SANITIZED_Master CRM_DRFPv2 6 Nov 2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA881923R1000DRAFT
About this file
This document summarizes industry comments and questions on a draft request for proposal for professional services supporting space domain awareness and combat power/battle management command, control and communications efforts. Key details include:
-
The solicitation seeks proposals for an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract to provide cleared personnel support. The Air Force Space Command Space and Missile Systems Center will issue task orders against the contracts.
-
Comments covered staffing requirements, security plans, pricing structure, teaming arrangements, evaluation factors and subfactors. The government provided responses clarifying personnel must be employed by the prime contractor, past performance and security reviews must be from the prime, and small businesses are exempt from cost accounting system requirements for task orders under $80 million.
-
An updated request for proposal incorporating industry feedback will be released, with changes to the minimum task order, quality assurance plan page limit, and ordering procedures. The document establishes a collaboration process for ongoing industry engagement on the draft solicitation documents.
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-clean
| Document | Page/Tab | Line/Cell | Text | Comment | Government Response |
| Section M | Page 5 - Subfactor 3.1 Staffing | Lines 7-9 | Proposed personnel must currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or be a current subcontractor/teammate to the Offeror to ensure that the Offeror can hire cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances. | As an additional measure of merit, could you please provide what percentage of the sample staffing matrix should come from the prime Offeror's company (i.e. 60%), opposed to the subcontractors/teammates? | There is no requirement for how much of the effort is performed by the prime, unless its set aside for small business, which would require 51% of the work to be performed by a small business |
| Section M | Page 6 - Subfactor 4 Security | Lines 22-24 | how the Offeror’s security office/staff will support the Hemisphere effort, to include meeting cleared personnel requirements, having appropriate compliance measures in place, providing specific, relevant performance on a contract with personnel clearance requirements | Does the cited specific, relevant performance and satisfactory company security performance have to be directly from the Offeror's company? | Yes. Performance must have been by the Offeror's company. |
| Rate Card | Rate Card | All | The draft solicitation includes a pricing matrix but there are no instructions in Section L or M. Could you provide further clarification on what will be needed for pricing as part of the IDIQ submission? | The Government is changing the Ordering Guide to remove pricing at the order level. Pricing will be evaluated at the IDIQ level and will include a price floor in terms of cost realism analysis. Prices below the floor will be unrealistic. |
A new draft RFP will be posted.
Section L Page 10 - 4.1.3 Teaming Lines 22-25 Offerors submitting a proposal as the prime Offerors in response to this solicitation are permitted to submit separate proposals under which they would be a subcontractor, or a team member to another prime. Subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes. To avoid duplicate prime bids, if a company bids as a prime, does this exclude them as bidding through their Joint Venture as a second prime Offeror as well? Joint Ventures are not restricted under Hemisphere.
| READ ME PowerPoint | 4 | Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? | No, the Measures of Merit identified should be sufficient to evaluate a company's capability to perform at the IDIQ level. | No updates generated by this comment. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | 6 | Is the minimum order sufficient to meet industry needs? | Yes, this is in the range of standard minimum ordering for an IDIQ of this size. Bid costs will be much greater than $500, however, we don't see a need to increase the given amount. | The Government is reconsidering a different approach to the minimum order. The update will be provided in a new draft RFP. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | 6 | Is there concern with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) as a minimum order and evaluation factor? | The current QAP is limited to 5 pages. We have found that 10 pages is a better limitation to allow contractors to provide sufficient details related to Sections L & M. | The Government has evaluated the comment and has concluded that 5 pages is sufficient. |
The Government is reconsidering a different approach to the minimum order. The update will be provided in a new draft RFP.
| READ ME PowerPoint | 6 | How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award? | The ordering guide appears to be sufficient to allow streamlined evaluations on tight task order deadlines. That said, we highly encourage the government to maximize the use of Market Research and/or Forecasts to give advanced notice of upcoming RFPs. | See line 4 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | 6 | How can the Government improve off-ramp procedures? | Requiring participation in RFPs and off-ramping companies that do not participate could incentivize competition. | The Government has considered this requirement and feels it is not in the Government's best interest to require companies to bid on work they may not want/may not be capable of. |
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | 9 | Is this a schedule that industry will be able to support? (assume 30 days to respond to FOPR) | Yes. | An updated schedule will be provided with a new draft RFP. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | 9 | What specific changes can be made to the items delivered as part of the FOPR proposal to facilitate government review? | Providing contractors with the government's estimated Level of Effort would help ensure adequate competition. Recommend the government include a requirement to demonstrate Corporate Experience as a method for evaluation. | The Staffing Matrix captures the Government's required level of effort for each customer, and will be identified in each FOPR for each Task Order. |
The security subfactor at the IDIQ level is analogous to corporate experience.
