Government_Response_to_Advance_Notice_Questons.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 88 KB Posted
- Attached to
- US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MA IDIQ) Official Request for Proposal (RFP) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- GSC-QF0B-15-32959
About this file
2nd Advance Notice Q A
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 29
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Consolidated Questions
| QUESTION # | PARAGRAPH # | PARAGRAPH TITLE | QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| 1 | Draft RFP; Section B.3; Page B-3 | Basic Contract Established Schedule Rates | The Draft RFP, third paragraph states: "The ceiling rates proposed are the maximum rates that will be invoiced at the TO level when billing against the Basic Contract labor categories whether being invoiced by the prime in accordance with Section G." Question: is the word "whether" used to communicate "when", or does the use of the word "whether" suggest that there is an alternative use for ceiling rates? | The language within the paragraph has been changed to stated "when," see updated Section B.3. | |
| 2 | Draft RFP; Section F.6; Page F-4 | Deliverables Media | The Draft RFP described the preferred media as the Microsoft Suite, but does not specify fonts or font size. Question: Would the Government list the acceptable fonts and font sizes for the Proposal documents? | See updated Section L.6. | |
| 3 | Draft RFP; Section I; Clause 252.216-7006, (a); Page I-18 | Ordering | Draft RFP, first paragraph, last line says: " . . . orders may be issued from 1 June 2015 through 31 May 2020." This contradicts the Draft Attachment N with Terms starting 1 June 2016 and ending 31 May 2021. Question: Would the Government confirm the start and end of the period of performance? | See updated Section I.6. | |
| 4 | Draft RFP; Section L.4.3; Page L-7 | Proposal Part III | The Draft RFP says: "Part III is the written Technical Proposal. Page limitations, if applicable, are indicated in the parentheses following each item." Question: Would the Government confirm and state in the final solicitation documents that no page limitations exist for the sections where no page limits are stated? | Page limitations, if applicable, are indicated in Section L.4.3. | |
| 5 | Draft RFP; Section L.4.3; Page L-7 | Proposal Part III | The Draft RFP lists the required Tabs under the alphabetical sequence a, b, c, d, b, c, d, e, f, g. Question: Would the Government confirm that all of the Tabs are required in the sequence presented? | See updated Section L.4.3. | |
| 6 | Draft RFP; Section L.6; Page L-16 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (Part III) | The Draft RFP says: "Each offeror shall submit all information described in the following paragraphs. The offeror shall provide an original, six copies, and one electronic CD copy containing all required TABs of Part III with the exception of TAB JJ." Then follows with: "Each offeror shall provide an original, six copies, and one electronic CD copy of the TAB JJ, Video Technical Proposal Presentation Slides." Question: Would the Government confirm that TAB JJ should be submitted as a separate package? | See updated Section L.6. | |
| 7 | Draft RFP; Section L.7.2; Page L-20 | Video Technical Proposal Presentation Media | The Draft RFP, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence says: "The video presentation shall be in a presentation format." Question: Would the Government provide grading criteria for the presenters? | The Government will evaluate the proposals according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section M. | |
| 8 | Draft Task Order 1; C.4.1.10 Subtask 1.10; Page C-6 | Transition-Out | The Draft TO1 says: "The Transition-Out Plan shall facilitate the accomplishment of a seamless transition from the incumbent to an incoming contractor/Government personnel at the expiration of the TO. The contractor shall provide a Transition-Out Plan (Section F.3, Deliverable 16) NLT 90 calendar days prior to expiration of the TO." The following paragraph states: "The contractor shall implement its Transition-Out Plan NLT 90 calendar days prior to expiration of the TO." Question: Would the Government identify the approval time required for the Transition-Out Plan? | See updated Section C.4.1.10 and updated Section F.3. | |
| 9 | Attachment M | Questions and Answers Template | The Attachment M spreadsheet provided by the Government truncates the questions that are entered in Column "C" Questions when printed. Question: Would the Government confirm that there is no limitation on the length of questions posed by industry? | There is no limitation for Attachment M. | |
| 10 | Draft Attachment Q; Para A; Pages 1-2 | Historic Task Order Information | The Draft Attachment Q says: "Below is a list of projects that the | ||
| Government plans to consolidate under the USCYBERCOM IDIQ." Then, the table presents the Task Orders awarded to Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI, and Exelis. The Advance Notice to All Interested Industry Partners, published on August 7, 2015 states that potential requirements to be consolidated may also include Task Order W91260-09-D-0003 awarded to COLSA (Large Business). Question: Would the Government confirm that the COLSA Corporation Task Order requirements will be consolidated for this solicitation? | See updated Attachment Q. | ||||
| 11 | Draft Attachment Q; Para A; Pages 1-2 | Historic Task Order Information | The Draft Attachment Q says: "Below is a list of projects that the | ||
