GEARSS_Pre_Solicitation_Draft_RFP_Industry_Comment_Resolution_(Final)_-_20150708.pdf

# Page #, Section #, Paragraph # Was (Original Language) Government Response

1 Solicitation, page 2 The transition period (CLIN 0000) period of performance is identified as "Offeror proposes a period NTE 90days". We recommend a fixed time duration for all offerors (e.g., the comments for the earlier draft materials identified a 30‐day period). If PoP is not fixed, then consider offeror beginning full performance (base period) prior to the 1/1/2016 date.

The targeted contract award date is 1 October 2015 with CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 effective on 1 January 2016. Full GEARSS performance is set to start on 1 January 2016 and the base period with option periods and extension of services forms the basis for a competitive SBSA LPTA acquisition. The Optional Transition CLINs are to allow for each offeror to propose a price, if it chooses to, for its Phase In Plan and deployment outlays. The price of the transition CLINs is included in the total award value and could result in the apparent lowest TEP being found unaffordable. Offerors are cautioned that pricing transition CLINs is Optional.

2 Solicitation, page 2 The sustainment services noted in CLIN 0001 (as well as similar CLINs) identifies GCSS support. Is this intended to be GEARSS? If not, please clarify the differences between the GCSS contract and GEARSS scope.

Administrative error. Corrected.

3 Solicitation, page 22 It appears that several FAR clauses may be missing. For example, FAR 52.204‐8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (NOV 2014) is required and has sections to be completed by the offeror.

Paper saving strategy. Included in RFP.

4 Solicitation, page 24‐28 There are still several blank fields/?????? or fill‐ins that don't appear to have correct information. Please complete and/or clarify.

Draft Document. Final RFP will have all Fill‐ins addressed or set with TBD, where appropriate.

5 Solicitation, page 40 Section J identifies Attachments 6‐9 incorrectly (they are 4‐7 in the draft RFP) and does not include all attachments.

Please clarify/correct.

Draft Document. Final RFP will have the final list with attachments assigned.

6 Solicitation, page 40 Attachment 8 (Letter of Identification (LOI)) is included, but there is no further reference in the draft RFP for the applicability of this form. Please clarify if this form is required for proposal submission.

Part of a "model contract". The form, or one meeting the same intent, will be used to track budget and expenditures; used primariy to request, authorize, approve travel and also serves as evidence for reimbursement.

7 Solicitation, Section L, page 1 of 2 FAR 52.222‐46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (FEB 1993) is included, but there is no indication where compensation plan should be included in offeror's proposal submission. Please clarify.

Draft Document. Included in RFP.

Document: GEARSS FA8823‐15‐R‐0001 PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

Document: GEARSS FA8823‐15‐R‐0001 PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

8 Solicitation, Section L, page 1 of 2 Solicitation provisions that are included don't seem to be applicable (e.g., DFARS 252.232‐7014 NOTIFICATION OF

PAYMENT IN LOCAL CURRENCY (AFGHANISTAN) (SEP 2014)).

Please clarify/correct.

Draft Document. Corrected in RFP.

9 Addendum to Section L, page 5 Volume I identifies Tabs 3‐5 for Section G‐I completions, but there are no fill‐ins required in the draft RFP/solicitation.

Please clarify what these tabs should include.

Draft Document. Corrected in RFP.

10 Addendum to Section L, page 6 Volume II identifies an Executive Summary in Tab 1.

However, there is already an executive summary included in Volume I (Tab 0). Recommend the inclusion of an executive summary in only one location (Volume II seems more appropriate for evaluation purposes) and applying change accordingly in Table L‐1

Draft Document. Corrected in RFP.

11 Addendum to Section L, page 7 Section 3.2.3.3 states "Provide a matrix or table that identifies an overall staffing approach to include skill mix with hours for tasks in paragraph 2 and each task of paragraph 3 (3.1.1, 3.1.2, etc.) of the PWS. Additionally, the contractor shall provide a total for each high level objective of paragraph 3 (3.1, 3.2, etc.) of the PWS. Provide this staffing approach with hours for the base year and each option year for the duration of the contract." PWS Paragraph 2 does not identify any performance standards and several portions of Paragraphs 3 dictate a specific level of support (e.g., "24‐hours per day, 7‐days per week NAO coverage") that would include hours for subsequent paragraphs of the PWS. Please clarify if details are needed to the third level paragraph (e.g., 3.2.2) and if subtotal/total rows need to identify various labor categories.

