Consolidated_Industry_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 62 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GSC-QF0B-15-32959
About this file
Consolidated Industry Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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
Sheet1
| USCYBERCOM GSC-QF0B-15-32959 | |||
| Questions and Answers | |||
| Duplicate refers to when the question has been previously answered in the Advance Notice Q&A or it answered to a similar question within this spreadsheet | |||
| PARAGRAPH # | PARAGRAPH TITLE | QUESTION | COMMENT |
| Attach E Seed TO 1, C.2 | Scope | The scope paragraph includes Engagement Activities as one of the core disciplines. However, Engagement activities does not appear to be a component of the STO. Is it the Government's intent to add additional scope to cover Engagement Activities? And if not, will the Government remove item 7 from paragraph C.2? | See Section C.2 of Attachment E that removed the Engagement Activities language. |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | The second paragraph of this section, fourth sentence, states "Charts/Graphics text must maintain a font minimum of 9 point, including in the Volume III slides, and…" Is it the Government's intent that the word "Volume" should be "Part"? | See Section L.6 for change from Volume to Part. |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | Is it the Government's intent that the fourth paragraph of this section read "For the Video Technical Proposal Video Presentation slides only, the slides shall not contain any fonts smaller than a proportionally spaced font (such as Times New Roman) of at least 9 point (vs 12)?" Stating 9 point font here provides consistency with the second paragraph. | See Section L.6 for clarification that the minimum font size is 9 pt in Charts/Graphics/Tables within the Video Slides. |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | Are proportionally spaced fonts other than Times New Roman acceptable for Video Presentation Slides? | Duplicate |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | The Government has stated that “Charts/Graphics text must maintain a font minimum of 9 point.” While the Government does not specify a font size for tables, is it correct to consider that Tables are Charts for the purposes of following font size restrictions? | See Section L.6 for clarification that the minimum font size is 9 point in Charts/Graphics/Tables within the Video Slides. |
| L.5.1.j | Existing Joint Venture of Partnership, if applicable and Question and Answer #14 | The answer to Question 14 states "At the Basic Contract level, all proposals for this effort must be either submitted by a single Prime contractor with no subcontractors or an existing CTA…" Section L.5.1.a (OCI) states "the offeror and each subcontractor, consultant, and teaming partner shall complete and sign an OCI Statement. "Section H.3.1 (General Security Requirements) states "The prime contractor, its subcontractors, and its teaming partners must have a final TS Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Security Service (DSS Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission." Given that there are no subcontractors proposed at the IDIQ level, is it the Government's intent that in those instances where reference is made to subcontractors, that it is intended to mean at the task order level? | Yes, OCI statements for subcontractors is at the task order level as stated in section H.3.1 of the RFP |
| H.3, L.6.1 and M.3.4 | Security Requirements/Various | Will the Government revise Section M.3.4 to reflect the answer provided in question #54 that states a statement to comply with the Security Requirements suffices? Section M.3.4 states proposals will be rejected if they do not provide a "statement describing how the contractor will comply with the security requirements stated in H.3..." | See Section M.3 Bullet 4 for updated language that a statement that the offeror will comply with the security requirements is required. |
| L.7.2 | Video Technical Proposal Presentation Media | The last paragraph of this section requires offerors to reference the Section/subsection number from Section C and the Section F deliverable that is being described or discussed on the slide. Would the Government please number the IDIQ Basic Contract Section F.4 deliverables as was done for the Seed TO1 Section F.3 Deliverables so as to facilitate reference to them? | See Section F deliverables for added numbering of deliverables. |
| Reading Room and Classified Posting to ARC | When will the Government post documents to the Reading Room or ARC? Will the Government provide notification when items are posted? | Documents have already been posted. | |
| L.6 and L.6.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) and Seed Task Order 1 Transition-In Plan (Tab FF) | Section L.6, as a parenthetical example of items included and excluded from page count, indicates that the Table of Contents for the 5-page Transition-In plan is included in the 5 page count. However, this is not specifically addressed in Section L.6.6. Is it the Government's intent that this parenthetical reference in L.6 is not intended to actually include the TOC in the five page limitation of the Transition-In plan? | See Section L.6 for removal of the parenthetical example. |
| L.6.8 | Past Performance Submission (Tab HH) | Under the Past Performance section, an offeror is required to submit up to five past performance projects: a minimum of two as prime and the remaining with the offeror involved as a performing subcontractor. If the Offeror intends to execute this program by a wholly-owned subsidiary (which is a legal entity) which is fully integrated into its parent company and shares management, processes, personnel and assets, will the government accept a Past Performance project from the parent company and/or any of its other integrated subsidiaries as one of the Offeror’s past performance projects provided the parent company performed the past work as prime? |
The Government may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent of affiliated company to an offeror where the firm's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the the parent of affiliate will affect the performance of the Offeror.
RFP Section H.19
RFP Section L.5.1(k) Small Business Subcontracting Goals
Cost/Price Proposal Tabs, Subcontracting Plan (Tab K), page L-13 In the final RFP, the Government removed the phrase "...includes HUB Zone small, small disadvantaged, women-owned small, veteran-owned small, service-disabled veteran-owned small, and other small business concerns."