| Government plans to consolidate under the USCYBERCOM IDIQ." Question: Would the Government confirm that the TechGuard Order HC1028-13-F-0093 requirements for USCYBERCOM Cyber Defense, Analysis, Operations and Strategic Planning Support will be consolidated for this solicitation? | See updated Attachment Q. | ||||
| 12 | Draft Attachment Q; Para A; Pages 1-2 | Historic Task Order Information | The Draft Attachment Q says: "Below is a list of projects that the | ||
| Government plans to consolidate under the USCYBERCOM IDIQ." Question: Would the Government confirm that the LinQuest Task Order W91620-08-D-0002 1203 requirements for Planning Support for DOD Information Enterprise for USSTRATCOM will be consolidated for this solicitation? | See updated Attachment Q. | ||||
| 13 | Draft Attachment Q; Para A; Pages 1-2 | Historic Task Order Information | The Draft Attachment Q says: "Below is a list of projects that the | ||
| Government plans to consolidate under the USCYBERCOM IDIQ." Question: Would the Government confirm that the Constellation West Task Order FA 4600-08-D-9002 0012 requirements for Cyber Exercise Mission Force Validation Support will be consolidated for this solicitation? | See updated Attachment Q. | ||||
| 14 | 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." Please confirm that in accordance with this Section L instruction, all bids for this effort must be either submitted by a single Prime Contractor with no subcontractors or an existing CTA Partnership or Joint Venture as defined in FAR 9.601(1). | 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 Partnership or Joint Venture as defined in FAR 9.601(1). Prime contractors may propose subcontractors in their response to the Seed Task Order 1. | |
| 15 | L5.1.j |
B.2.2.5 Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable (TAB J)
| Subcontractor Rates | If any prime/subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) is not allowable and will be rejected, will Primes be allowed to add subcontractors on individual Task Orders and then negotiate rates for these subcontractors as addressed in paragraph B.2.2.5? | Yes. |
| 16 | L.5.1.j |
H.3.2 Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable (TAB J)
| Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) | If any prime/subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) is not allowable and will be rejected, how could a prime verify SCIF access through a subcontractor or team member as stated in paragraph H.3.2? | See updated language in Section H.3.2. |
| 17 | L.5.1.j |
H.10.a Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable (TAB J)
| Subcontractor Lists | Sections L.5.1.j and H.10.a appear to conflict with each other. Section L.5.1.j prohibits any prime/subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2), but Section H.10 requests that Prime contractors provide a list of all subcontractors (team members) with their initial proposal. Please clarify. | See updated Section H.10. |
| 18 | L.5.1.j |
H.10.b Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable (TAB J)
| Subcontractor/Cross Teaming | Sections L.5.1.j and H.10.b appear to conflict with each other. Section L.5.1.j prohibits any prime/subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2), but Section H.10.b discusses cross-teaming arrangements under which a company can prime on one offer and serve as a subcontractor/team member on other offers. Please clarify. | See updated Section H.10 and H.21. |
| 19 | L.5.1.j |
H.19 Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable (TAB J)
| Small Business Subcontracting Goals | If any prime/subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) is not allowable and will be rejected, is it correct to assume that Subcontracting Plans submitted by large businesses will not include names of potential teammates that may be included in task orders after the initial IDIQ award? | Correct. Additional task orders to be solicited under this task order are unknown, therefore it would be undeterminable as to the teammates needed to support unknown requirements. | |||
| 20 | M | General | Section M makes no mention of innovation in the evaluation criteria. Will the Government evaluate the offeror's ability to integrate innovation into execution? If so, how? | The Government will evaluate the proposals according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section M. | |
| 21 | M.1 | Method of Award | The third paragraph in this section states that the Government intends to reserve two or more contract awards for small businesses. It also states that if the Government receives "responsible offers" from two or more small businesses and initial best value determination does not result in two or more contract awards for small business, the Government, in the sole discretion of the source selection authority, may select lower-rated and/or higher-priced small business proposals for award if doing so is in the best interest of the Government. Please describe the minimum requirements for a small business proposal to be considered a "responsible offer." Also describe the criteria that the Government would use to determine that awarding to lower rated and/or higher-priced small businesses was in the best interest of the Government. | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 22 | M.1.1 |
M.4 Contingency Procedures
Technical Evaluation Factors
The contingency procedures that the Government will apply if it receives a large number of offers state that after pass/fail items are considered, the Government will review total cost for TO1 and past performance. If either of these items are considered "not sufficiently competitive to be selected for award," the Government will eliminate these offerors.
a. Please define a "large number of offers."
b. Please define "not sufficiently competitive to be selected for award."