Draft Document. Modified in RFP. Offerors are cautioned to provide details to the level it believes can be clearly evaluated on its own merit.

No assumptions should be made that the members of the source selection evaluation team have any knowledge of the Offerors unstated capabilities. The level of detail should be commenserate with the complexity of the service being provided as well as delineate teaming areas of responsibility.

PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

12 Addendum to Section L, page 9 Section 3.3.1.5.4 states "Contractor Estimated Budget for ODC CLIN. The Contractor IS NOT required to include estimates for cost reimbursable items. Non‐reimbursable other direct costs for which the contractor is liable to be included in the Sustainment FFP CLIN." Please clarify what should be included in this section.

Draft Language. Modified in RFP. Offerors are cautioned that the Government only intends to pay for pre‐approved expenditures under the ODC CLINs. No assumptions should be made that the Government will approve any travel or other directs costs or manage the outlay of funds in the same manner as other agencies, presently or historically.

The proposal should include information in the form of stated assumptions what expenditures will be reimbursed in transition periods and in sustainment periods. The basis for the expenditure must be supported, as instructed in the RFP.

13 Addendum to Section L, page 10 Table L‐1 appears to identify the incorrect Section L references. Please clarify/confirm.

Draft Document. Corrected in RFP.

14 Addendum to Section L, page 10 Table L‐1 identifies a sanitized copy of the technical proposal volume ("One copy of the technical volume must be sanitized so that the identity of the offeror is undeterminable"). This appears difficult based upon technical process approach, staffing plan, contingency offers, data rights, etc. We recommend removal of this sanitized copy to ensure discriminators can be clearly identified and discussed.

Draft Document. Modified in RFP.

15 Addendum to Section M, page 3 Section 3.1.4 (Total Evaluated Price) identifies transition price (CLIN 0000) will be included in the TEP. Earlier comments from the Government states "The Government will not require the contractor to include this in the TEP."

Recommend that transition pricing is not included in TEP since incumbent contractor has no/minimal transition costs.

Draft Document. Corrected in RFP. Transition CLINs 4001 and 4002 are Optional CLINs Offerors are not required to propose on optional CLINs outside the sustainment period and extension of services clause.

16 PWS, page 8 Section 2.8 (Associate Contractor Agreement) ‐ Does an ACA need to be put into place prior to contract award or contract (base period) start?

An ACA must be in place prior to the need to share information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, or resources.

17 DD254 The PWS does not identify a requirement to access and/or safeguard Top Secret information at contractor's facility.

There is only two references to TS/SCI within the PWS (Sections 3.4.4 and 4.1 (SCIF area is TS/SCI (GIN))). Clarify if offeror must have a SCIF at a contractor facility or correct Box 1b

A SCIF at a contractors' facility is not required. Corrected in RFP.

Offerors are encouraged to annotate any corrects to the DD254 when completing for its proposal submission.

PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

18 DD254 Is there a limit to the number of TS/SCI billets available for this contract?

The Government will secure the requisite billets based on the Offerors staffing solution in it technical approach, which must demonstrate an understanding of the security requirements associated with the GCS GEARSS enviroment.

19 General Does the Gov't plan to provide any requirements for the availability of remote sites being operational? We could not identify any Performance Based Outcomes posted in the Bidder's Library.

The AEP Availability, Dependibility and other maintenance metrics are not assigned at the Remote site sustainment level.

20 General Will cross‐utilization of GCSS staff with GEARSS staff be prohibited? Otherwise the GCSS incumbents have an advantage.

Prohibitions and restrictions are sensitive matters. The final RFP will have the approved language. Offerors should note that incumbents have less advantage when the incumbent is a large business and the procurment is set aside for competition amongst qualified small businesses. Participation by other than the prime small business is limited on this acquisition and that level of participation must be demonstrated in a proposal. The source selection team has considered competitive advantage when establishing the selection criteria as equitably and objectively as possible. Technical approaches must demonstrate that the execution does not jeapardize a critical military asset or mission. Sharing resources can be very risking. The proposal would have to demonstrate an acceptable approach. Any advantage the incumbent may be diluted when factoring in pass through costs and the(un) willingess of the small business prime to assume so much risk with so little return, if even found to be the lowest price.