This indicates a new total small business subcontracting goal (all categories) of 63%.
| Please confirm this is the correct small business subcontracting goal. | See Section H.19 for clarification to Small Business Goals |
| RFP Section H.19 |
RFP Section L.5.1(k) Small Business Subcontracting Goals
Cost/Price Proposal Tabs,
| Subcontracting Plan (Tab K), page L-13 | If the small business subcontracting goal of 30% is intended to represent the TOTAL small business subcontracting goal (inclusive of all categories of small business), please correct the goals of HUBZone, SDB, WOSB and SDVOSB. Those percentages add up to 33%, which is greater than the 30% small business goal. | Duplicate |
| RFP Sections L.6.8, M.4.3, M.4.7; |
Attachments J and L Past Performance Submission Past Performance as it Relates to the Ten Core Disciplines Past Performance as it Relates to Seed TO 1
| Please confirm that past performance evaluations of quality, timeliness and cost efficiency of the work performed will be based on the Attachment L Surveys, and that the Attachment J Past Performance Sheet should focus only on similarity of scope, size, breadth and complexity of work performed as it relates to the IDIQ core disciplines. | Past performance should conform to Sections L and M. | |||
| RFP Section L.6.8 | Past Performance Submission | Section L.6.8 specifies one past performance example required in Seed TO1, however Section M.4.7 indicates five examples for TO1 are required. Please clarify. | See Section M.4.7 for substitution of five examples with submitted. | |
| Attachment E (TO 1), | ||||
| Section B.5 | Direct Labor Rates | Section B.5 of Attachment E (Task Order 1), states that labor categories proposed shall be mapped to existing multiple award (MA) (IDIQ) labor categories. |
| Does this apply only to the Prime or does this also include all subcontractor labor categories? If so, in which attachment should this information be provided? | See Section B.5 of Attachment E. Information shall be enterred into the Project Staffing Plan, Attachment F | ||
| RFP Section L.7.4.3 | SEED TO1 Management Approach (Topic 3) | L.7.4.3 Topic 3 (and M.4.5) requires offerors demonstrate "...the integration, extent, and depth of small and disadvantaged business participation in Seed TO1." |
However, the Tab K requires a creative and innovative program for small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, and service-disabled veteran owned small business concerns in performing this contract.
| Please confirm if in the response to Topic 3 (Factor 5) offerors should address Small businesses and Disadvantaged Businesses participation, but not include Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and HUBZone small businesses. | Duplicate | |||
| RFP Section L.5.1 | ||||
| paragraph S | Cost/Price Proposal Tabs, | |||
| Subcontractor Supporting Documentation | Does the government consider a T&M subcontract to be a cost-type subcontract? Are sealed packages required from T&M subcontractors? | A T&M is not considred a cost-type subcontract. As stated within Section L.6 of the RFP, "In addition to the supporting cost back-up documentation, DCAA contact information and relevant cost/pricing data shall be provided for all cost type subcontractors...... Subcontractors may submit proprietary data directly to the FEDSIM CO or through the prime contractor in a separate, sealed envelope." | ||
| N/A | GSC-QF0B-15-32959_RFP_SF33, page 1 | What is the DPAS rating for this contract? | There is no DPAS rating pertaining to this acquisition. | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section H.10 | Subcontractor Lists, page H-7 | This paragraph requires the Prime to submit a list of all subcontractors (team members) with their initial proposal at the TO level. Should this material be placed in Tab S or does the Government desire another location? | The information should be provided at TAB S. | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section M.4 | Technical Evaluation Factors, Page M-3 | Factor 7 of this paragraph evaluates the past performance as it relates to the Seed TO1. Attachment J is used to provide the past performance and has areas to address the IDIQ 10 core disciplines but does not have an area to address the Seed TO. How should the Seed TO relevant past performance be provided using Attachment J? | Provide TO1 past performance using Attachment J | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959 Attachment O | Task Order 1 Excel Cost Workbook | What start date and period of performance should be used for pricing the optional tasks in CLIN x002? | See Section L.6.1 that states the start date for the base period and each option year should be 1 June. | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section L.7.1 | Video Technical Proposal Presentation Constraints, Page L-20, First Paragraph | This instruction states, in part: “Key Personnel introductions may be integrated into the video opening credits for clarity." | ||
| Though it is not specifically stated in the RFP, is it correct to assume that the Part IV credits (along with these Key Personnel Introductions), as well as Title Slide and Non-Disclosure Statement DO NOT count against the 120-minute time limititation for the video. | The identification of authors of the presentation by name and association with the offeror in the opening credits will count against the 120 minute limitation for the video. | |||
| N/A | Government_Response_to_Advance_Notice_Questons, Question #69 | In response to question #69, the Government indicated there was an update made to Attachment E. Could the Government indicate what change was made? We have been unable to identify the change. | See Section L.3.4 of the RFP for the appropriate hours. Section C.4.8 of Attachment E has been updated to remove the percentage associated with surge requirements. | |
| Attachment E - Seed TO1; Section C.4.8 and GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section L.3.4; | Task 8: Provide Cyber Operations Surge Support (Optional) Page C-33 and page L-5 | Attachment E, Section C.4.8 indicates that the Government anticipates the surge support will represent approximately 5 percent of the level of effort for tasks 1 through 7. Section L.3.4 of the RFP indicates that CLIN x003 hours are much larger than 5 percent of the CLIN x001 hours. For staffing planning evaluation purposes, please clarify which number should be used. | Duplicate | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section L.6.8 | Page L-19 | For the Past Performance Volume (HH) will the Government permit a introduction area? This would permit a rationale for the teaming and provide an overall relevancy mapping to the RFP. | Past performance shall adhere to section L.6.8 | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section M.1 and Section M.4.4 | Method of Award and Factor 4: Seed TO1 Key Personnel and Seed TO1 Project Staffing Plan; Page M-1 and Page M-5 | Section M.1 indicates that the Seed TO1 Technical Evaluation Factors include Seed TO1 Key Personnel and Seed TO1 Project Staffing Plan (Factor 3). However, Section M.4.4 indicates that Key Personnel and Seed TO1 Project Staffing Plan is Factor 4. Can the government please confirm that M.1 should refererence Factor 4 for the TO1 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan instead of Factor 3? | See Section M.1 for change from Factor 3 to Factor 4. | |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section L.5.1.1 | Page L-13 | In what manner will the Composite Rates be used either in the proposal for the Basic Contract and Seed TO1 or in any future Task Order proposal? | Composite rates proposed in response to the RFP will be evaluated in accordance with RFP paragraph L.5.1. Composite rates are based on current staff in applicable labor categories. The presumption is that those rates are established and will be verifiable through the DCAA because they are based on current staff and corporate indirect rates. Ceiling rates are, by definition, a projection of the highest rates that will be needed for the labor categories. Depending upon rate proposal methodology, the starting point for the calculation of ceilings might be current category hourly rates, but ceilings will also include proposed burdens for purposes of covering maximum costs into the future. Depending upon proposal methodology, some of these elements of cost may not be verifiable through DCAA. The Government will seek to understand the basis of estimate, the proposal methodology and the math used to arrive at proposed ceiling rates. |
Composite rates are necessary because while ceiling rates govern task order proposals and invoices, they are a projection of maximum direct and indirect costs for staff that might or might not exist today. Composite rates are necessary in order to be able to verify current direct labor and indirect rates. This will be informative at the contract and task order level. Composite rates are also necessary in order to establish a second point on the continuum of rates for a given labor category. This will be particularly helpful in evaluating task order proposals. Task order proposed rates (cost plus orders) are required to be lower than the corresponding category ceiling rate. The Government must have the composite rate structure in place in order to understand where that task order proposed rate is on the spectrum of rates for that category. Is it between approximate average and maximum? Is it below approximate average? The Government will compare task order proposed rates to both corresponding composite and ceiling rates. This will be done on the Seed task order and all future cost type task orders under the IDIQ.
| Sections H.3.1 and H.3.2 | General Security Requirements and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF); Page H.1 and Page H.2 | Offerors are only authorized to have DSS-certified TS/SCI work locations if those offerors and their locations are currently supporting contracts which require those certifications. Co-locating new contracts into those existing, occupied, DSS-certified locations requires the approval of the respective Program Offices. Coordination of those agreements can only be accomplished immediately following contract award as part of the transition, i.e. they will therefore not be in place "at time of contract award" [ref. H.3.1 General Security Requirements; H.3.2 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)]. Is it understood by proposal reviewers that the offeror cannot, by Security policy, have "idle" space standing by and will therefore need time, immediately post-award, to coordinate the requisite co-location/co-utilization agreement(s) between the 'owner' of existing DSS-certified TS/SCI SCIF space and the USCYBERCOM customer? | Yes. Upon award, the Government will coordinate with the contractor on the co-use agreement. |
| Section H.3.2 | Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF); Page H.2 | Offerors might choose to perform the TS/SCI work associated with this contract in existing SCIFs which are currently accredited by an Intelligence Community Agency. The co-use agreement between the current cognizant agency which accredits the SCIF and the USCYBERCOM customer must be coordinated after contract award as part of the transition plan, since it involves an agency-to-agency agreement based on contractual requirements. Is it understood by the proposal review team that an offeror may choose to perform the DoD TS/SCI work associated with this contract in an existing SCIF which is not currently "DSS-certified" [ref. H.3.2 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)], but which meets the same Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705 requirements, once a co-use agreement is completed with the SCIF 'owner' immediately following contract award? | The Government expects the offeror to fully adhere to the requirements of the RFP section H.3.2. Upon award, the Government will coordinate with the contractor on the co-use agreement |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Section B.2.2.3 | Ceiling Rates | In this clause ceiling rates apply to cost-reimbursable and fixed-price orders. Per FAR 16.301-1, Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. These contracts establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting officer. Why are ceiling rates applied to cost-reimbursable TOs, instead of using a total cost ceiling? Doesn't this conflict with the FAR 16.301-1 definition of cost-reimbursable contracts? | The use of ceiling hourly rates does not conflict with FAR 16.301-1. Cost reimbursement contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. Cost type task orders will establish a task order ceiling value. The ceiling rates will also cap the hourly rates proposed and invoiced for the orders. This establishes a worst case scenario for the Government in terms of projected costs. However, the intent is for ceiling rates to be created in such a way that they cover the costs of providing highly skilled technical experts that will be proposed at the task order level to meet the Government’s requirements. The intent is not to create a pricing structure that prevents the proposal or provision of highly skilled experts deemed necessary for inclusion on task order staffing plans. Balance is the goal. Balance between creating a pricing structure that allows for the proposal and provision of highly skilled and appropriately compensated experts versus creating parameters around cost risk for the Government. |
| GSC-QF0B-15-32959-RFP Sections F.4, G.2 and H.1 | Deliverables, Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel and Key Personnel Substitution; Page H-1 | The Milestone Deliverables Table in F.4 states that Key Personnel substitution notifications are required 5 working days prior to substitution. Section G.2 also states that the contractor shall notify the CO and provide all point-of-contact information for the new Key Personnel within five calendar days of the change. However, Section H.1 states that this notification shall be no later than 45 calendar days in advance of any proposed substitution. Please clarify, is a notification required 5 days in advance or 45 days? | See Section H.1 for update of language to be 5 Calendar Days. |
| B.2.2.4 | Composite Rates | Are Offeror’s required to provide composite rates for all labor categories in Attachment B? As the composite rates are only appilcable to the Prime, it is difficult for a small business the fulfill this requirement for all 126 labor categories. |
All prime offerors are requried to comply with the cost/pricing requriements.