No updates generated by this comment.
| L1 Draft Sample Staffing Matrix | Tab 3 | I9, I12 | "-Demo link is required" | Will the Government please provide additional information on how Offerors shall submit the demo link and what it shall entail? The demo link is not addressed in Section L. | Demo link requirement will be removed from the Sample Staffing Matrix and will not be required with the IDIQ proposal. These positions will require a demo link with the Task Order proposals and more details will be provided with the FOPR. |
| Section L | Pg 13 | 33-38 | In providing this information the Offeror shall cite specific, relevant performance to substantiate the 33 Offeror’s capability to manage a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP 34 level within the past three (3) years on a prior or current Government contract(s). Provide the scope of 35 the contract, number of FTE, the name of the agency, contract number, and current Government point 36 of contact, as the Government may reach out to verify this experience as part of their evaluation, to the 37 extent practicable with the classification level. | Will the Government please confirm past performance as a subcontractor performing TS//SCI and SAP contracts is acceptable? | Yes, relevant performance as a subcontractor is acceptable as long as the performance was by the Offeror's company. |
| Section L | Pg 13 | 39-44 | The Offeror shall document Satisfactory company security performance by providing Security Review 39 results from oversight inspections by Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) or other 40 Cognizant Security Authority (CSA) [as shown in the corresponding contract DD Form 254]. 41 Documentation should span (at least) two review cycles immediately prior to the proposal submittal. 42 Offeror can document a lack of prior Security Reviews with a CSA provided/endorsed memorandum 43 documenting the lack of reviews. | Due to the pandemic, DCSA has significantly reduced the frequency of security inspections for small business. Many may not have had the opportunity for an inspection with documented results in the last several years. We have inquired with our CSA regarding the possibility of securing a memorandum and they declined to provide one, stating that our prior two reviews, in 2014 and 2017 respectively, still stand as the rating of record. Please confirm there is no time limitation to the review results and that results from the two most recent and current reviews are acceptable. | The Government will accept documentation from at least two review cycles immediately prior to the proposal submittal. |
| Section L | Pg 15 | 20-21 | Offerors should note that IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(3) cost reimbursement Contract Line Item Numbers 20 (CLINs) will not be awarded without a DCMA-approved cost accounting system. | Small businesses are exempt from DCMA-approved cost accounting systems. Will the Government confirm that any TO of <80 FTEs will not have cost reimbursement CLINs to ensure adequate opportunity for small business participation at the TO level? If not, will the Government consider amending the ordering guide to specifically state FFP LOE bids will be allowed as a substitute for CPFF? | See line 4 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | N/A | The ROEs indicate TOs >80 FTE will be set-aside for small business while the ordering guide indicates TOs <80 FTE will be set-aside for small business. | Please confirm the anticipated threshold for small business set-aside is <80 FTE. | Confirmed, TOs < 80 FTE will be set aside. |
No updates generated by this comment.
| Section K | Pg K-2, | |||||
| K-15 | N/A | (2) The small business size standard is 1,000 EMPLOYEES. | ||||
| (2) The small business size standard is $35M. | Please confirm the size standard for NAICS 541715 is 1,000 employees and that 541715 is the planned NAICS. | Size standard is 1,0000 employees. Model contract has been updated for consistency. | ||||
| Section L | Pg 12 | 16-21 | The personnel whose names are listed in the staffing matrix must 1) currently be on staff at the 16 Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror is subcontracted with 17 or has subcontracted with within the past year. The offeror’s signature on the SF 33 will represent that 18 the individuals whose names are provided are currently on the contractor’s staff or are on a teammate’s 19 staff AND meet the security clearance requirements. If the offeror is listing names of individuals from a 20 teammate, ensure they are identified, as required by Paragraph 4.1.3. | The most recent Q&A confirmed that executed Teaming Agreements are sufficient to demonstrate an enforceable commitment, however Section L continues to use the term "subcontracted" exclusively. Please confirm that teammates and proposed individuals of teammates are acceptable if accompanied with an executed teaming agreement and that an executed subcontract is not required at the IDIQ level. | The Government will not preclude teaming on Hemisphere, however for the purposes of the evaluation for staffing, the Government will only consider names of personnel with whom they have subcontracted with in the past year. The Government is looking for demonstrated performance in staffing personnel that will meet Hemisphere requirements. The Government will revise Section L for clarity and will remove the word "teammate" from Sections L and M. |
See line 165 for additional information
| OG3 Draft Pricing Matrix | N/A | N/A | OG3 references tab "Rate Card 5.20" | Rate cards are generally reserved for IDIQ awards. As the Government has stated pricing is not being evaluated at the IDIQ level, recommend removing OG3 in its entirety from the IDIQ solicitation to avoid confusion. | See line 4 |