21 PWS How is GEARSS Ops support and analysis, as defined in Section 3.4, different from GCS Level 1 support?

Draft Documents. Modified in RFP. Offerors should note GEARSS is a stand alone requirement and independent of similar support provided under GCS. If an Offeror believes there are duplicative tasks without the requirement for redundancy, it should make that assessment clear in its technical approach.

PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

22 PWS The GEARSS PWS states "3.1.1 Provide approximately four engineering estimates, in hours, annually for any changes to hardware, software or operations and sustainment procedures requested by the Government." However, the final PWS for the GCSS states "3.1.2 Provide approximately 18 engineering (cost and hours) estimates annually for any changes to hardware, software or operations and sustainment procedures requested by the Government." Besides the number of estimates, can you differentiate between these two contracts and possible overlaps?

Draft Documents. Modified in RFP. Offerors should note GEARSS is a stand alone requirement and independent of similar support provided under GCS. If an Offeror believes there are duplicative tasks without the requirement for redundancy, it should make that assessment clear in its technical approach.

23 PWS There are several sections of the GEARSS PWS with the same contract scope (i.e., PWS sections) as the final RFP for the GPS Control Segment Sustainment (GCSS) solicitation. Can the Government identify which scope is being moved from the initial GCSS contract awarded?

Sustainment support to the grounds control segment of the GPS program has very similar scope, sometimes overlapping scope. The tasks performed under the umbrella of scope are unique to the effort.

Offerors shall propose to the tasks required by the GEARSS requirement. If an Offeror believes there are duplicative tasks without the requirement for redundancy, it should make that assessment clear in its technical approach

24 PWS Both the GEARSS PWS and the GCSS PWS identify Technical Meeting Support, with the performance standard being attendance at the same meetings (CCWG, MCBs, PRBs, RSPs, etc.). Can this support be provided by the same individual and satisfy both contracts?

In addition to the response in Item 20 above, it is not uncommon for contracts to share management resources of the sort to attend meetings. If there is any competitive advantage in this situation, it looks to be immeasurable.

25 PWS PWS section 3.4.2 identifies daily on‐orbit and launch support. Currently, both Boeing and Lockheed Martin provide this type of support as the satellite manufacturers.

Please confirm that this support level is not required on the GEARSS contract

Support commenserate with the level and type support provided by a satellite OEM is not required by the GEARSS sustainment support provider.

26 PWS In the first set of answers, the Government identified several responses that were not incorporated into the draft PWS.

For example, "The OA requirements are defined as "senior" support to 2 SOPS day‐to‐day OA personnel" was not reflected in STD #5 for PWS section 3.4.2.

The distinction between nominal (OA) and non‐nominal (GEARSS) has been clarified in the revisions to the PWS. Updated in RFP.

PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

27 PWS Based upon the first set of comments resolved by the Government, it appears that several responses were not captured in the draft PWS. For example, "The Contractor should expect the simulators to be used weekly throughout the duration of the GEARSS contract. The level of support will vary depending on the training and/or scenarios required" was not included. Can the Government identify all requirements and assumptions to the expected level of support required?

Draft PWS 3.4.3 was revised and LADO OLT requirement removed.

Modified for RFP

28 General Why did the Government decide only on a 3 year total PoP?

What is the driving reason for not doing a standard 5 year PoP and is there a longer term strategy for GEARSS that does not involve the scope of work as a stand‐alone contract?

The three year performance period with the option to extend services up to six months aligns with the expiration of the current GCS contract and the option to extend those services. The addition of two option periods is being contemplated prior to RFP release. The combination of a long term strategy and a moving target prevents us from speculating on what the follow on course of action will be until market research is performed closer to the business case analysis.

29 PWS The Draft PWS includes Orbital Analysis (OA) work but it is our understanding that all 50 SW OA work is being consolidated into another contract – can you confirm that GEARSS OA support is still in scope of this contract and will be supported by the GEARSS contractor?

The distinction between nominal (OA) and non‐nominal (GEARSS) scenarios has been clarified in the revisions to the PWS. Updated in

RFP.