B.2.2.5, B2.3.2, B.3, B.7 LABOR RATES Section B.2.2.5 Subcontractor Rates – Subcontractor rates will be negotiated separately as TO awards require.
B.2.3.2 T&M and LM Task Orders states in part, “. . . contractor may provide separate and/or blended loaded hourly rates for prime contractor labor, each subcontractor . . . “ T&M and LH TOs require The USCYBERCOM standardized labor categories and their associated rates to be identified in the TO proposal and award document.”
B.3 – “The ceiling rates proposed are the maximum rates that will be invoiced at the TO level when billing against the Basic Contract when billing against the Basic Contract Labor Categories when being invoices by the prime . . .”
B.7 – Subcontracting – “Subcontractor rates will be negotiated separately as TO awards require.”
Based upon the above references, the Government is specifically excluding subcontractor labor from both the ceiling and composite rates. Subcontractor labor would only be presented as an ODC on SEED TO1. Is that a correct statement? If so, for evaluation purposes how will the Government determine best value if the rates being evaluated do not include the Prime's proposed subcontractor's labor?
| Per the RFP, subcontractor rates will be evaluated and negotatied at the order level. Subcontractor labor support proposed for Seed TO1 shall be inaccordance with Section L.5.1(s) and will be evaluated based on Section M of the RFP. | ||||
| M.6 | COST/PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTOR | What purpose in evaluation do the composite rates serve, as cost realism and price reasonableness can be determined from the required ceiling rate cost buildup and Task Order 1 cost buildup? | Duplicate | |
| M.6 | COST/PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTOR | "Cost realism relates to an offeror's demonstration that the proposed cost or price provides an adequate reflection of the offeror's understanding of the Seed TO1 requirements of this solicitation" Will the Government confirm cost realism is determined by the offerors actual proposed rates for TO1 referenced in M.6, verses its composite rates ? | No additional information will be provided | |
| Ceiling Rates | Do the ceiling rates proposed for the Basic Contract apply to the subcontractor rates in TO #1? Can the proposed subcontractor rates in TO #1 be higher than the corresponding ceiling rate for that specific labor category? | Ceiling are applicable to the prime contractor. | ||
| RFP Section L.6.8 compared with Section M.4.7; pages L-19 and M-7 | L.6.8 Past Performance Submission; and M.4.7 Factor 7: Past Performance as it Relates to Seed TO1 | L.6.8, first paragraph, first sentence includes: "for a maximum of five Past performance examples". L.6.8, second paragraph, sixth end seventh line states: "Offerors shall show breadth and complexity across the IDIQ core disciplines across all five of the Past Performance examples." M.4.7, item c. states: "The proposed prime contractor was involved, as a prime or subcontractor, in all five projects." M.4.7, item d. states: "The proposed prime contractor performed in the role of prime contractor for at least two of the five projects." Question: Would the Government confirm whether two (2) or five (5) Past Performance examples are the minimum number of Past Performance examples that the contractor shall submit with their proposal response? | No minimum has been set | |
| RFP Section M.1.1 Contingency Procedures; page M-1 | Phase 2 (second indented paragraph) | The text states: "If a large number of offerors still remain in contention after Phase 2, the Government will continue to evaluate Factors 1 through 7 as well as conduct a price analysis of Seed TO1." Question: Would the Government describe what will occur during the Phase 2 evaluation? | No additional information will be provided | |
| RFP Section M.4.3; page M-4 | M.4.3 Factor 3 | Section title reads: "M.4.3 Factor 3: Past Performance as it Relates to the Ten Core Disciplines (TAB x)". Question: Is "TAB x" a placeholder for some other reference? | See Section M.4.3 Factor 3 for removal of the Tab x language. | |
| RFP Section M.4.7; page M-7 | M.4.7 Factor 7 | Section M.4.7, third paragraph includes intended items c. and d. Question: Would the Government confirm whether items a. and b. were deleted in error, or whether "c." and "d." should read "a." and "b"? | See Section M.4.7 for change from c and d to a and b. | |
| L.6.8 | Past Performance Submission (TAB HH) | How does the Government request the offeror handle a past performance citation when the customer's organization restricts the release of past performance information for relevant performance? | See Section M.4.3. When there is an absence of past performance information, the Government will treat the example as Neutral. | |
| H.19 | ||||
| Page H-12; L.5.1.k; Page L-12 | Subcontracting Plan | Since Subcontractor's names are not to be included in the Subcontracting Plan, should Contractors use subcontractor percentage values determined in their TO response as a basis to establish subcontractor goals for the Subcontracting Plan or, determine a separate basis for establishing subcontractor goals for the Subcontracting Plan? | No additional information will be provided | |
| H.19 | ||||
| Page H-12; L.5.1.k; Page L-12 | Subcontracting Plan | Is the Contractor required to meet subcontracting goals in their TO response? | No | |
| L.6; Page L-17 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (PART III) | "For the Video Technical Proposal Video Presentation slides only, the slides shall not contain any fonts smaller than a proportionally spaced font (such as Times New Roman) of at least 12 point." | ||
| Please confirm the Video Technical Proposal Video Presentation Slides and Charts / Graphics may use a proportionally spaced font other than Times New Roman 12 point. | Duplicate | |||
| Attachment B; |
Page 40, Paragraph 11 Cyberspace Joint Operation Planner Level I, II, and III The Qualifications for Level II states: “Two years of intelligence planning experience may be substituted with completion of an advanced Service planner school (SAMS, SAASS, JAWS, etc."