| c. Please define "not sufficiently competitive to be selected for award" with reference to small business offerors. | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 23 | M.1.1 |
M.4 Contingency Procedures
Technical Evaluation Factors
| The contingency procedures that the Government will apply if it receives a large number of offers state that after pass/fail items are considered, the Government will review total cost for TO1 and past performance. If either of these items are considered "not sufficiently competitive to be selected for award," the Government will eliminate these offerors. As noted in Section M.4, past performance is the least important technical evaluation factor, and cost is significantly less important than all of the technical factors combined. By the Government's own technical evaluation definitions, it will be making elimination decisions using criteria it considers very low in importance in comparison to other factors. Please explain the rationale for this approach. | Please see the updated language in Section M. |
| 24 | M.4.1 |
M.4.2 Factor 1: Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario
| Factor 2: Operational Approach to TO1 and Surge Support Scenario | The evaluation criteria for these two elements of the proposal emphasize a comprehensive and clear approach and a comprehensive understanding of the requirements of the IDIQ Scenario (Factor 1) and TO1 and the Surge Support Scenario (Factor 2). Will the Government evaluate more favorably an offeror's ability to improve upon current solution approaches, or should an offeror emphasize its knowledge and experience with existing approaches? There does not appear to be any evaluation criteria that would enable an offeror to be scored more highly for describing improved approaches for delivering the services described in the RFP. | The Government will evaluate the proposals according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section M. | |||
| 25 | M.4.6 | Past Performance | The Government has applied the most restrictive definition for Joint Venture (JV) past performance by requiring the JV, not its components, to provide past performance. This is especially restrictive for small business JVs, which are often formed for a singular purpose or opportunity. These newly formed Small Business JVs possess no past performance as an entity but bring significant and relevant past performance from their member firms. This past performance is being disregarded and ignored under the RFP's unnecessarily restrictive JV past performance definition. Further, the Small Business Administration limits a Small Business JV to executing "no more than three specific or limited-purpose business ventures for joint profit over a two-year period." Because of this limitation, a Small Business JV would have a maximum of two past performance references (since having three would put the JV at its limit and make it unable to bid for this effort). By requiring the JV, not its components, to possess the required past performance, the Government is placing Small Business JVs at a huge disadvantage in comparison to large businesses. We request that the Government reconsider this requirement and allow Small Business JVs to use past performance references from their member companies. In several protests (including GAO Protest of HydroGeoLogic, Inc., B-406635, B-406635 et al. (July 25, 2012)), GAO has upheld the right of an agency to consider the relevant experience and past performance history of the individual joint venture partners of the prime contractor in evaluating the past performance of a joint venture. | No response. | |
| 26 | F.7 | PLACE(S) OF DELIVERY | How will classified training forms be handled by FedSIM for signature by the COR? NSA and other IC training forms can be and are classified up to including multiple SCI compartments. How will this be handled? Will FedSIM’s COR have NSA/USCYBERCOM access, classified network access and storage? RFP section F.7 states that classified deliverables are made to the TPOC and notice of delivery to the CO and COR. COR signature not TPOC is required on NSA and other IC training forms. | This will be handled on a case by case basis. | |
| 27 | H.3.2 | SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION FACILITY (SCIF) | Can the required SCIF be a co-use agreement not through a subcontractor or team member? E,g, other contractors or other State/Government facilities? | The SCIF must be accredited by the United States Government in accordance with DODM 51 0521-V2. State government is not acceptable. | |
| 28 | K.4.a.1 | 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (Dec 2014) | The NAICS code of 541511 is a change from using 541512. Is this final? | Please see final RFP. | |
| 29 | ATTACHMENT Q – CURRENT ENVIRONMENT AND BACKGROUND | A. HISTORIC TASK ORDER INFORMATION | Why isn’t the TechGuard contract in the J3 part of this source selection? | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 30 | C.4.10.2 | SUB CORE DISCIPLINE 2 - INTEGRATED JOINT SPECIAL TECHNICAL OPERATIONS (IJSTO) / SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM (SAP) / ALTERNATE COMPENSATORY CONTROL MEASURES (ACCMS) | Paragraph C.4.10.2 Sub core discipline 2 will require SAP/SAR nomination per DODD 5205.07. This is done at the contractor facility and when filled out the nomination form is classified to the SAP/SAR level. Thus the DD254 must include TOP SECRET storage. COMSEC account and/or courier will also be required for submission of the nomination forms. | The DD254 has been revised. Contractors will be allowed to be read-in. Paperwork will be maintained and reside within USCYBERCOM. | |
| 31 | G.2 | ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR KEY PERSONNEL | Is it the Government’s intent that Task Order Key personnel not be charged to the Task Order, or does this apply only to IDIQ key personnel? | Task Order Key Personnel shall be charged to the relevant individual Task Order. | |