30 Section I Section I 52.222‐42 includes an equivalent rate clause. Is the SCA applicable to GEARSS and does the Government intend to provide equivalent rates for certain or all labor categories?

Draft documents. Updated in RFP. The service contract applies if the Offeror proposes service employees. If the Offeror asserts that the majority of tasks being performed meet an SCA‐exemption or the location of the services is exempt, the SCA would not apply, all other conditions being met.

31 PWS PWS 3.4.4 Standard #5 states the need for TS/SCI support.

Can the Government clarify which PWS areas require TS/SCI support vs. TS only or Secret only and how many SCI billets will be provided on GEARSS?

Draft documents. Updated in RFP. In addition to the response in Item 18 above, the revised PWS paragraphs 3.4.4 STD #1, 3.4.5 and 3.4.8 requires support at the TS/SCI level. All remaining support is at the Secret level.

PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

32 PWS PWS 3.5.2 Standard #1 states that all personnel ready to execute at contract award but this is prior to transition. Can the Government clarify that the requirement to have all personnel ready is actuall at contract start (post Phase‐In)?

Draft documents. Updated in RFP. The targeted contract award date is 1 October 2015 with CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 effective as of 1 January 2016. Fully GEARSS performance is set to start on 1 January 2016 and the base period with option periods and extension of services forms the basis for a competitive SBSA LPTA acquisition. The Transition CLINs are to allow for each offeror to propose a price, if it chooses to, for its Phase In Plan and deployment outlays. The price of the transition CLINs is included in the total award value and could result in the apparent lowest TEP being found unaffordable. Offerors are cautioned that transition CLINs are Optional.

33 PWS PWS 4.1 states that the SCIF area for GIN support is TS/SCI for the MCS and AMCS – can the Government please clarify the exact PWS areas to be supported by TS/SCI level personnel and how many SCI billets are being provided on

GEARSS?

See Item 31 above.

34 Section L Section L3.3.1.3 states that Price Reasonableness is evaluated but the Government has not provided a budget for Offeror’s to gauge affordability against. Since Reasonableness is evaluated, please provide the Government’s budget for all supported years so all Offeror’s can properly scope and size this effort

The government has elected not to provide the budget value.

Providing a budget essentially creates a target price which undermines the value gained by have companies compete to keep prices reasonable so the Government pays a fair market price.

35 Section M Section M2.2.1.1 states that all personnel must be ready to execute at “contract award” but this does not take into account the 90 day transition period. Can the Government please correct this to either “contract start” or “after completion of Phase‐In activities”?

Draft documents. Updated in RFP. The targeted contract award date is 1 October 2015 with CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 effective as of 1 January 2016. Fully GEARSS performance is set to start on 1 January 2016 and the base period with option periods and extension of services forms the basis for a competitive SBSA LPTA acquisition. The Transistion CLINs are to allow for each offeror to propose a price, if it chooses to, for its Phase In Plan and deployment outlays. The price of the transisiton CLINs is included in the total award value and could result in the apparent lowest TEP being found unaffordable. Offerors are cautioned that transition CLINs are Optional.

PreSolicitation Draft RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK

FROM INDUSTRY

Government responses are for informational purposes and do not take precedence over information or instructions in the forthcoming Solicitation RFP package. Offerors will be encouraged to review the RFP package and officially identify areas of concern during the proposal period.”

36 Section M Section M2.2.2.1 states that bidders must provide “key technical staffing…” – can the Government clarify their expectation for this section in terms of names, resumes or qualification summaries? Since this is a non‐personal services contract, it is our belief that no resumes or names should be provided because that would be the Government driving staffing for the effort. Instead, we would expect it to be a staffing plan and minimum experience requirements for each required PWS area in L2.2.2.1. Please clarify.

GEARSS is a requirement for non‐personal services using performance based objectives. The Offerors must demonstrate their understanding of the skills, experience, and qualifications needed to meet the performance standards to include the skill blending or mix proposed to staff the support positions.

37 Section L Section L2.10.2 states that volumes should be bound in three‐ hole “environmentally friendly binder”. Can the Government please provide a definition of an environmentally friendly binder?

Draft Document. Updated in RFP.