO level and detailed in the TO PWS. | ||||
| PWS | 16 | 10-17 | 4.9.2. The Contractor shall maintain an environment with direct connection to multi-level data services (including the Unified Data Library access and National Space Defense Center access). The Contractor shall maintain an accredited SAPF and IT infrastructure, including IT network bandwidth to access near-real time classified operational and experimental data feeds and high-performance processing. Detailed requirements, to include information technology, workspaces, desk, offices, networks, and location of the facility will be annotated in the task order. The Contractor shall provide technology support in IT configuration and management. The support shall include fail-safes, software break and refresh, and hardware equipment fails across the unclassified and classified levels (UNCLASS – SAP). | Is this a requirement at the IDIQ level or Task Order level? |
Are these data services and IT infrastructures located at a government or contractor location?
This requirement is at the task order level.
These specific services are located at a government-owned location.
PWS 16 18-21 4.9.3. The Contractor shall assume the lease for an existing, operational, and accredited SCIF/SAPF. The Contractor shall provide for maintenance, logistics, operations, and sustaining of the facility to include, but not limited to utility bills, landscaping, janitorial services, water services, building maintenance, visitor badges. 1. Is this SCIF Contractor owned or Government owned?
2. Will assuming this lease be required at TO award or contract award?
3. What is the remaining lease term?
4. How are Offerors to price the cost of assuming the lease and any outstanding payments for the remaining lease term?
4. Where is the SCIF location?
5. Is this SCIF required at the IDIQ or TO level?
1. Government owned
2. TO award
3. Further details will be provided at the TO PWS level.
4. Further details will be provided at the TO PWS level. This will not be priced at the IDIQ level.
5. El Segundo
6. TO level
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | Header Definitions | Row #2 | Column A, Critical Position, defined as a must fill and ready to perform work on the first day of the contract's work performance | Column A on tabs 1, 2, and 3 is the top-level organization that will be supported, not a critical position status | Corrected | |
| Pricing Attachment | Rate Floor by Location | Please advise if the tab titled "Rate Floor by Location" is intended to be a Wage Floor, and not a Rate Floor? If not a Wage Floor, please provide the government's definition of "Rate Floor" | Yes, wage floor is correct. | |||
| Section M | 8 | Lines 20-23 and Footnote 1 | Proposed personnel must 1) currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with within the past year to ensure that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances. Ex3: Jenny works for Prime. Sub is a subcontractor of Prime and would like to submit a proposal for the Hemisphere IDIQ. Jenny can be included in the proposal because Sub has subcontracted with Prime within the past year. | We would like confirmation on the following. Company B is a Subcontractor to Company A(prime) currently. Company B submits a proposal to be a prime contractor for Hemisphere IDIQ and is permitted to submit in the staffing matrix employees from both company B and Company A. | ||
| The wording in Section M page 8, Example 3 very clearly states this, but the language in lines 20-23 would not indicate that this is permitted which is why we are asking for confirmation. This benefits the Government because it supports small business participation in this RFP. | Confirmed | |||||
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | 1,2 and 3 | Col F | Civilian Occupational Series Number | If the candidate meets all the requirements in columns H-R but doesn't meet the OPM requirement, is that still compliant? For example, 0861 is the code for Aerospace Engineer. There are several examples of subject matter experts in Aerospace engineering that have degrees in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. Suggest that matching the Civilian Occupational Series Number NOT be a requirement for a compliant staffing proposal. | That is correct; candidate is not required to match the civ occupational series number. Per the header definitions, Government civilian position type code to give an idea of type of work. Further clarification will be added to the definition. | |
| Cost Volume | 10 | 27-39 | Cost Realism | A practice lately in the industry is for the prime to submit a cost volume that doesn't include subcontractor costs and offer rates that result in the subcontractor losing money on a full cost basis., since large businesses can distribute their OH and G&A costs amoungst a much larger employee base. Now that the Government is requesting a cost volume for the IDIQ it's likely that all primes will do this. Recommend the Govenment require subcontract cost submissions from all offers that show the 35% small business workshare. This will result in more cost realism and you are more likely to get the best small business talent to support Hemisphere. | Responsibility for the Offeror's approach to proposing wrap rates that represent the Offeror's fair and reasonable estimate of the costs to be incurred in performance of the contract lies with the Offeror. The Government's evaluation of the Offeror's proposal includes Price Realism which is an evaluation of whether the Offeror's proposed price is too low. The Government has also developed a Direct Labor Rate Floor below which an Offeror's proposal may be considered un-reasonable. Further, responsibility for the establishment of partnerships that are in the best interests of the partners are the responsibility of the partners. For those reasons the Government will not implement this recommendation. | |
| Section L | 4 | 32 | This requirement is solicitied full and open, under NAICS 541715. | Section L mentions NAICS 541715 multiple times, but never establishes which of the exceptions -- if any -- the Government intends to use. Bidders need to know, as each exception defines a Small Business differently: |
NAICS 541715 = 1,000 employees NAICS 541715 Exception 1 = 1,500 employees NAICS 541715 Exception 2 = 1,250 employees NAICS 541715 Exception 3 = 1,300 employees Which size standard applies to Hemisphere?