| 32 | M.1 paragraph 3 and M.6 | METHOD OF AWARD and COST/PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTOR | Per B.1.1, "the Basic Contract allows for all contract types at the TO level (e.g., Cost-Reimbursement (all types), Fixed-Price (all types), Time-and-Materials (T&M), and Labor-Hour (LH)). TOs may also combine more than one contract type (e.g., Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)/Cost, FFP/LH etc.)." Per M.6 paragraph 3, "The Government will determine a Prime Contractor as non-responsible (and therefore ineligible for award) if the firm does not possess a Government-determined adequate cost accounting system, applicable to the offerors most current organizational structure, for properly allocating costs applicable to this cost-type contract at time of proposal Part I submission due date." Question 1: Why does M.6 paragraph 3, call the contract a cost-type contract if B.1.1 specifically says the basic contract allows for all contract types? Question 2: If the Basic Contract allows for all contract types, could a small business be considered eligible if it possesses adequate cost accounting systems (management team of the company has significant experience with government approved systems) but that have not yet been audited by the Government? | Please see updated language in Section M.6. All prime contractors are required to possess an acceptable Cost Accounting System in accordance with Section H.7. | |
| 33 | L.5.1.d paragraph 2 | COST/PRICE PROPOSAL TABS | There is an inconsistency. This paragraph excludes the "cost-type contract" wording that is included in M.6 paragraph 3. Which paragraph is correct? | Please see updated language in Section M.6. | |
| 34 | Attachment O - TO 1 Excel Cost Workbook | Column A | Column A sub heading says "Insert applicable Alliant labor categories below". Will this be changed to remove the reference to Alliant? | This is an error. Please see updated Attachment O. | |
| 35 | Attachment E - H.1.3 | WEAPONS & CAPABILITIES LEAD | The key personnel includes a Weapons and Capabilities Lead. This lead appears to span several labor categories. Is there a specific labor category that is expected to be used for pricing the Weapons and Capabilities Lead? | The offeror shall propose the appropriate Basic Contract labor category in accordance with its solution. | |
| 36 | Attachment B | USCYBERCOM IDIQ LCATS | Will additional LCATs be establish to address the highly specific LCATs i.e. CNO & CNA - computer network operations and computer network attack, etc. needed to support the USCYBERCOM efforts requiring specialized skills and clearances? | No response. | |
| 37 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft Attachment E - T01, G.3.1 c, Page G-2 | Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINS (for labor) | c. references a requirement for Alliant Labor Category. Please clarify the requirement as USCYBERCOM MA IDIQ Labor Category | This is an error, see updated language in Section G.3.1. | |
| 38 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, G.2, Page G-1 ; L.7.4.1, Page L-21 | Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario Topic 1 | To ensure a response to addresses all Core Disciplines, will the Government permit offerors to self identify key personnel beyond those cited in G.2? | Please see updated language in Section G.2. | |
| 39 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, C.4.5 a, Page C-11 | Core Discipline 5 - Capability Management and Development | Does the government intend that section C.4.5 include development of training capabilities, modeling and simulation, and training environments? | No, the Government does not intend all three under C.4.5. | |
| 40 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, Description of Work | Core Discipline 5 - Capability Management and Development | The scope (C.2) includes all services and associated tools; however there is no mention of tool delivery and maintenance. Recommend this be included in Core Discipline 5. | Requirements will be detailed at an individual TO level. | |
| 41 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, B 2.2.3, Page B-2 | Ceiling Rates | B.2.2.3 states “Ceiling rates do not govern T&M and LH TO proposals, as ceiling rates do not include fee/profit. However, ceiling rates will be used in the evaluation of T&M/LH TO proposals.” | ||
| It is recommended the ceiling rates not be included in the price evaluation for T&M and LH orders, given the order types hold a differing basis of developed cost/price. | No response. | ||||
| 42 | Attachment B USCYBERCOM IDIQ LCATS, #8 , Pages 31 -32 | Labor Category Descriptions, #8 Cyberspace Analyst | The Cyberspace Analyst Level I and II responsibilities called out in the draft Labor Category document better align with the Information Assurance Technical category Level II functions called out in DOD 8570.01-M. For example, the following IAT Level II functions are represented in Cyberspace Analyst Level I and II responsibilities: |
- Examine potential security violations to determine if the NE policy has been breached, assess the impact
- Analyze patterns of non-compliance and take appropriate administrative or programmatic actions to minimize security risks and insider threats
- Identify IA vulnerabilities resulting from a departure from the implementation plan or that were not apparent during testing
- Evaluate potential IA security risks and take appropriate corrective and recovery action.
- Research, evaluate, and provide feedback on problematic IA trends and patterns in customer support requirements
- Support the design and execution of exercise scenarios Level 1: Recommend changing DOD 8140/8570 certification requirement to IAT Level II
| Level 2: Recommend changing DOD 8140/8570 certification requirement to IAT Level II | There have been no changes to this Labor Category. | |||
| 43 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, M.1, M.1.1, Page M-1 | Method of Award | The contingency procedures identified in M.1.1 appear to be in direct conflict with the method of award described in M.1 Paragraph 1. |
M.1 Paragraph 1 sets forth a method where the award will be made to offerors that present the best value, with all evaluation factors other than cost significantly more important than cost. M.1.1 appears to conflict with the method of award, by precluding the evaluation of all evaluation factors and providing the cost factor for TO1 as more important than technical factors associated with the overall scope of the IDIQ.
This approach may drive industry focus away from providing the government the best technical solution at a realistic price toward a low price technically acceptable response.