| Ordering Guide | Pg 14 | 8-11 | 1.7.1.2 If the model requires multiple excel spreadsheets, the “link cell” feature shall be used. The 8 cost/price proposal submitted shall be consistent with the Offeror’s approved estimating system 9 and shall duplicate the logic and mathematical formulas reflected in the official copy of its 10 proposal. | Small businesses will generally not have approved estimating systems. Recommend removing this requirement or revised to "…with the Offeror's estimating methodology and shall duplicate…" | See line 4 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 4 | Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? | Accepting past performance from a prime offeror that was performed as a subcontractor will maximize opportunity to provide the Government a robust pool of capable small businesses who are supporting SSC today to reduce risk. | The Government is not evaluating past performance at the IDIQ level, but reserves the right to evaluate past performance at the Task Order level should the requirement warrant it. |
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | Is the minimum order sufficient to meet industry needs? | Yes | See line 7 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | Is there concern with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) as a minimum order and evaluation factor? | No | See line 7 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award? | Minimize use of technical and past performance factors to focus evaluations on the true risk areas for the Government, which are ability to staff, facilities, and pricing. Allowing flexibility and novel approaches to meeting facility requirements at the TO level will enhance competition for the Government. | See line 4 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | How can the Government improve off-ramp procedures? | Recommend focusing on on-ramp procedures as that will generate the best return on ensuring a viable competition pool for the Government. Off ramping, without a corresponding on-ramping program will only serve to diminish the competition pool. | no change |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 9 | Is this a schedule that industry will be able to support? (assume 30 days to respond to FOPR) | Industry is able to support this schedule. | See line 11 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 9 | What specific changes can be made to the items delivered as part of the FOPR proposal to facilitate government review? | Minimize the documentation required for each FOPR. This will reduce the review burden on the Government and speed award of each task order. Also recommend implementing a gate process at the FOPR level to reduce the number of proposals reviewed to only the most viable offerors. | The Government will take this into consideration if/when FOPR criteria are tailored to specific TO requirements. |
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint slide 4 n/a Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? Suggest adding a Subfactor 5: Past Performance to Factor 1: Technical. Require a Past Performance Volume where each offeror must demonstrate where they have successfully performed a similar scoped effort with the complexity of multiple PEOs/customers and providing support to space and other complex systems, platforms, and technologies within the past 3 years. Benefit to the Govt: Enables the Government to confirm an Offeror has successfully performed similar scope and size work and has a good understanding of the technical work that will need to be performed on the Task Orders. The Government is not evaluating past performance at the IDIQ level, but reserves the right to evaluate past performance at the Task Order level should the requirement warrant it.
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | slide 6 | Is the minimum order sufficient to meet industry needs? | Yes, it is sufficient. | See line 7 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | slide 6 | Is there concern with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) as a minimum order and evaluation factor? | No concern – valid and sufficient. | See line 7 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | slide 6 | How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award? | Parsons provides the following two recommendations: |
- Recommend the Govt provide a price range for proposed LCATs in order to remove the focus of price as a primary decision point. Then the Govt can focus on proposed technical solutions and staff as the first priority to ensure that they are awarding to a team that has the experience and can perform the tasks required. Once the Govt makes a technical decision, they can assess the proposed price for realism.
- Recommend Govt consider Oral presentations that present solutions for 3 key focus areas: Staffing, Technical solution and Management. Suggest the Govt develop their desired answers by identifying key characteristics for each response that they are looking for to ensure consistency in assessment and enable a more efficient assessment process. The Govt could score (meets, exceeds, unsatisfactory) the responses received against their desired responses. Suggest the Govt consider focusing on technical or administrative problems/needs they are trying to resolve, rather than determining the skillset/staffing experience they think they need, and let the contractor propose the staff/skill mix to best address the problem/need. The benefit for the Govt is that they can acquire special, or niche skill sets as needed, vice trying to staff niche skills as a full-time equivalent FTE across the Period of Performance. The Government is changing the Ordering Guide to remove pricing at the order level. Pricing will be evaluated at the IDIQ level and will include a price floor in terms of cost realism analysis. Prices below the floor will be unrealistic.
The Government will consider oral presentations, but is primarily relying on customer requirements.