| Note that Exception 3 is the analog to the current OASIS Small Business Pool 5b used by SSC. | Exception 3 will apply, Section L will be updated | |||||
| Section L | 10 | 30 | The Offeror shall use a common paragraph numbering system consistent with the PWS. | Does "consistent" mean in "x.x" (and further sub-delineations) format, or does it mean -- for example -- "proposal section 4.7 must address 'Test and Operations,' since 'Test and Operations' is in paragraph 4.7 of the PWS"? | Changed to "consistent with these ITO." | |
| Section L | 11 | 7 | Each volume shall contain a glossary… | A glossary typically inclusdes narrative-style definitions of terms in addition to spelling out the acronyms. Is this the Government's intent? | Yes | |
| Section L | 11 | 30 | The Offeror shall indicate agreements that have been executed (e.g., subcontracts…) | Companies will not issue subcontracts at the IDIQ level. At the Task Order level, subcontracts aren't issued until after award. Please clarify the Government's intent for information on subcontracts. | Market research indicates partnerships are currently being formed. If this is not applicable to your company, mark "not applicable." | |
| Section L | 11 | 36 | The Offeror will clearly identify personnel likely to charge time to multiple Space Systems Command programs. | Without accompanying awards of Task Orders at the time of the IDIQ award, offerors are unable to anwer this question. Will the Government remove it and/or defer it to Task Order solicitations? | The government understands the technical personnel will probably not be identified until the task order level. This refers to the company management as opposed to the individuals listed in the staffing matrix. | |
| Section L | 16 | 25 | (the estimated total for the base period and all options) | Please define the "base period" and indicate how many options there are. | This language has been updated to indicate at the task order level, meaning, one (1) year base plus four (4) 1-year options | |
| Section M | 5 | 11 | Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is more important than Factor 2 (Small Business Participation Plan). | Factor 2 is rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable, and on page 10, line 5 the text states that any Unacceptable rating for Factor 2 renders the offer un-awardable. Please explain how Cost/Price is more impartant than than a factor that would automatically disqualify an Offeror. | This sentence was removed: "Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is more important than Factor 2 (Small Business Participation Plan)." | |
| Model Contract | n/a | n/a | n/a | It appears that each year of the IDIQ is itself a separate option. Is this correct? If "yes," will all IDIQ awardees also receive annual "Mininum order" payments as implied by CLINs 1001, 2001, etc."? | Changed to a 5 year initial award, with a 5 year option. | |
| Pricing Attachment | Wrap Rate Development | Column U | OH Rate | The Government mentions that fringe should be included in the OH rate but our accounting system includes them as two separate pools. If the Government lumps the two together they won't be able to correctly compare with our historical actual indirects as they will be listed seperately in accordance with our accounting system. Can the Government please add an additional column for fringe? | The offeror may submit in their own format to account for this as long as all requested information is provided. | |
| Pricing Attachment | Wrap Rate Development | Column T | Labor | The Government mentions that the rates in column T are floor rates. Can the Government confirm that offerors are allowed to propose higher direct labor rates than what is listed in column T? Or are these direct labor rates locked in for all bidders to propose? | The government does not preclude proposal of higher rates. Proposed rates below the floor are considered unacceptable. | |