| Recommend Phase 2 consist of the evaluation of the IDIQ level past performance response. This, combined with an established price range at the TO level, will allow the government in Phase 3 to evaluate all aspects of each company’s capabilities to meet the full scope of the IDIQ core disciplines and whether they offer a fair and reasonable price for the TO, while eliminating protest potential associated with conduct of price/cost evaluation without consideration of technical merit. | Please see updated language in Section M.1. | ||||
| 44 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, L6, Page L-16; L7, Page L-19 | Submission of the Written Technical Proposal (PART III) and Submission of the Video Technical Proposal (Part IV) | Due to the size and to assist in evaluation, we request the slide deck for the Video Presentation (Part III, Tab JJ) be separately bound from other sections of the Part III submission. | See updated language in Section L.6. | |
| 45 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, L7.1, Page L-19 | Video Technical Proposal Preparation Constraints | Request the government change the 90 minutes allowed for the Video Presentation to 120 minutes to allow sufficient time to cover the complexity of the material. | Please see updated language in Section L.7.1. | |
| 46 | USCYBERCOM IDIQ- Draft RFP, L7.1, Page L-19 | Video Technical Proposal Preparation Constraints | The draft RFP does not provide parameters for formatting, will the government specify that slides shall not contain any fonts smaller than a proportionally spaced font (such as Times New Roman) of at least 12 point. | See updated Section L.6. | |
| 47 | Attachment O Task Order 1 | Task Order 1 CLIN tabs (CLIN XXX Subtask YYY) | Attachment O Task Order 1 CLIN tabs (CLIN XXX Subtask YYY) instructions in cell A5 states “Insert applicable Alliant labor categories below.” Does the Government expect a relationship with Alliant labor categories or is this an error? | See response to question #34 above. | |
| 48 | Section J, Attachment E, G.3.1 | CPFF CLINs for Labor | Please clarify the reference to "Employee Alliant labor category" within the invoicing instructions. | See response to question #37 above. | |
| 49 | Section L.3.4 | General Information for TO1 | The Government provides total estimated labor hours for the CPFF portion of TO1. Will the Government provide a competitive cost range for TO1 in the final RFP? | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 50 | Cover Letter, L.7.4.1 and M.4.1. | Cover Letter, |
Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario (Topic 1),
| Factor 1: Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario | Observation: Cover letter includes the statement that this effort will “provide broad, deep, and diverse expertise to meet the complete set of core disciplines and Government requirements within this solicitation.” In Section L and M, the technical response and the evaluation criteria place significant emphasis on the J3 operations and J7 exercises and appears to exclude support to other USCYBERCOM Directorates. | ||||
| Recommendation: Replace or augment the Section L Topic 1 section which addresses a notional exercise with a capability topic which demonstrates offeror’s ability to address full scope of PWS core discipline requirements. | No additional information will be provided. | ||||
| 51 | L.7.4.1, M.4.1. | Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario (Topic 1), | |||
| Factor 1: Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario | Observation: This section describes an abstract exercise scenario with little background or supporting reference material. Section M.4.1 also states this is the most significant evaluation factor. | ||||
| Recommendation: The Government provide more detail or background information for this scenario. How many participants, nature of the exercise, exercise duration, exercise objectives, locations/equipment required for the exercise in the interest of simplifying the evaluation of Topic 1. | Additional information has been added, see updated Section L.7.4.1. | ||||
| 52 | G.2, Attachment E Section H.1 | H.1 (KEY PERSONNEL), G.2 (ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR KEY PERSONNEL) | RFP Paragraph G.2 (Roles and Responsibilities of Contractor Key Personnel) states that there “is no minimum qualification requirements established for contractor Key Personnel.” Paragraph H.1 (Key Personnel) of Task Order 1 states that “All Key Personnel are required to possess the following qualifications.” Is the statement in Paragraph G.2 of the RFP only related to contract level key personnel? | Please see updated language in Section G.2. | |
| 53 | L.6.8 | Paragraph L.6.8 PAST PERFORMANCE SUBMISSION (TAB HH) | Paragraph L.6.8 (Past Performance Submission (Tab HH)) states that the “offeror shall provide one example that is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required in TO1 and the remaining examples shall provide experience of similar breadth and complexity as it relates to each of the IDIQ core disciplines”. |
Observation: The past performance submission for the IDIQ does not require any information related to experience managing a large IDIQ contract.
| Recommendation: Incorporate experience managing a large IDIQ contract into the requirements of L.6.8. | No response. | ||||
| 54 | L.6.1 | Security Requirements Compliance Statement - Section H.3 (Tab AA) | Paragraph L.6.1 (Security Requirements Compliance Statement - Section H.3 (Tab AA)) requires Offerors to “provide a Statement of Compliance stating how the offeror will comply with the security requirements stated in the Basic Contract Section H.3.” Is the Government seeking a statement that the Offeror will comply with these requirements or a methodology describing how the Offeror will comply with these requirements? | Statement to comply. | |
| 55 | L.6.5 and Attachment E, Section F.3 | TASK ORDER 1 PROJECT STAFFING PLAN (TAB EE) and Attachment E, Section F.3 | L.6.5 states, "[. . .] All Key Personnel proposed shall be identified in the Project Staffing Plan Table and available to begin work immediately on June 1, 2016; this Project start date is to be used for proposal submission purposes only." |
Attachment E, F.3, states, "[. . .] The following schedule of milestones will be used by the FEDSIM COR to monitor timely progress under this TO. For proposal purposes, offerors shall use June 30, 2016, as the project start date."