A new draft RFP will be posted.
| READ ME PowerPoint | slide 6 | How can the Government improve off-ramp procedures? | No improvements identified. | No updates generated by this comment. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | slide 9 | Is this a schedule that industry will be able to support? (assume 30 days to respond to FOPR) | This is a success-oriented schedule and aggressive, but Industry can support this phased approach. However, this TO release waterfall schedule may likely reduce competition because it may require Offerors to make decisions on which they will bid due to the overlap of the TO schedule and the ability to support multiple proposals concurrently. Small Business offerors will struggle much more than Large Businesses depending on the mix and timing of SBSA TOs because they likely don’t have resources to support multiple proposals simultaneously. Suggest the Govt consider the spacing for at least SBSA TOs to maximize competition. |
The govt could reduce their evaluation period significantly by conducting oral presentations that are direct, succinct and address the Task Order unique problem/need. Oral presentations should include proposed Key Personnel to confirm they are committed to the effort and have the relevant experience. Task Orders should focus on the Need/problem to be addressed or key objectives to be accomplished. An orals approach allows the Govt to more quickly evaluate proposals and allows for better understanding of solutioning and provides demonstration that Key Personnel have the experience the Govt expects, and interchanges that are transparent. Oral proposals have proven to reduce evaluation time to days from weeks/months. The Government will communicate FOPR release schedules to successful IDIQ awardees.
Proposal response timelines will be dictated by the requirements.
An updated schedule will be provided with a new draft RFP.
| Section L | 10 of 21 | 26 to 28 | The Offeror shall indicate agreements that have been executed (e.g., subcontracts, interdivisional efforts) to allow work to begin at contract award. | Please confirm that executed teaming agreements that state an intent to issue a subcontract upon award are acceptable agreements to meet this requirement as it is not typical for contractors to award subcontracts prior to execution of the prime contract. | This statement was taken from the Ordering Guide section 1.5.4, not Section L. During the FOPR process, an executed teaming agreement that states the intent to issue a subcontract award will be allowable. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | slide 9 | What specific changes can be made to the items delivered as part of the FOPR proposal to facilitate government review? | For Task Order – keep it simple. Reduce as much as possible and only ask for what is pertinent and needed. Identify anything that may be redundant, not mandatory or isn't value added and remove from the proposal to alleviate cost overhead and incentivize competition. This also reduces government oversight and review. | No updates generated by this comment. | |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Chart 4 | 3rd bullet | Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? | No. | No updates generated by this comment. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Chart 6 / Page 4 | 2nd bullet / Para 2.5.2 | READ ME File: Task Orders greater than 80 FTE shall be set aside for small business, if supported by market research (Para 2.5.2) |
Ordering Guide: 2.5.2 All task orders that require less than 80 full time-equivalent personnel shall be set aside for small business unless market research, as described above, reveals that the requirement cannot be fulfilled by small business. Section 2.5.2 in the Ordering Guide states that "All task orders that require less than 80 full-time equivalents shall be set aside for small business…" Please confirm that the Ordering Guide is correct and the Read Me file is an error. Confirmed, TOs < 80 FTE will be set aside.
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | Chart 6 | 4th bullet & 1st sub-bullet | Is the minimum order sufficient to meet industry needs? | While we appreciate a minimum guarantee, a $500 minimum is not sufficient considering the time, resources, and expense companies incur for preparation of contract management and the Quality Plan deliverable. We suggest a $5,000 or $10,000 minimum guarantee which is consistent with other IDIQ contracts of similar size. | See line 7 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Chart 6 | 4th bullet & 2nd sub-bullet | Is there concern with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) as a minimum order and evaluation factor? | No. | See line 7 |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Chart 6 | 4th bullet & 3rd sub-bullet | How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award? | SPA recommends standardizing evaluation criteria for all TOs. In addition, SPA recommends adjusting the Phased Approach for TO award (chart 9) to be on, at a minimum, 30 day proposal turns. Depending on the requirement and resources needed to produce a proposal, Industry may be limited in running 2 or more Hemisphere TO proposal in parallel. | The Government is changing the Ordering Guide to remove pricing at the order level. Pricing will be evaluated at the IDIQ level. |
The TO phased approach accounts for a 30-day proposal turn. Updated TO phasing will be included with the new draft RFP.
READ ME PowerPoint Chart 6 4th bullet & 4th sub-bullet How can the Government improve off-ramp procedures? - From Ordering Guide, Para. 2.1.1, "In contrast, the Government may utilize off-ramps to remove a contractor from the vendor pool if the contractor (1) submits a written request to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) to be removed, (2) has a TO terminated for cause, (3) if the contractor ceases business operations, or (4) does not submit a proposal against 2 consecutive FOPRs for which the contractor is eligible to submit an offer. With regards to Ordering Guide Para. 2.1.1 (4), SPA recommends off-ramping contractors if unable to submit against 2 FOPRs in a given calendar year v. 2 subsequent FOPRs. Depending on the requirements of each of the initial TOs identified or TOs through the remaining 10-year PoP, off-ramping contractors who are unable to submit a prime bid for 2 subsequent TOs will significantly limit the competitive pool, or, prevent potential bids based on the tentative schedule of TOs v. the actual capabilities of a prime contractor and their team The Government does not believe that such off-ramping language is in their best interest.