| Section L | Pages 8-9 | Table 3.1 | "Quality Assurance, 5 pages" and "Transition and Start up Plan, 5 pages" | Each of these two critical factors are page limited to 5 pages. In Draft #2 this was acceptable as the factors were pass/fail. However now the government is grading them for strengths and weaknesses in a competitive proposal. To assist the government in making a better informed decision, we suggest changing the page counts to 10-15 pages each so that each company can present in more detail their approaches to quality assurance, transition plans, checklists, processes, etc. Without additional page count it will be more difficult for the government to make quality assessments of these documents. | The Government has updated the page count. | |
| Section L | Page 8-9 | Table 3.1 | 3.7 Volume I Cover Page, 3.7 Volume II Cover Page, and 3.6 Glossary of Abbreviations | |||
| 3.4 Volume I Table of Contents, 3.4 Volume II Table of Contents, and 3.6 Glossary of Abbreviations; and so on for all volumes | Does the Government intent for Cover Pages, Table of Contents, and Glossary of Abbreviations to be numbered with the section numbers identified in Table 3.1 and if yes, should the numbering be identical in all four volumes? | Section numbers do not need to be listed in the Offeror's proposal. They are included in Table 3.1 for ease of reference. | ||||
| Section L | Page 8-9 | Table 3.1 | Numbering in the Table 3.1 goes from 4.1.5 In Vol I of the Executive Summary to 4.2.4.1 in Vol II Technical Volume. Is this accurate? | These numbers are mapping to the applicable Section L paragraphs, for reference. The column title in Table 3.1 has been updated to clarify. | ||
| Section L | Page 25 | L2. QAP Checklist, Item 1.2 | Detailed description of how Quality Assurance Processes...to address all areas of Section L Paragraph 4.2.4.2 | Administrative -- In the latest DRFP, the QAP is described in Section L, Paragraph 4.2.4.3. Paragraph 4.2.4.2 is Staffing. Did the gov't intend to refer to Paragraph 4.2.4.3 in the QAP Checklist, Item 1.2 | Updated QAP checklist to 4.2.4.3. | |
| Read Me Charts | Chart 8 | Task Order Table | Column 1, Task Order | Is this the complete list of Task Orders available to the F&O and Small Business awardees? Are there additional task orders or contract ceiling to add additional task orders in the future? 7 total task orders is a relatively small number for 10 contract awards. In most government contracts there would be 30-50 TO's for that number of awards. | Yes, there are 7 total TOs at this time. The government anticipates a few more requirements to materialize after the initial batch of TO awards. | |
| PWS | Page 20 | Table 1 | Performance Thresholds, Performance Objectives | Did the gov't intend to reverse the placement of the Performance Threshold and Performance Objectives columns as compared to the Services Summary Table in the previous Draft RFP? Listing the Objectives in the first Column makes more sense (as in the original Draft), then followed by the Threshold required for that Objective. | Performance thresholds and objectives are correct as is. | |
| Section L | 15-16 and | |||||
| 22-23 | Section L (4.2.5 and 4.4.6) | |||||
| Lines 12-28 and 35-6 | All Text under Sections 4.2.5 and 4.4.6 | Please clarify in what way the information to be provided as part of the "Small Business Participation Plan" and the "Small Business Subcontracting Plan" is different. | Per DFARS 215.304(c)(1), "For all acquisitions using the Clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan,…The Contracting Officer shall evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business performance of the contract…." |
Per DFARS 215.304(c)(1)(B) "Proposals addressing the extent of small business performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9..."