| Can the government please confirm which start date offerors should use for proposal purposes for Task Order 1? | See updated language in Attachment E. | ||||
| 56 | I, 52.217-8, M.6 | 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999), and M.6 Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation Factor | No mention of the Government Option period under FAR 52.217-8 is mentioned in Section M for pricing evaluation purposes. Could you please clarify whether the Government Option pricing under FAR 52.217-8 will be included as part of the evaluated price? | See updated Section M.6. | |
| 57 | B.2.2.1 | Direct Labor | This paragraph states that "The term direct labor is the fully loaded hourly rate, with no profit or fee.". Typically the direct labor rate is unburdened with any indirect cost. A fully loaded hourly rate would typically identify a rate which is inclusive of direct labor, indirect burdens, and profit/fee. To avoid any misunderstanding would recommend revising how direct labor is being defined here. | The following sentence has been deleted: "The term direct labor is the fully loaded hourly rate, with no profit or fee." See updated Section B.2.2.1. | |
| 58 | B.2.2.3 | Ceiling Rates | As these are defined it would appear that ceiling rates are intended to only cover direct and indirect cost on both cost plus and firm fixed price task orders. Given that the basic contract being established will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity type, this places a significant cost risk on contractors as actual resources to be utilized are overwhelmingly first identified at the task order level only. In addition the use of cost realism analysis on TO proposals and the effect of adequate competition should serve to provide realistic pricing for evaluation purposes at prices that are fair and reasonable. The use of cost ceilings for labor may also have the effect of limiting the talent that can be provided under resulting contracts. | The Government expects ceiling rates build up to anticipate the maximum technical expertise needed over the life of the contract. As stated within Section B.2.2.3 of the RFP, "The ceiling rate should anticipate the maximum technical expertise needed over the life of the contract and is not necessarily bound by current staff." | |
| 59 | B.2.2.3 | Ceiling Rates | The approach of invoking cost ceilings would also be inconsistent with the scope of the contract, which speaks to evolving technologies over the life of the contract ("It is a broad scope of cyberspace support services including new and emerging technologies which will evolve over the life of the contract.") For these reasons we would recommend the elimination of any cost ceilings on labor. | The Government expects ceiling rates build up to anticipate the maximum technical expertise needed over the life of the contract. As stated within Section B.2.2.3 of the RFP, "The ceiling rate should anticipate the maximum technical expertise needed over the life of the contract and is not necessarily bound by current staff." | |
| 60 | B.2.2.4 | Composite Rates | The term “composite rate” is defined as the average burdened hourly labor rate experienced by the Contractor for similar scope of work and shall be based on current personnel in labor category descriptions in Section J (Attachment B). | ||
| This paragraph states that "The composite rate is the average rate based on current staff and similar tasking. The B-Schedule Rates (Section B.3) also reflect composite direct labor rates." The previous paragraph on ceiling rates states that "The ceiling rate should anticipate the maximum technical expertise needed over the life of the contract and is not necessarily bound by current staff." If the ceiling rate is intended to also be the composite rates, then there are conflicts in how these are being defined as the composite is an average of actual employees and the ceiling rates are considered maximums that do not have to account for only current employees. | The ceiling rate is NOT the same as the composite rate. As described in Section B.2.2.3 and B.2.2.4 the ceiling rate is to anticipate the maximum technical expertise needed over the life of the current contract. While composite rates reflect the average burdened hourly rate experienced for similar scope of work and shall be based on current personnel in labor category descriptions. | ||||
| 61 | B.2.2.5 | Subcontractor Rates | The statement in this paragraph would imply that pricing for the basic contract should not include any subcontractor rates for any TO type. And that subcontractor pricing is only to be developed at the TO level. If this is correct we would recommend that this be more explicit to include whether or not ceiling or composite rates to be established in the basic contract would apply to subcontractor pricing. | Ceiling and composite rates are applicable only to the Prime. | |
| 62 | E.1 | FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference | The FAR clause 52.246-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement, is included in Section E.1 and includes a requirement to identify the higher-level quality standard(s) within the clause itself. We would recommend identifying that in the Basic contract language, or otherwise indicate that it will be identified within each TOR for Task Orders to the extent it applies. | This clause will be applied at an individual TO level. | |
| 63 | F.1 | FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference | The FAR clause 52.211-11, Liquidated Damages—Supplies, Services, or Research and Development is included in Section F.1 and includes a requirement to identify the amount of the liquidated damages per calendar day of delay within the clause itself. We would recommend identifying that in the Basic contract language, or otherwise indicate that it will be identified within each TOR for Task Orders to the extent it applies. | This clause will be applied at an individual TO level. | |
| 64 | C.4.6, M.4.1 Item b. | Factor 1: Operational Approach to IDIQ Scenario, Core Discipline 6 - Cyberspace Training and Exercises | M.4.1 Item b. states “The Proposal will be evaluated to ensure it clearly demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and the ability to execute in each of the USCYBERCOM IDIQ 10 Core Disciplines relevant to the IDIQ exercise scenario.” Clearly, the Cyberspace Training and Exercises (Core Discipline 6 described in Section C.4.6) is relevant. In order to simplify evaluation, recommend stating which of the 10 Core Disciplines need to be addressed in Topic 1 | Factors will be evaluated according to the relevant stated criteria. | |