The Qualifications for Level III states: “Three years of intelligence planning experience may be substituted with completion of an advanced Service planner school (SAMS, SAASS, JAWS, etc.).”
Will the government clarify if a candidate without a Bachelor’s degree would need 2-3 years of additional experience plus completion of and advanced Service planner school, OR that a candidate with completion of advanced Service planner school can qualify for Level II or III with 2-3 years FEWER than the minimum number years’ experience.
| Per the overview of the Labor Category (LCAT Descriptions. "If a minimum education requirement is cited, the minimum degree may not be substituted for experience. For example, if the minimum requirement is a Bachelor’s Degree, then a one year substitution for experience does not meet the requirement." No substititution for a Bachelor's degree is acceptable. Completion of the SAMS, SAASS or JAWS, etc reduceds the experience requirment by four years. See Cyberspace Joint Operation Planner Level II and III descriptions for updated clarification language. | ||
| Attachment B; Basic Contract | LCAT | In a large majority of the LCAT descriptions, DoD 8140/8570 certifications for various IA Workforce Categories and Levels are required for staffing at RFP submission. |
| Since the DoD 8570-M prescribes that IA Baseline certification must be achieved within 6 months of assignment of IA duties (reference DoD 8570-M updated January 24, 2012, Section C.3.2.4.1.1.2 and C.4.2.3.2), will the government consider allowing proposers to submit candidates at proposal submission who will obtain the required certification prior to contract execution (which is within 6 months of the government's staffing projection start of June 1, 2016 which is within the allowances of DoD 8570-M guidance.)? | See Section L.6.4 for Key Personnel requirements. For other proposed personnel, required certification(s) will be required prior to staffing (see Attachment E, Section C.4.1.9 for the definition of staffing). | |||
| Attachment E -Seed TO1; H.3.1 | ||||
| Page H-5 | Information Assurance | "…all contractors performing Information Assurance (IA)-related functions shall have the minimum qualifications in accordance with DoD 8140.01 (replaces DoD 8570.01-M Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program) guidelines commensurate to contractor’s labor category and level.". | ||
| Please review the difference of the DoD Instructions (DoDI) versus the DoD Manuals (DoD-M). DoDI 8140.01 replaced the DoDI 8570, however, the DoDI 8140.01 still refers certification compliance requirements to the DoD 8570-M document. Please confirm that DoD 8570-M is still the authority on qualifications for the labor category and level. | For the proposal, DOD 8570-01-M is the authority document. | |||
| Attachment I | DD254 | Block 1B indicates Top Secret Safeguarding is required and Block 13 indicates Contractor SCIF space as a place of performance. Block 11A says all classified work will be done at a government site or other cleared contractor location. | ||
| Question: Will the Government please clarify the Security Requirement | No additional information will be provided | |||
| IDIQ RFP, Section I.5 | Clauses Incorporated by FullText - (FAR) | The solicitation notes in full text the Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities; however, the FAR reference 52.222-35 is associated with Equal Opportunity for Veterans. Is the intent that the full text capture 52.222-36, Equal Opportunities for Workers with Disabilities? | See Section I.5 for change of FAR reference from 52.222-35 to 52.222-36 for Equal Opportunities for Workers with Disabilities. | |
| Attachment E, Seed Task Order 1, Section C.4.8 | Provide Cyber Operations Surge Support (Optional) | Reference: IDIQ RFP, Section L.3.4, General Information for SEED TO01, Page L.5 , Attachment E, Seed Task Order (TO1), Section B 3.1, Page B-2. Attachment E, Seed Task Order (TO1), Section C 4.8 Task 8, Page C-33. Question: Attachment E, C.4.8 Task 8 - The government anticipates that annual surge events will represent approximately five percent of the level of effort required for tasks 1-7; however the IDIQ RFP L.3.4 identifies the surge hours under CLIN X003 as approximately 48% of the combined CLINS X001 and X002. It appears the hours associated with CLINS X002 and X003 may be inverted. Please confirm. | Duplicate | |
| Attachment E - Seed TO1, C.4.8 | Provide Cyber Operations Surge Support (Optional) | References: |
Attachment E, Seed Task Order (TO1), Section B 3.1, Page B-2 Attachment E, Seed Task Order (TO1), Section C 4.8 Task 8, Page C-33
Task 8 as currently stated does not provide sufficient clarity to ensure the government will receive the needed functional expertise, effort, and associated cost NTE upon award, it is recommended the Government either:
• Provide a specific surge scenario for offers to respond with their technical solution.