Per FAR 19.702(a)(1)(i) "In negotiated acquisitions...expected to exceed $750,000...and that has subcontracting possibilities, shall required the apparently successful offeror to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan."
| Section L | 13 | Section L (4.2.4.1) | ||||
| Lines 23-30 | In providing this information the Offeror shall cite specific, relevant performance to substantiate the Offeror’s capability to manage a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP level within the past three (3) years on a prior or current Government contract(s). Relevant performance includes managing personnel security for TS//SCI or SAP, managing security education, training, and awareness, and having an appointed and trained Facility Security Officer (FSO). Provide the scope of the contract, number of FTE, the name of the agency, contract number, and current Government point of contact, as the Government may reach out to verify this experience as part of their evaluation, to the extent practicable with the classification level. | Is there a minimum / maximum number of project experience references required as part of the Security section? | The offeror must provide at least one experience reference; this is the minimum. There is not a maximum. | |||
| Section L | 13 | Section L (4.2.4.1) | ||||
| Lines 23-30 | In providing this information the Offeror shall cite specific, relevant performance to substantiate the Offeror’s capability to manage a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP level within the past three (3) years on a prior or current Government contract(s). Relevant performance includes managing personnel security for TS//SCI or SAP, managing security education, training, and awareness, and having an appointed and trained Facility Security Officer (FSO). Provide the scope of the contract, number of FTE, the name of the agency, contract number, and current Government point of contact, as the Government may reach out to verify this experience as part of their evaluation, to the extent practicable with the classification level. | Can the project experience references used be subcontracts under a Federal Government contract, or must they be prime contracts directly with Federal Government? | The experience references must be from the contractor who performed the security functions directly without relying on another contractor to perform such functions. For example, if as a subcontractor, your company managed their employees' security clearances directly with the USG, this would be adequate. | |||
| Section L | 13 | Section L (4.2.4.1) | ||||
| Lines 23-30 | In providing this information the Offeror shall cite specific, relevant performance to substantiate the Offeror’s capability to manage a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP level within the past three (3) years on a prior or current Government contract(s). Relevant performance includes managing personnel security for TS//SCI or SAP, managing security education, training, and awareness, and having an appointed and trained Facility Security Officer (FSO). Provide the scope of the contract, number of FTE, the name of the agency, contract number, and current Government point of contact, as the Government may reach out to verify this experience as part of their evaluation, to the extent practicable with the classification level. | FAR Regulations for Mentor-Protege Joint Ventures stipulate that past performance or experience submitted by either JV member counts toward the experience of the JV as a whole. Can the Government confirm that experience from either JV member will count as relevant experience for the JV as a whole? | The experience references must be from the contractor who performed the security functions directly without relying on another contractor to perform such functions. For example, if as a subcontractor, your company managed their employees' security clearances directly with the USG, this would be adequate. | |||
| Section L | 10 | Section L (3.3) | ||||
| Lines 13-14 | Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. | Bidders frequently utilize internal company templates for proposal response efforts, which may or may not follow the default "tracking, kerning, and leading values" of a typical Word document. Please confirm what these values should be? | Use default values of your word processor or page layout software. | |||
| Section L | 13 | Section L (4.2.4.1) | ||||
| Lines 23-30 | In providing this information the Offeror shall cite specific, relevant performance to substantiate the Offeror’s capability to manage a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP level within the past three (3) years on a prior or current Government contract(s). Relevant performance includes managing personnel security for TS//SCI or SAP, managing security education, training, and awareness, and having an appointed and trained Facility Security Officer (FSO). Provide the scope of the contract, number of FTE, the name of the agency, contract number, and current Government point of contact, as the Government may reach out to verify this experience as part of their evaluation, to the extent practicable with the classification level. | Can the experienced of the Offeror's teammates and subcontractors be cited within the Security section in addition to the Offeror's own experience? | This will not qualify as offeror experience, but the government does not preclude its inclusion. | |||
| Section L | 11 | Section L (3.7) | ||||