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint Chart 7 1 bullet & 1st & 2nd sub-bullets Updated CLIN structure:
From: 5 year base + 5 year option, with facilities CLINs, singular Data & Reports CLIN To: 10 1-year CLINs, Facilities encapsulated by ODCs, updated Data & Reports CLIN to correspond with each CLIN Is the Government's intention not to have a separate CLIN/TO for facilities that was briefed as an option under consideration at Industry Days? There is not a facility requirement associated with any of the Task Orders, however the Government anticipates that a need for facility may arise in the future. If a facility requirement is on a task order, it will be included under the ODC CLIN.
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint Chart 9 2nd bullet & 1st sub-bullet Is this a schedule that industry will be able to support? (assume 30 days to respond to FOPR) The schedule is aggressive. See row 6 above. Overlapping TOs with in a 30 days window will make a significant impact on if a contractor will be able to bid, then affects row 7 with any off-ramp ramifications if they materialize due to no-bid decisions The Government has removed the requirement for off-ramping for 2 consecutive no-bids.
See line 34 for schedule concerns.
| READ ME PowerPoint | Chart 9 | 2nd bullet & 2nd sub-bullet | What specific changes can be made to the items delivered as part of the FOPR proposal to facilitate government review? | No comment. | No updates generated by this comment. |
| PWS | Para 4.9 | Para 4.9.1 | Operate and maintain SCIF/SAPF. It says details of the facility will be “annotated in the task order.” | ||
| Which task order? None of the TOs listed on the schedule in the PPT imply inclusion of any facilities. Also, SPA sees no mention of any of this in Section L. How will the Government assess a contractor's ability to provide the above? Lastly, is Para 4.9.1 is part of the SZ-BC Front office CLIN. | This is included in the PWS as a general requirement statement and will be specified in a task order if and when the requirement arises. There are no facility requirements at this time, however there will be the assumption of an existing lease as part of the SZA+SZE task order. The FOPR will specify further details. | ||||
| PWS | Para 4.9 | Para 4.9.2 | Provide a laboratorial environment, accredited SAPF/IT infrastructure, etc. Again, all will be “annotated in the task order.” | No mention of lab in TO schedule. Also, SPA sees no mention of any of this in Section L. How will the Government assess a contractor's ability to provide the above? Lastly, is Para. 4.9.1 and the lab part of the SZA+SZE CLIN? | This is part of the Maple lease that the awardee for this task order will assume. PWS verbiage has been changed from "provide" to "maintain." The FOPR will specify further details. |
| PWS | 10 | 22 | 4.1.4. The Contractor shall identify areas of improvement, including acquisition process improvements. The Contractor shall provide actionable, feasible recommendations and execute tasks for reducing risk where appropriate. These recommendations may include technical, organizational, or programmatic changes where appropriate. The Contractor shall assist in building and maintaining a Government risk program, including risk identification, process definition, and detailed technical risk mitigation plans, as required by the Government. | We believe that in order to meet the Government's stated objective in Section L 1.1, the offeror should provide their approach to process improvement and it should be part of the evaluation process for award. Recommend a subfactor for process improvement (PWS 4.1.4) that includes management and engineering processes, or include process improvement as an element of Subfactor 3: Quality Assurance. | The Government does not feel this would be a valuable discriminator. |
| Section L | 13 | 33 | 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). | Recommend the Government define relevant performance as managing a contract as a prime at the TS/SCI- and SAP-level within the past (3) years an evaluation criteria. | Relevant performance must be by the Offeror's company. 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). |
| Section L | 12 | 21 | If the offeror is listing names of individuals from a teammate, ensure they are identified, as required by paragraph 4.1.3. | Recommend that the Government not allow the same individuals to be listed on more than one offer. | The Government feels that this would be overly restrictive. |
| Section L | 13 | 45 | N/A | Recommend a subfactor for past performance to ensure that the Offeror has proven experience to lead an effort at the scale of Hemisphere. |
Example Subfactor 5 language: The Offeror shall provide evidence to demonstrate to the Government that the prime can manage task orders on the scale of the estimated task orders. The offeror shall provide multiple examples of managing large task orders as a prime that exceed 30 LOE and/or $10M in revenue/year. The Government is not evaluating past performance at the IDIQ level, but reserves the right to evaluate past performance at the Task Order level should the requirement warrant it.
No updates generated by this comment.
Section M 4 2 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal as summarized in 3 Table 1: Recommend that the Government increase the page count for Subfactor 3: Transition and Start-Up Plan to 10 pages to allow for more detail on transition plans to be provided by offerors. The Government believes the current page count to be sufficient.
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint Slide 4 Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? Recommend Subfactor 4 include experience accrediting, maintaining, and sustaining a SCIF/SAPF in addition to personnel clearances. There is not a facility requirement associated with any of the Task Orders at this time, therefore, adding this as an evaluation criteria would be unduly restrictive.