• In the event a scenario is not definable, provide a Not To Exceed value for the CLIN
| No additional information will be provided | |||
| IDIQ RFP, H.9 | Earned Value Management | The RFP requires the application of EVM to be in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard-748-A-1998. This standard has twice been updated since that time. Is it Government’s intent to use DFAR 252.234-7001 and 7002, with the current standard of EIA-748-C?” | See Section L.2.2 for addition of clause.252.234-7001 See Section I.6 for addition of clause 252.234-7002. |
| IDIQ RFP, H.3.1 | General Security Requirements | H.3.1 of the IDIQ identifies all TOs will be issued in support of classified programs, and the prime contractor, subcontractors and teaming partners must hold a final TS Facility Clearance at the time of submission. Please clarify that while the Prime contract must hold the FCL at the time of IDIQ submission the subcontractors and teaming partners must have a final TS Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of the TTO proposal submission. | Confirmed. |
| Attachment E |
Seed TO1 H.1.1 PROJECT MANAGER It is required that the PM have an active Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Professional (PMP®) or PMI Program Management Professional (PgMP®) Certification, or equivalent at the time of proposal submission.
Q: Would the Government please specify what would be considered a compliant certification equivalent? See Section H.1.1 of Attachment for updated language including equivalents.
| L.6 | Submission of the Written technical Proposal (Part III) | The RFP States "Charts/Graphics text must maintain a font minimum of 9 point, including in the Volume III slides" as well as stating "the slides shall not contain any fonts smaller than a proportionally spaced font (such as Times New Roman) of at least 12 point" within the same section. Will the Government please clarify whether all font within these slides must be at least 12 point or whether it is acceptable for offerors to use 9 point font in charts/graphics within these slides? | Duplicate |
| L.6.3 | Basic Contract and Seed TO1 Key Personnel Letters of Commitment (TAB CC) | The RFP states Letters of Commitment shall "include a statement that the proposed Key Personnel named is employed and available to begin work the specific start dates designated in the award announcements for both the Basic Contract and Seed TO1." |
| Will the Government please clarify that this requirement dictates that all Basic Contract and Seed TO1 Key Personnel must currently work for the Offeror or a member of its Team? If so, given the timeline to award, we recommend the Government remove the requirement that Seed TO1 personnel be currently employed by the offering Team as this limits the Offeror's ability to propose incumbent personnel or most-qualified candidates who are willing to join the Team at the time of award. | Duplicate | |||
| G.5; G.5.2 | Basic Contract Task Order Process; Task Order Proposal Submission | 1. Does the customer intend to require IDIQ holders to bid a minimum percentage of RTOPS? If so, will the small business awardees also be expected to bid on a minimum percentage of full and open RTOPS? | ||
| Assuming that RTOPS is Request for TO Proposals, there is no minimum percentage dictated. | ||||
| Attach E Seed TO 1, C.2 | Scope | The scope paragraph includes Engagement Activities as one of the core disciplines. However, Engagement activities does not appear to be a component of the STO. Is it the Government's intent to add additional scope to cover Engagement Activities? And if not, will the Government remove item 7 from paragraph C.2? | Duplicate | |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | The second paragraph of this section, fourth sentence, states "Charts/Graphics text must maintain a font minimum of 9 point, including in the Volume III slides, and…" Is it the Government's intent that the word "Volume" should be "Part"? | Duplicate | |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | Is it the Government's intent that the fourth paragraph of this section read "For the Video Technical Proposal Video Presentation slides only, the slides shall not contain any fonts smaller than a proportionally spaced font (such as Times New Roman) of at least 9 point (vs 12)?" Stating 9 point font here provides consistency with the second paragraph. | Duplicate | |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | Are proportionally spaced fonts other than Times New Roman acceptable for Video Presentation Slides? | Duplicate | |
| L.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | The Government has stated that “Charts/Graphics text must maintain a font minimum of 9 point.” While the Government does not specify a font size for tables, is it correct to consider that Tables are Charts for the purposes of following font size restrictions? | Duplicate | |
| L.5.1.j | Existing Joint Venture of Partnership, if applicable and Question and Answer #14 | The answer to Question 14 states "At the Basic Contract level, all proposals for this effort must be either submitted by a single Prime contractor with no subcontractors or an existing CTA…" Section L.5.1.a (OCI) states "the offeror and each subcontractor, consultant, and teaming partner shall complete and sign an OCI Statement. "Section H.3.1 (General Security Requirements) states "The prime contractor, its subcontractors, and its teaming partners must have a final TS Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Security Service (DSS Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of proposal submission." Given that there are no subcontractors proposed at the IDIQ level, is it the Government's intent that in those instances where reference is made to subcontractors, that it is intended to mean at the task order level? | Duplicate | |