| Lines 10-12 | Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, and FAR 3.104-4 Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. | FAR 52.215-1 section c.2.v specifies that the signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal should be included on the cover page of submitted proposals. Please confirm that in this case, a signature can be excluded from the cover page so long as it is included in the required Standard Forms. | The signature may be elsewhere in the proposal, but is expected to be on the cover page as well. | |||
| Section L | 11 | Section L (3.7) | ||||
| Lines 10-12 | Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, and FAR 3.104-4 Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. | Please confirm that the required markings noted in FAR 52.215-1(e) and in FAR 3.104-4(c) can be in 10 point font, single spaced, with 0 pt before and after. | Please ensure proposal complies with Section L, section 3.3. | |||
| Section L | 14 | Section L (4.2.4.2.1) | ||||
| Lines 13-17 | In a separate Excel file, the contractor shall submit an employee roster corresponding to the 10 names submitted IAW Attachment L1 listing the information required for the Government to verify the employees’ security clearances. The document shall be labelled appropriately as it will contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The document shall list the information required by Table 4.2.4.2.1, in tabular format. | Please confirm that offerors will be allowed to password protect the excel file in question and provide the password via separate email, since the document will contain PII. | Yes, you may password protect any submitted documents containing PII. The password must be submitted prior to the proposal due date cutoff. | |||
| Section L | 14 | Section L (4.2.4.2.1) | ||||
| Lines 13-17 | In a separate Excel file, the contractor shall submit an employee roster corresponding to the 10 names submitted IAW Attachment L1 listing the information required for the Government to verify the employees’ security clearances. The document shall be labelled appropriately as it will contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The document shall list the information required by Table 4.2.4.2.1, in tabular format. | Please clarify what protections are put in place for the PII information requested. | Proposal delivery through PIEE protects PII data. The spreadsheet may be password protected if desired. | |||
| Section L | 22 | Section L (4.4.5) | ||||
| Lines 21-27 | If award is made to the Offeror, the resulting contract may include and OCI limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both. During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after discussions with the Offeror and consideration of ways to mitigate or avoid identified actual or potential conflicts of interest, insert a clause or term and condition in the resulting contract which disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts such as the one listed at DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 Alt IV, with the paragraphs from Alt I, II, and III included. | If an offeror receives an IDIQ award resulting from this procurement, is that offeror then prohibited by default, by reason of OCI concerns, from pursuing all other procurements issued by Space Systems Command? | Not necessarily. Future procurements will be evaluated for OCI concerns. | |||
| Section L | 22 | Section L (4.4.5) | ||||
| Lines 21-27 | If award is made to the Offeror, the resulting contract may include and OCI limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both. During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after discussions with the Offeror and consideration of ways to mitigate or avoid identified actual or potential conflicts of interest, insert a clause or term and condition in the resulting contract which disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts such as the one listed at DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 Alt IV, with the paragraphs from Alt I, II, and III included. | If an offeror receives an IDIQ award resulting from this procurement as well as a Task Order under the IDIQ, is that offeror then prohibited by default, by reason of OCI concerns, from pursuing all other procurements issued by Space Systems Command? | Not necessarily. Future procurements will be evaluated for OCI concerns. | |||
| Section M | 9-10 | Section M (3.2.3) | ||||
| Lines 37-6 | Factor II: Small Business Participation (all text) | Please confirm that Government evaluation of the "Small Business Participation Plan" will not take into account any of the information provided in the "Small Business Subcontracting Plan", and will solely focus on the "Small Business Participation Plan", since there is no evaluation criteria provided in Section M for the "Small Business Subcontracting Plan". If the "Small Business Subcontracting Plan" will be evaluated as part of the "Small Business Participation Plan" evaluation, please provide evaluation criteria for the "Small Business Subcontracting Plan". | Confirmed | |||
| Ordering Guide | n/a | n/a | n/a - General Question | Will all IDIQ awardees be able to bid on all issued Task Orders, or will Task Order bids be restricted based on a particular qualification requirement or skillset (other than Small Business vs. Large Business)? | All IDIQ awardees will be able to bid on all issued task orders, unless set aside for small businesses. | |
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | n/a | n/a | n/a - General Question | Will IDIQ awardees be restricted to competing only for Task Orders issued under the office they proposed staff for within Attachment L.6 as part of their IDIQ proposal submission? For example, if a company completed Attachment L.6 tab "SZM" as part of their IDIQ proposal response, and that company is issued an IDIQ contract - is the company in question only allowed to bid on "SZM" Task Orders? | All IDIQ awardees will be able to bid on all issued task orders, unless set aside for small businesses. | |