| 65 | G.5.2 | Task Order Proposal Submission | This paragraph states that "Basic Contract awardees shall be capable of providing a proposal within two workdays for urgent requirements." This will likely not be sufficient time to produce a proposal unless submittal requirements are reduced from what is included in a typical FEDSIM TOR. | No changes made. | |
| 66 | H.8 | Purchasing Systems | This section states that "Advance notification requirements for subcontracting and consent to subcontract are not required, unless otherwise requested by the Ordering CO, when a Contractor has an approved purchasing system on an individual task order or task orders with no subcontracting possibilities or for commercial items acquired under FAR Part 12." The language at Section H.10 states "Subcontractor Lists: Prime contractors (Primes) shall provide a list of all subcontractors (team members) with their initial proposal. Any time a prime desires to add or delete a subcontractor, the prime contractor shall provide an updated list to the Contracting Officer for review and approval." Please clarify the apparent discrepancy between those two Sections as it pertains to review and approval of subcontractors. | Please see updated language in Section H.10. | |
| 67 | Section J, Attachment B | LCAT Descriptions | This Attachment includes a statement that "Personnel filling Level II positions must meet all Level I |
and Level II position requirements. Personnel filling Level III positions must meet all Level I,
| Level II, and Level III position requirements." Does this mean that for years of experience that the requirement becomes additive across Level I, II, and III. Or are the requirements as stated in the Level II and Level III descriptions. For example, if Level I requires 3 years of experience and Level II requires 6 is the Level II requirement a total of 9 years, or are Level I years accounted for in the Level II description, for example. | Years of experience requirement is not additive. | ||||
| 68 | L.1.1. | Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference | Please clarify the inclusion of FAR 52.215-20, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, when the government anticipates making 5 to 10 awards which should be evidence of anticipating adequate competition. Is this intended to be the Alternate IV version of the clause which is included at Section L.2? | FAR 52.215-20 has been removed, see updated Section L.1.1. | |
| 69 | L.3.4 | General Information for TO1 | 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 the surge requirement being higher than five percent of the level of effort for Tasks 1 through 7. Please clarify. | Please see updated Attachment E. | |
| 70 | L.6.7 | Software Agreement - TO1 Section H.14 | This paragraph requires that "The offeror must provide consent of the licensor of software tools to amend the Software Agreements in accordance with TO1 Section H.14 in Section J (Attachment E)." As there have been plug numbers provided for Tools, please clarify how this requirement is to be satisfied unless there is specific software named in a proposal for TO1. | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 71 | M.1.1 | Contingency Procedures | These procedures appear to only be applicable if a "large number of proposals" are received. In order to avoid questions or concerns over the applicability of these procedures it would be recommended that the RFP identify what a "large number" would constitute. | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 72 | M.1.1 | Contingency Procedures | Section M.1 states that "All evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. Award may be made to other than the lowest cost, technically acceptable proposal. Offerors shall be aware that cost may increase in importance, and become a discriminating factor as proposals become similar in ratings for the other factors." The contingency procedures appear to be in conflict with this stated source selection method as they would involve elimination of an offeror based on TO #1 pricing and in advance of any evaluation of non-price aspects of proposals. | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 73 | M.4 | Technical Evaluation Factors | Observation: Based on the Government's stated objective, "The USCYBERCOM MA IDIQ will provide broad, deep, and diverse expertise to meet the complete set of core disciplines and Government requirements within this solicitation" (Advance Notice Cover Letter, 9/30/15), we believe there is considerable question whether the order of importance of the Technical Evaluation Factors is structured to enable the Government to achieve its desired outcome. Specifically, by allocating factors 2, 3 and 4 specifically to Task Order 1 elements, TO1 is the sole focus of 3 of the 6 technical evaluation factors and the 2nd/3rd/4th most important. The concern is that an overemphasis on TO #1 (which as the introduction to TO #1 states, encompasses 7 core disciplines, but primarily focuses on Cyberspace Operations, C.4.2 and Cyberspace Planning, C.4.3); this could lead to the selection of IDIQ awardees who may not possess the past performance or overall approach to be effective at the IDIQ level across myriad tasks that may be envisioned across all core discipline and mission areas, supporting the USCC Directorates. |
Recommendation: We respectfully recommend that the Government realign the Evaluation Criteria for the IDIQ award in M.4 to focus on the IDIQ/USCYBERCOM-wide support areas as of primary importance, and the TO #1 areas as secondarily important. Specifically, we recommend that Factor 5: Basic Contract Management Approach (Section L.7.4.4) be moved to FACTOR 2, that Factor 6: Past Performance (Section L.6.8)be moved to FACTOR 3, and that the current Factors 2, 3 and 4 (TO1-specific) be moved to 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
| Benefit to the Government: This will benefit the Government by ensuring that it is able to select the companies with the best-value across all USCC Mission Support areas and core disciplines, and not merely those who scored well on factors/subfactors related to TO1. | No changes will be made. | ||||
| 74 | L.3.4 | General Information for TO1 | The government has provided a total estimated hours for the CPFF portion of TO1. Could the government please provide the number of hours per man-year (e.g., 1860, 1920 hours) for one FTE? | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 75 | L.4.3 d. and L.6.4 | TO1 Key Personnel Matrices | The Offeror acknowledges the requirement to provide a Key Personnel Matrix for all TO1 Key Personnel but we do not find the requirement for the same for the IDIQ Key Personnel. | ||
| Please confirm the government does NOT wish to receive a key personnel matrix or resume for the two IDIQ key personnel (Corporate IDIQ Program Manager and Corporate IDIQ Contracts Manager) | No the Government is not requesting a Key Personnel Matrix for the Basic Contract Key Personnel. | ||||
| 76 | M.4 | Technical Evaluation Factors - TO1 | In the DRFP Section M, the Government provides evaluation criteria for the multiple award IDIQ. However the specific criteria and relative importance, for the single award of TO1, are implied, but not explicitly stated. Can the Government please explicitly state the evaluation criteria for the single best-value award of TO1? (for example, current factors 2, 3 and 4 in descending order of importance comprise the technical evaluation of TO1 and that the technical factors when combined are significantly more important than TO1 price.) | Please see updated Section M.1. | |
| 77 | G.5, G.5.1, G.5.3 | G.5 Basic Contract Task Order Process, G.5.1 Task Order Request (TOR). G.5.3 Task Order Evaluation | Paragraph G.5 (Basic Contract Task Order Process) states that “All TOs will be issued in accordance with the fair opportunity procedures of 48 C.F.R. 16.505(b) and DFARS 216.505”. Paragraph G.5.1.d Task Order Request (TOR) says that the TORs will contain “Evaluation factors and their relative order of importance”. Paragraph G.5.3 (Task Order Evaluation) states that the “Government will evaluate responses against evaluation criteria contained in the proposed TOR”. Will the Government provide the evaluation criteria that will be used for the Task Order 1 evaluation? | Please see updated Section M.1. | |
| 78 | H.1 and Attachment E, Section H.1.6 | Key Personnel Substitution | Observation: The government states for key personnel substitution that "Substitute personnel qualifications shall be equal to, or greater than, those of the personnel being substituted." | ||
| Recommendation: Change the requirement to state that replacement key personnel to meet or exceed the qualifications of the position as described in H.1.1 through H.1.5 of the task order (Attachment E). | No changes will be made. | ||||
| 79 | Attachment E, H.1.3 | Weapons & Capabilities Lead | Can the government please confirm which Labor Category from the Basic Contract Section J, Attachment B, the offeror should use to define qualifications for this position? | Please see response to question #35. | |
| 80 | L.3.4 | General Information for TO1 | This section provides a range of hours across the 5 year period of performance. Can the Government please provide current/historical staffing levels by Section C task/subtask along with LCATs from existing contract. | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 81 | Attachment E, Section C.4.1.9 | Subtask 1.9 - Transition-In | Observation: Item 1 states, "All TO Requirements require 50 percent staffing at project start and 100 percent staffing within 60 days. [. . .] Staffing is defined as submitting a complete, accurate security package to USCYBERCOM." Meeting 50 percent staff at project start, with complete and accurate security packages may favor the incumbent contractor. | ||
| Recommendation: Change the requirement for all key personnel to be staffed at project start, 50 percent to be staffed at day 30 and 100 percent staffing within 60 days. | No changes will be made. | ||||
| 82 | Attachment O, TO1 | Column D (IDIQ Labor Rate) | Attachment O tab instructions state to "Insert IDIQ fully burdened rate for prime contractor personnel." Please clarify, should this be the labor rates established in Attachment N (Basic Contract) (Excel file)? If yes, will the Government please clarify should this be the Composite labor rate or Ceiling labor rate? Otherwise, will the Government please clarify what is meant by "IDIQ...rate", since labor rates for TO1 are being built from scratch due to CPFF contract type? | See updated Attachment O. | |
| 83 | IDIQ RFP, H.3.1 | General Security Requirements | Will any Task Order Requests released under this IDIQ be classified and require a classified proposal response? | No, responses shall not be classified or include classified information with the exception of the SCIF certification number, as required. | |
| 84 | IDIQ RFP, H.19 | Small Business Subcontracting Goals | Could the Government please confirm whether small business subcontracting goals for large business should be 30%, 33%? We interpret the requirement to be only 30% small business, however, adding up b. through e., the total is 33%? | Please see updated language in Section H.19. | |
| 85 | IDIQ RFP, L.5.1.d | Cost/Price Proposal Tabs | Could the Government please confirm whether a DCAA/DCMA cost accounting system is required? And if it is not a requirement, what would the Government consider an acceptable form for an Offeror to deem their system adequate? Is it acceptable for a company to self-certify? | See Section L.5.1.d. | |
| 86 | IDIQ RFP, L.5.1.k | Subcontracting Plan | The solicitation states, "The USCYBERCOM Basic Contract will provide significant opportunities for the use of small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, and service disabled veteran owned small busin ess as Subcontractors." If this is the case, could the Government please provide a rationale for why there is no dedicated small business track? | No additional information will be provided. | |
| 87 | IDIQ RFP, L.6.3 | Basic Contract and TO1 Key Personnel Letters of Commitment | The instructions state, "The letter of Commitment shall be signed by each proposed Key Person and include a statement that the proposed Key Person named is employed and available to begin work the specific start date designated in the award announcement for both Basic Contract and TO1. What is the anticipated award date that personnel will be required to start? Does the person have to be employed by the prime at the time of proposal submission? Employing Key Personnel prior to award can be quite costly for a prime or small business team partners. | Please see the Project Start date indicated in Section L.6.3. | |
| 88 | IDIQ RFP, L.6.8 | Past Performance Submission | The Government states "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. The offeror shall provide one example that is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work required in TO1 and the remaining examples shall provide experience of similar breadth and complexity as it relates to each of the IDIQ core disciplines." Could the Government please confirm that only prime, not team past performance will be accepted. | See Section L.6.8. |
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 .