| H.3, L.6.1 and M.3.4 | Security Requirements/Various | Will the Government revise Section M.3.4 to reflect the answer provided in question #54 that states a statement to comply with the Security Requirements suffices? Section M.3.4 states proposals will be rejected if they do not provide a "statement describing how the contractor will comply with the security requirements stated in H.3..." | Duplicate | |
| L.7.2 | Video Technical Proposal Presentation Media | The last paragraph of this section requires offerors to reference the Section/subsection number from Section C and the Section F deliverable that is being described or discussed on the slide. Would the Government please number the IDIQ Basic Contract Section F.4 deliverables as was done for the SeedTO1 Section F.3 Deliverables so as to facilitate reference to them? | Duplicate | |
| Reading Room and Classified Posting to ARC | When will the Government post documents to the Reading Room or ARC? Will the Government provide notification when items are posted? | Duplicate | ||
| L.6 and L.6.6 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) and Seed Task Order 1 Transition-In Plan (Tab FF) | Section L.6, as a parenthetical example of items included and excluded from page count, indicates that the Table of Contents for the 5-page Transition-In plan is included in the 5 page count. However, this is not specifically addressed in Section L.6.6. Is it the Government's intent that this parenthetical reference in L.6 is not intended to actually include the TOC in the five page limitation of the Transition-In plan? | Duplicate | |
| L.6.8 | Past Performance Submission (Tab HH) | Under the Past Performance section, an offeror is required to submit up to five past performance projects: a minimum of two as prime and the remaining with the offeror involved as a performing subcontractor. If the Offeror intends to execute this program by a wholly-owned subsidiary (which is a legal entity) which is fully integrated into its parent company and shares management, processes, personnel and assets, will the government accept a Past Performance project from the parent company and/or any of its other integrated subsidiaries as one of the Offeror’s past performance projects provided the parent company performed the past work as prime? | Duplicate | |
| L.5.1.(j) | Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable (TAB J) | This paragraph states, " 'Contractor Teaming Arrangement' (CTA) means an arrangement in which two or more companies form a Partnership or Joint Venture to act as a potential Prime Contractor (See FAR 9.601(1)); or, a potential Prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its Subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (See FAR 9.601(2)). For purposes of submitting an Offer under this solicitation, an existing CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(1) is allowable in accordance with the following paragraphs. Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) is not allowable and will be rejected." Request that the government clarify this section. May a contractor bid on the basic contract as a Prime with subcontractors. We are very unclear as to the intentions of the government as it relates to teaming arrangements. | Section L.5.1 clearly states that CTA iaw FAR.9.601(1) is acceptable. CTA iaw FAR 9.601(2) is not acceptable | |
| L.3.4 & Question #69 (Government Response to Advance Notice Questions) | GENERAL INFORMATION FOR SEED TO1 | The Government's response to Question #69 in the "Government_Response_to_Advance_Notice_Questons.xlsx" file released with the final RFP is unclear. |
The answer to the question was, "Please see attached updated Attachment E.” However, the portion of Section E in the final RFP appears to be unchanged and the discrepancy remains. Please clarify.
ORIGINAL QUESTION: "This section states that "For TO1, the total estimated labor hours for the CPFF portion of TO1 (CLINs X001, X002, X003) is between 806,660 and 896,000 hours. The optional CLIN, CLIN X002, is estimated to be between 41, 240 and 45,820 hours. The surge CLIN, CLIN X003 is estimated to be 262,260 and 291,400 hours." In Section J, Attachment E at C.4.8 it states that "The Government anticipates that annually surge events will represent approximately five percent of the level of effort required for Tasks 1 through 7." Based on the total number of hours for all three CLINs, the range of hours for CLIN X001 would be 503,160 to 558,780. If that is correct this would result in the surge requirement being higher than five percent of the level of effort for Tasks 1 through 7. Please clarify."
| Duplicate | |
| H.3.2, L.5.1.f, M.3 (5) | H.3.2 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) |
L.5.1 Cost/Price Proposal Tabs, bullet f. SCIF Identification Number or Co-utilization Agreement Number M.3 Pass/Fail Evaluation Factors, item 5. Section H.3.2 clearly states the pass/fail requirement as:
"The contractor shall have readily available access to DSS-certified work locations for performing classified work up to and including TS/SCI at time of contract award. The contractor must comply with DOD 5220.22M National Industrial Security Program Manual (NISPOM) and have access to a SCIF. The SCIF access may or may not be within 50 miles of Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. SCIF access may be through a team member.”
However Section L.5.1.f (mirrored in M.3(5)) introduces other requirements for the Contractor SCIF useful at the task order level but inappropriate at the IDIQ level for a SCIF pass/fail requirement (specifically, "access to JWICS, STEs, Polycom - unclassified and Secret").
Observation: This pass/fail requirement including the additional facility provisions of L.5.1.f would be unnecessary at the IDIQ level and could be interpreted as overly restricting competition for the IDIQ awards, particularly in light of the Government’s stated intent to reserve two awards for small businesses.
The actual work will be performed at the Task Order level and therefore, this facility would only be necessary at the Task Order level for certain requirements the Government desires to be performed at Contractor SCIF. At present this IDIQ RFP and Seed TO1 contain no firm requirement for such a facility at the task order level.
| Recommendation: We recommend that the additional SCIF requirements in L.5.1, specifically "access to JWICS, STEs, Polycom - unclassified and secret" be removed from the IDIQ evaluation pass/fail requirement, and used on a later Task Order where there is an actual firm requirement for place of performance at a contractor site SCIF. The only pass/fail criterion regarding the contractor site SCIF should be the security requirement as stated in H.3.2. | See Section L.5.1 Section f to remove "access to JWICS, STEs, Polycom - unclassified and secret" and "SCIF shall have a minimum of 30 seats" as a pass/fail requirement. Individual Task Orders will specify SCIF requirements. | |||
| H.3.2 | ||||
| L.5.1 | SCIF Identification Number or Co-utilization Agreement Number (TAB F). | Section H.3.2 states that "SCIF access may be through a team member" and Section M.3 states that "The Government will reject any proposal in which the offeror (prime contractor) does not provide the SCIF Identification Number or Co-Utilization Agreement number to which the offeror has access." These statements would indicate that the offeror (prime contractor) only needs to have access to the proposed SCIF and that it may be through a team member. However, Section L.5 states that "Offerors shall submit their SCIF Identification Number or Co-Utilization Agreement Number, or, if this information is classified, an appropriate point of contact to obtain the required information." The requirement at L.5.1 would indicate that the offeror (prime contractor) must provide its SCIF Identification Number or Co-utilization Agreement Number. Recommend that L.5.1 be modified to state that this information may be that of a team member as provided for in H.3.2. | See Section L.5.1 to change "their" to "a" to mean either the prime or team member's identification number. Also added clarification that a team member may provide the SCIF. | |
| L.7.3 | Technical Proposal Oral Question and Answer (Q&A) Session | Will the government provide written questions in advance of the Q&A session? | Questions will not be provided in advance | |
| L.6 | SUBMISSION OF THE WRITTEN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (PART III) | The government states that "Charts/Graphics text must maintain a font minimum of 9 point, including in the Volume III slides." The government also states in this paragraph that "slides shall not contain any fonts smaller than a proportionally space font (such as Times New Roman) of at least 12 point." |
| Can the government please confirm we are allowed to have graphics and charts in our Video Technical Proposal Video Presentation slides that are no smaller than 9 point font? | Duplicate | |||
| M.1.1 | CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES | The RFP states that the Government will conduct a price analysis of Seed TO1 and that this evaluation will be conducted according to Section M.4. There is no reference to price analysis in Section M.4. How will this initial price analysis be conducted? | See Section M.1 for change from M.4 to M.6 | |
| M.4.3 | FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE TEN CORE DISCIPLINES (TAB x) | The RFP states that "In addition, if past performance information is submitted, but does not meet the following requirements, the offeror will receive a Not Acceptable or Neutral overall rating for Past Performance." Which rating would the Offeror receive: Not Acceptable or Neutral? | See Section M.4.3 Factor 3 for removal of the or Neutral language. | |
| M.4.7 | FACTOR 7: PAST PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO SEED TO1 | The RFP states that "In addition, if past performance information is submitted, but does not meet the following requirements, the offeror will receive a Not Acceptable or Neutral overall rating for Past Performance." Which rating would the Offeror receive: Not Acceptable or Neutral? | Duplicate | |
| B.2.2.3, B.2.2.4 | B.2.2.3 CEILING RATES | |||
| B.2.2.4 COMPOSITE RATES | The ceiling rates are identified as applying to only cost reimbursable and firm fixed price task orders, but may be used for evaluation of T&M/LH type TO proposals. What is the purpose for the composite rates and how or will they be used for pricing of Task Orders? | Duplicate | ||
| B.2.3 | TIME AND MATERIALS (T&M) AND LABOR HOUR (LH) TASK ORDERS | This section states that "T&M and LH TOs require the USCYBERCOM standardized labor categories and their associated rates to be identified in the TO proposal and award document." Since ceiling labor rates apply to cost reimbursable and firm fixed price task orders only, we are assuming the T&M/LH rates associated with the standardized labor categories are to be proposed/developed at the Task Order level and shall not apply to the Basic Contract level. Is this assumption correct? | Yes. | |
| I.2.3 | CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE - FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) | The FAR clauses incorporated by reference include FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards. Please provide the applicable DoL wage determination that would apply to a resulting contract. | No additional information will be provided | |
| L.5.1 f. | SCIF Identification Number or Co-utilization Agreement Number (TAB F). | This section states that "IF the SCIF Identification Number or Co-Utilization Agreement Number is classified, please provide a point of contact in lieu of the Number so that USCYBERCOM may confirm that information." Please confirm that the appropriate point of contact is to be a Government representative. | The Government will contact the corporate point of contact knowledgeable about the SCIF Identification Number. The point of contact does not have to be a Government Representative. | |
| L.5.1 k. | Subcontracting Plan (TAB K) | This section states that "The offeror shall utilize $90 million per year as its baseline for establishing subcontract goals." Is this amount to be the amount of subcontracted or prime award dollars? | Duplicate | |
| L.6.8, M.4.3, M.4.7 | L.6.8 PAST PERFORMANCE SUBMISSION (TAB HH) |
M.4.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFOROMANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE TEN CORE DISCIPLINES (TAB x) M.4.7 FACTOR 7: PAST PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO SEED TO1 Section L.6.8 states that "The offeror shall be involved (as a prime or subcontractor) in all projects provided and, at minimum, provide two examples in which the proposed prime contractor performed the role of prime contractor for the project provided.
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 .