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | n/a | n/a | n/a - General Question | Will IDIQ awardees be restricted to competing only for Task Orders which include the skillsets that the Offeror in question bid on within Attachment L.6 as part of their IDIQ proposal response. | All IDIQ awardees will be able to bid on all issued task orders, unless set aside for small businesses. | |
| General | n/a | n/a | n/a | Can the Government confirm when it expects to release the final RFP for this procurement? | The government anticipates an RFP release in February. | |
| Section L | 5 | 23 | Proposals are due no later than (NLT) 4:00PM, local Los Angeles, CA time on 30 October 2023 | Update dates once official due date is established | The government will update when dates are finalized. | |
| Section L | 14 | 1-6 | The personnel whose names are listed in the staffing matrix must 1) currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with within the past year. The Offeror’s signature on the SF 33 will represent that the individuals whose names are provided are currently on the contractor’s staff or are on a subcontractor’s staff AND meet the security clearance requirements. | An Offeror who has subcontracted work to a company within the last year does not demonstrate the Section M 3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staff Gate evaluation criteria of ensuring that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances. This requirement also unnecessarily restricts Offerors to submitting resumes of staff from the prime or only companies where the prime already has some working relationship. This does not support a viable need other than to restrict potential competition. |
Recommend removing: "2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with within the past year."
| Recommended language: "The personnel whose names are listed in the staffing matrix must currently be on the staff at the Offeror's company or on staff at the subcontractor's company." | Demonstrating the ability to successfully get clearances for ten individuals is evidence that a company understands and has used their procedures to get individuals cleared. It is also evidence that the company has successfully hired individuals from the specific specialty area that we are seeking. Subcontracting within the past year shows an offeror's ability to acquire capabilities that they do not organically hold. | ||||
| Section M | 8 | 20-23 | The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix provides ten (10) filled-in positions out of the fifteen (15) available positions in ONE (1) of the three tabs of Attachment L1, Sample Government Reference Staffing Matrix. The Offeror shall provide only ten (10) positions corresponding to ONE (1) tab; if more positions are provided, the Government will only evaluate the first ten (10) positions listed in the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix. Proposed personnel must 1) currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with within the past year to ensure that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances. | An Offeror who has subcontracted work to a company within the last year does not demonstrate the Section M 3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staff Gate evaluation criteria of ensuring that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances. This unnecessarily restricts Offerors to submitting resumes of their own staff or those of companies where there was an established relationship. |
Recommend removing: "2) currently be on the staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted with the past year to ensure that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillets and clearances."
| Recommended language: "Proposed personnel must currently be on the staff at the Offeror's company or subcontractor's company. The Offeror’s signature on the SF 33 will represent that the individuals whose names are provided are currently on the contractor’s staff or are on a subcontractor’s staff AND meet the security clearance requirements." | Individuals provided may be a current sub or a sub within the past year. The suggested language places further restriction on staffing and the government does not believe that is in its best interest. | |||||
| Section L | Pg 5 | 23-25 | Proposals are due no later than (NLT) 4:00 PM, local Los Angeles, CA time on 30 October 2023. | What is the updated final RFP due date and time? Will a new RFP timeline be provided in the draft? | The government anticipates an RFP release in February. | |
| Read Me Charts | Slide 3 | Moved pricing evaluation to IDIQ level; making up to 10 awards, notionally 3 large and 7 small businesses | Are the 10 awards the standard for source selection? How will this affect companies that are submitting prime bids individually and as part of a Joint Venture. Can a company be awarded as a large business prime and as part of a JV simultaneously? | The government will make 10 awards to establish the IDIQ pool of vendors. |
The Government has updated section L language to clarify that only 1 proposal will be accepted per offeror Read Me Charts Added option for oral presentations for acqusition scenairos Can the government define what is an "Acqusition scenario." Will this be used at the IDIQ stage or just the TO stage? An acquisition scenario is one in which the offeror would need to explain how they would support a specific government acquisition problem, such as an overrunning ACAT I program.