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award? | Recommend the Government provide price ranges in the TO FOPRs to streamline the pricing reasonableness and realism elements of the evaluation process. | See line 4 | |
| Ordering Guide | 5 | 3 | The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposal provides a clear, achievable transition and start-up approach for up to 50 FTE within a 60-day period to include the items listed in Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.3. | Recommend the Government consider Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) instead of best value tradeoff, for TOs in which the supported SSC 3- and 4-letters require highly technical/specialized staffing expertise | The Government believes the best value trade off is in its best interest at the TO level. |
| Ordering Guide | 18 | 25 | 2.6.1.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Basic plus Option 1 through 4 total prices will be evaluated. | Can the Government clarify if the Total Evaluated Price will include the Most Probable Cost for Cost Plus FOPRs/Task Orders? | TEP will include MPC adjustments. Language has been added to the ordering guide to clarify. |
See line 4 Section L 13 20-44 4.2.4.4 Subfactor 4: Security - The Offeror shall provide evidence to demonstrate to the Government that they can perform TS/SCI or SAP work on the Hemisphere effort. Can the term "Offeror" include subcontractors ? Can a large business's security performance count towards the security requirements if the teaming structure shows the team will use the large business's security processes and personnel? The Government does not expect subcontractors to submit individual proposals. If a former subcontractor submits an offer, the Government's expectation is that they stand alone as a prime offer, responsible for their own security processes.
The Government will accept a company's subcontracting experience, but if they are submitting an offer as a prime, the Government expects prime's to meet the security requirements stated in Section L.
Section L 13 39-42 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 40 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. Can the term "Offeror" include subcontractors ? Can a large business's security performance count towards the security requirements if the teaming structure shows the team will use the large business's security processes and personnel? The Government does not expect subcontractors to submit individual proposals. If a former subcontractor submits an offer, the Government's expectation is that they stand alone as a prime offer, responsible for their own security processes.
The Government will accept a company's subcontracting experience, but if they are submitting an offer as a prime, the Government expects prime's to meet the security requirements stated in Section L.
READ ME PowerPoint 4 Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? Measuring the past performance of vendor quality assurance is a way to differentiate vendors. All vendors will write a proposal that will be acceptable, however I haven't seen many vendors that actually manage A&AS/SETA quality for their customers. The Government is not evaluating past performance at the IDIQ level, but reserves the right to evaluate past performance at the Task Order level should the requirement warrant it.
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | 6 | Is the minimum order sufficient to meet industry needs? | It's fine | See line 7 | |
| READ ME PowerPoint | 6 | Is there concern with the QAP as a minimum order and evaluation factor? | No | See line 7 | |
| READ ME PowerPoint | 9 | Is this a schedule that industry will be able to support? (assume 30 days to respond to FOPR | Yes, assuming there is sufficient communication of schedule changes for all task orders ( assuming you publish the next 6 month's schedule shortly after any change) | See line 34 | |
| section L | 13 | 39-41 | 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]. | Please confirm the Security Review results are not included in the page count for Subfactor 4: Security | Security Review results are not included in the page count. Section L will be updated to clarify. |
| section L | 16 | 31 | The subcontracting plan is limited to 5 pages. | Please provide up to 15 pages for the subcontracting plan in order for offerors to fully provide all required information | No updates generated by this comment. |
| section L | 16 | 28-30 | The intent of this plan is to convince the Government that the individual will successfully be able to perform the work at the alternate location at minimal risk to the Government | Please explain how the subcontracting plan and alternate work locations are related | This is an error, the Government will remove the sentence from this section. |
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 4 | N/A | Government Question: Are there additional measures of merit that can be added to the existing factors and subfactors that will benefit the Government? |
Response:
We recommend the following measures of merit, aligned against the various Volume II Technical/Risk Factor I Subfactors:
Factor I; Subfactor 1 - Staffing. Include a new requirement for a 2-page resume for each proposed staff member identified in the staffing matrix. Additionally, each resume should be supported with employee verification (certifying that each proposed staff member provided permission to use their resume in a proposal). The Government must validate that cited individuals have provided permission to be included in the Offeror proposal to prevent offerors from using other company's employees qualifications without the permission of that employee. At a minimum, the Government should require letters of intent for all individuals identified in the staffing matrix. This will reduce execution risk associated with staffing availability. If this change is implemented, please ensure resumes can be provided outside existing page-count limitations.
Factor I; Subfactor 2 - Quality Assurance Plan. Include a new requirement for demonstrating experience within the past 3 years focused on managing quality assurance starting up and executing an IDIQ contract. This will reduce execution risk associated with performance. If this change is implemented, please expand the page-count limitation from 5 pages to 6 pages.
Factor I; Subfactor 3 - Transition and Start-Up Plan. Include a new requirement for demonstrating experience within the past three years focused on transition associated with an IDIQ contract. Add a requirement to require proof that a company can hire, train, and retain cleared employees that meet the Government requirements. This will reduce execution risk associated with transition and startup. If this change is implemented, please expand the page-count limitation from 5 pages to 6 pages.
Factor I; Subfactor 4 - Security. Include a new requirement for demonstrating experience within the past three years focused on acquiring, maintaining, certifying, and sustaining cleared facilities that meet the Government's requirements. This will reduce execution risk associated with facilities. The Government does not view submission of resumes, subsequent verification, or letters of intent to be in their best interest.
The Government is not evaluating past performance at the IDIQ level, but reserves the right to evaluate past performance at the Task Order level should the requirement warrant it.
Evaluating transition plan with a 3 year requirement would be unduly restrictive and is therefore not in the Government's best interest.
There is not a facility requirement associated with any of the Task Orders at this time, therefore, adding this as an evaluation criteria would be unduly restrictive.
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint Slide 6 Question 1 N/A Government Question: Is the minimum order sufficient to meet industry needs?
| Response: Yes | See line 7 | ||
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 Question 2 | N/A | Government Question: Is there concern with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) as a minimum order and evaluation factor? |
| Response: No | See line 7 | ||
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 Question 3 | N/A | Government Question: How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award? |
Response Part 1:
Task Order (TO) competition evaluation time is driven by the Government review and assessment of multiple TO proposals in a limited amount of available time. Simplifying TO evaluation can be achieved using objective summary level information to perform a comparative assessment between offerors. We recommend the Government establish discrete Measures of Merit, linked to the evaluation subfactors of each specific TO that are used to compare offerors solutions. The Government should require all TO offerors to complete summary level tables of information and conduct the best value trade-off based on specific TO needs against the summary level information provided.
For example, where staffing is a significant factor, the Government can determine elements or aspects of the staffing solution that can be used to compare between offerors, allowing a rapid, objective evaluation of the staffing solution without protracted evaluation. Or, where facilities are a significant factor, the availability of facilities, networks, comms, etc... can be used to perform a risk assessment.
Example objective measures are shown in a separate tab within this file labeled "Recommended Measures of Merit". The intent is for the Government to define the measures of merit and offerors complete the corresponding data in their proposals.
For each specific TO, market research can be used to solicit feedback on evaluation measures of merit, and adjusted to meet the Government's need for rapid TO evaluation. By using summary-level information, the Government can significantly shorten evaluation while preserving the Best-Value trade-off process. The Government will conduct a best value evaluation, per section 3.3, line 4 of the Ordering Guide.
The Government will take this into consideration if/when FOPR criteria are tailored to specific TO requirements.
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint Slide 6 Question 3 N/A Government Question: How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award?
| Response Part 2: | |
| We recommend that the Government conducts market research via a Sources Sought process for ALL TOs. The Sources Sought process will determine if one or more Small Business can perform the work required. The Government should use a Sources Sought (recommend a 5-page submission) to determine if Small Businesses can provide the required experience, capabilities, and staffing to perform each specific task order. The Sources Sought process can be used as market research to determine Small Business eligibility IF enough Small Businesses provide the best qualifications to meet the Government needs. Sources Sought requirements should address mission area experience and identify capabilities to perform the tasks required in the PWS. Please see the separate tab within this file labeled "Notional Sources Sought" for an example with requirements derived from TO 7 - SAF Support. The Government assessment of this data can be used to make a risk-based decision determining small business set aside vs. unrestricted procurement. | The Government will conduct market research amongst the successful IDIQ awardees, in accordance with the Ordering Guide, section 2.5. |
No updates generated by this comment.
READ ME PowerPoint Slide 6 Question 3 N/A Government Question: How can the ordering guide be updated to allow for streamlining of evaluations to support a tight schedule for Task Order Award?
Response Part 3:
We recommend sending out at least one DRFP at least 30 days before planned FRFP (to support appropriate time for questions and answers) with the market research (Sources Sought) for the task orders, mirroring the IDIQ DRFP timeline, and allow companies to ask questions as well as prepare for upcoming task orders. This detailed information, released to industry early in the process, reduces misconceptions and confusion and ultimately supports more realistic proposals and streamlines the Government's review to determine the best possible solutions and value. This approach is working well at the IDIQ-level, and will result in better, more actionable industry responses. Please see the separate tab within this file labeled "Recommended TO Schedule" for a recommended update to the Task Order Schedule in the latest DRFP.
Assuming it is a 30-day TO proposal response with a 2-week evaluation, a 2-week review, and then award, below is a notional schedule:
May 15 Day 0: AWARD May 1 -14: Review April 15 -30 Evaluation March 15 -60 Final RFP Release Feb 25 -80 Question Due from Industry Feb 10 -90 Draft RFP Release Jan 20 -110 Sources Sought Due Jan 10 -120 Market Research – Sources Sought The Government will communicate FOPR release schedules to successful IDIQ awardees.
The Government is considering an alternate schedule to accommodate industry feedback.
Proposal response timelines will be dictated by the requirements.
No updates generated by this comment.
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 6 | |||
| Question 4 | N/A | How can the Government improve off-ramp procedures? | Response: | |
| We agree with the current off-ramping procedures. | No updates generated by this comment. | |||
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 9 Question 1 | N/A | Is this a schedule that industry will be able to support? (assume 30 days to respond to FOPR) |
Response:
1) In order to be fair to all competitors, TOs should not overlap. Every company should only be required to respond to one task order at a time. Some companies (especially Small Businesses) will be disadvantaged if they need to respond to more than one TO at a time.
| 2) If TOs are simple in nature, the Government could consider reducing the response time to 21 days, allowing additional time for Government evaluation. | See line 34 | |||
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 9 Question 2 | N/A | What specific changes can be made to the items delivered as part of the FOPR proposal to facilitate government review? |
| Response: | |||||
| The Government should consider increasing the review/evaluation time for TO proposals to more than two weeks. This could be beneficial in a robust competitive environment: F&O (2 to 8 Proposals); SBSA (10 to 15 proposals). Please see response to Slide 6, Question 3 (line 7 above). Also, please consider that the use of a Sources Sought process to down select offerors will reduce the number of proposals received while maintaining competition, thereby streamlining review and selection time. | The Government is changing price evaluation: Pricing will be evaluated at the IDIQ level, not the FOPR level. This will reduce the Government evaluation time needed. | ||||
| READ ME PowerPoint | Slide 4, 2nd bullet | N/A | Task Orders greater than 80 FTE shall be set aside for small business, if supported by market research (Para 2.5.2) | With respect to the SBSA threshold of 80 FTE, based on our direct experience in this mission area, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming to recruit and onboard 80 FTE in a short amount of time. To the best of our knowledge, the Directorate has never awarded a technical A&AS Small Business award of more than 40 FTE. Horizon II was competed Full and Open at 70 FTE and the Government only received one proposal. Horizon II market research determined that there were not enough qualified Small Businesses to create adequate, credible competition; so Horizon II was competed without restriction at 70 FTE. Please note: Government risk increases if a proposed staffing solution (or the underlying evaluation criteria) assumes that an incumbent workforce is simply going to re-badge. Re-badging is often not the case where Large Businesses have multiple contracts and technical staff desire to stay with their company. We recommend the Government talk to Remote Sensing and discuss transition realities and the poor performance of that particular (and ongoing) transition with regard to the incumbent staff. To close, an offeror's staffing plan should not be considered adequate if it assumes the offeror will be able to hire the incumbent workforce. |
To minimize critical staffing and mission risk, we highly recommend that the Government: 1) removes any pre-set FTE limit governing Small Business set-aside; 2) conducts detailed market research and use a Sources Sought for each TO determine if Small Businesses have recent capabilities and experience to perform the work; and 3) uses Small Business set-aside only where companies can demonstrate recent and relevant capability, experience, expertise, education, and training in performing the requirements for this critical mission area. The Government has based their decision on current market research.
No updates generated by this comment.
| Ordering Guide | Page 8 of 21 | N/A | Small Business Participation, 10 Page Limit | Please confirm that the requirement for small business participation limit of 10 pages is separate for the IDIQ and Task Order and not a combined 10 page limit. | The Government has removed page limitations for small business documents. | |
| Ordering Guide | Page 8 of 21 | N/A | Small Business Participation, 10 Page Limit | Will the Government consider increasing the page count limit for Small Business Participation for the Task Order to unlimited? Alternatively, would the Government consider excluding Teaming Agreement and other supporting documentation from the page count and increase the Small Business Participation document to 15 pages? | The Government has removed page limitations for small business documents. | |
| Ordering Guide | Page 18 of 21 | N/A | The Government will compare the proposed experience to the required experience provide by the Offeror’s to Attachment 1 - Staffing Matrix and will also verify clearances. A proposal will be considered “acceptable” and “green” IAW Tables 2.4.1 A and 2.4.1 B if it meets all qualifications provided in the Staffing Matrix and meets security requirements associated with the position as listed in Column T, Minimum Security Clearance and PSQs indicate that the individuals are able to maintain the requisite clearance. | Please review Section 2.5.1. There appears to be a typo: Minimum Clearance in the Staffing Matrix is column O (not column T). | Government will update for FOPR release, to align with requested columns. |
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 .