An acquisition scenario would just be used at the task order level.
| Read Me Charts | Slide 10 | FOPR Schedule | Industry can support this schedule, but it is very aggressive. An unintended consequence will be that offerors will have to make bidding decisions on TO schedule rather than the companies capabilities. SZ-BC Front Office, BCC + BCT and SZM (SBSA) are all overlapping and will require small business companies to support multiple proposals concurrently. | The FOPR schedule is not set and is planned to have minimum overlap. Contractor is potentially looking at an old slide deck (dRFPv2). There is no slide 10 in dRFPv3 files. | |
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | Experience with program management for ACAT-like weapon systems, in particular managing the planning, programming, budgeting and execution of funds | Can the government define what constitutes an ACAT-like weapons program? What skill set and/or experience is the gov looking for? | ACAT programs have higher levels of oversight, decision authorities, and applicable procedures that are required for a program to operate. The specific skillsets and/or experience the government is seeking has been provided in the staffing matrices. | ||
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | Minimum Knowledge and Experience | Is the minimum knowledge and experience tab hard requirements for staffing? The gov typically defines the skills required and the specific experience that is desired to allow flexibility for rapid but quality staffing. | Yes, the min knowledge and experience listed are hard requirements that were provided by the customers. | ||
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | 13 | System Engineer position-- TS/SCI/SAP/SAR clearance required | Why is the clearance requirement placed in the minimum knowledge and experience? This is certification not a skill or experience. It is also not inline with the clearance requirements tab for this position. Rexommend deleting it from position description. | Updated to remove clearance requirement from the knowledge and experience column. | |
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | 12 | Software Engineer Lead |
-Expert in Agile processes and implementation for large scale software programs -Experience building, testing, delivering, and deploying secure enterprise software systems -Experience communicating with leadership, stakeholders, and development communities -Effective management experience with large scale programs (more than 100 personnel) -Knowledgeable with respect to DoD, Air Force, or SSC processes and procedures for delivering systems to production environments
| -Familiarity with highly available, scalable cloud native solutions within commercial industry Q1 | This position is listed as a journeyman position of 3-10 years of experience, but the experience section defines a Senior SME position. This will prevent industry from hiring an experienced person that meets the more senior SME requirements (i.e. Effective management experience with large scale programs (more than 100 personnel)). Recommend re-designating the position as a senior SME or tailoring back the skills and experience required to meet the journeyman critieria. | The government will follow up with the customer to verify position seniority. | ||
| Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix | 15 | Product Support |
- Experience with establishing product support strategies that align with acquisition strategies and identifying required infrastructures, processes, and procedures to maintain system capabilities.
- Experience with integrating system engineering quantitative design characteristics (reliability, maintainability, etc.) with the functional logistics/integrated product support elements to identify product support resources.
| - Experience with integrating the 12 product support elements, procurement and budgeting strategy into logistics activities needed to sustain system fielding. | This position is listed as a journeyman position of 3-10 years of experience, but the experience section defines a Senior SME position. This will prevent industry to hire an experienced person that meets the more senior SME requirements. Recommend re-designating the position as a senior SME or tailoring back the skills and experience required to meet the journeyman critieria. | The government will follow up with the customer to verify position seniority. | ||||
| Section L | Page 11 of 32 | Lines 31-37 | The Offeror shall provide an organization chart that shows prime, subcontractors, and includes personnel key to the success of the Hemisphere effort, delineating clear lines of authority across each of the entities or divisions. The Offeror shall provide a separate organization chart that depicts how the Hemisphere program fits within the company, clearly identifies the entire chain of command from the Offeror’s Chief Executive officer to the Program Manager, and include key names, titles, division names, and location. | The Government indicated in the CRM dated 6 Nov on question 81 that the "from paragraph 4.1.3 of Section L" would be removed. The paragraph was not removed. | The decision to evaluate pricing at the IDIQ level made this section relevant again as offerors may enter into subcontracts/teaming arrangements/partnerships to support IDIQ pricing | |
| Section L | Page 13 of 32 | Lines 31 -37 | The Offeror shall document Satisfactory company security performance by providing Security Review results from oversight inspections by Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) or other Cognizant Security Authority (CSA) [as shown in the corresponding contract DD Form 254]. Documentation should span (at least) two review cycles immediately prior to the proposal submittal. Offeror can document a lack of prior Security Reviews with a CSA provided/endorsed memorandum documenting the lack of reviews. The documentation required by this paragraph will not count against the page limitations for this subfactor. | Security Audits are typically performed every 12-18 months but the timeframe between audits could be longer if the company has a history of satisfactory ratings. There is no set review cycle for DCSA. Respectfully recommend the words "review cycle" be removed and replaced by a "DCSA Compliance Update memorandum" if an audit has not been performed within the last 12-18 months. | The government recognizes there is not a regular review cycle, which is why the CSA provided/endorsed memorandum is also acceptable. | |
| PWS | 16 of 26 | 18-21 | 4.9.3. The Contractor shall assume the lease for an existing, operational, and accredited SCIF/SAPF. |
The Contractor shall provide for maintenance, logistics, operations, and sustaining of the facility to include, but not limited to utility bills, landscaping, janitorial services, water services, building
| maintenance, visitor badges. | Which TO(s) does this requirement apply to? Is it required for the IDIQ evaluation? | The government intends to have this scope in the SZA+SZE task order. | ||||
| Section M | 11 of 11 | "The proposal documentation contained in Volume 4 will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility and to determine eligibility for award. This will include the evaluation of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) and professional employee compensation." | What are the specific evaluation criterias for the Total Compensation Plan ? | It will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. Corresponding language has been added to Section M. | ||
| Section L | 21 of 32 | "The Offeror and subcontractors shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefit packages proposed for the professional employees." | Respectully suggest the government revise the word "salaries" to "salary ranges". CA law requires the use of salary ranges when positing employment offers. A salary range is more appropriate than a specific salary. | Changed | ||
| Section L | 21 of 32 | "Provide the planned compensation for all professional employee labor categories proposed to perform on the effort. Describe the job skills and qualification requirements associated with each identified labor category." | Attachment L6 already defines the job skills and qualification requirements associated with each labor category. Is it the government's intention for the offeror to restate the requirements in Attachment L6? | Yes, the government understands this is repetitive, but it is required. | ||
| Model Contract | 2 of 48 | n/a | The description of Labor CLIN 0002 says "ODC/TRAVEL (COST) BASE" | Please confirm the description should be "LABOR (CPFF) BASE" instead. | Corrected. | |
| Model Contract | 3 of 48 | n/a | The contract type for ODC/TRAVEL (COST) BASE is "COST PLUS FIXED FEE" | Please confirm the contract type should be "COST" instead. | Changed to cost | |
| Model Contract | 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 19 of 48 | n/a | The description of CLIN x004 says "DATA & REPORTS MINIMUM ORDER OPTION x" | Since CLIN x001 (Minimum Order) is marked "RESERVED CLIN," should CLIN x004 be marked as RESERVED as well? | Corrected. | |
| Model Contract | 9 of 48 | n/a | The description for Minimum Order CLIN 4001 says "MINIMUM ORDER - POST AWARD CONFERENCE" | Please confirm the description should be "RESERVED CLIN" instead (to be consistent with all other CLINs x001). | CLIN 4001 removed. | |
| Model Contract | 18 of 48 | n/a | The description of CLIN 9002 says "LABOR (CPFF) OPTION 7." | Please confirm that the heading should read: "LABOR (CPFF) OPTION 9." | CLIN 9002 removed. | |
| Model Contract | 24 of 48 | n/a | Section E includes 52.246-04 (Inspection of Services -- Fixed Price) | Should this clause be deleted since there are no longer any fixed price CLINs in Section B? | Removed. | |
| Model Contract | 25 of 48 | n/a | The description of CLIN 0002 says "ODC/TRAVEL (COST) BASE" | Please confirm the description should be "LABOR (CPFF) BASE" instead. | Corrected. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .