20090715 Questions and Answers Draft RFP 09R0034.docx

Questions and Answers to Draft RFP H2222-09-R-0034, Global Battlestaff and Program Support The following are a list of questions from 7 Industry partners and the corresponding answers from the Contracting Office in response to the Draft RFP posting on 25 June 2009.

1. Question: The subject draft RFP, Section H.15 states that the GBPS prime contractor cannot compete in any other acquisitions of systems, hardware or software as limited by H.15 (b) (1), H.15 (b) (2) and H.15 (b) (3). However, the application of this clause to GBPS subcontractors is not totally clear to us. We logically infer that if a subcontractor is actually involved in the activities described there, the subcontractor would also be prohibited from participating in the future acquisitions. However, what about the case where the subcontractor is not involved in the activities relative to a particular acquisition? Let us frame the question with a hypothetical situation. If subcontractor A was providing battlestaff support on one or more GBPS task orders, but a firewall was in place that prevented them from doing requirements analysis, acquisition decision support, testing, and from obtaining an unfair competitive advantage, could they then bid on other procurements sponsored by SOCOM? This question is crucial to on-going team formation activities.

ANSWER: The clause is intended to restrict primes from all acquisitions of the types listed within the clause. It will be the prime's responsibility to ensure proper firewalls are in place for the subs. The subs also can't work for example in SOAL assisting with the development of other acquisitions like the clause describes and then bid on those acquisitions. Therefore, it would be acceptable say for a sub to support GPBS in SOCOM providing intelligence support and still be able to play as a prime or sub for an acquisition out of SOAL. It would not be acceptable for subcontractors to support SOAL in the PEO for Naval Systems (PEO NS), for example, and then plan on proposing on any of the resultant actions for PEO NS. So, you could have a subcontractor properly firewalled that does compete on other SOCOM acquisitions. And in any event, the determination as to whether a subcontractor (or prime for that matter) can compete on a particular later acquisition is within the purview of the contracting officer for that acquisition.

2. Question: Section L, Paragraph 5.1 Cost. The government indicates it “will evaluate and assess the risks for each offeror’s proposed overall indirect rates and the method for deriving those rates.” Will the government please define how they intend to assess risk as related to indirect rates? It is unclear as to what will be specifically deemed high risk (e.g., delta between submitted and actuals, unrealistically low fringe packages, etc.).

ANSWER: Clarified further in Section M; Cost will not be assigned a risk rating.

3. Question: Section L, page 89, Phase II-Task order Competition after determination of Competitive Range. How does the government intend to determine competitive range?

ANSWER: Reference Sections 4.1, 4.1.1 and 9.0 of Section M and Section 1.6 of Section L

4. Question: Section L, Paragraph 5.1.7.1 Basis of Indirect Rates and Factors. The draft RFP indicates, “If rates are not based on a FPRA, Offerors are to provide a detailed breakdown, example provided Attachment 1 of Section L, of all indirect rates and factors being proposed under this contract.” Please confirm that bidders utilizing rates based upon an FPRA are not required to submit Attachment 1 of Section L.

ANSWER: Yes, if Current FPRA is submitted, offerors will not have to submit Attachment 1, further clarified in Section L.

5. Question: Section L, Attachment 3, GBPS Overhead Considerations for all Offerors. Is it the government’s expectation that all of the activities listed in Attachment 3 will be included within an offeror’s overhead rates? Or, are these listed simply to provide offerors with the government’s anticipated workload to support the contract?

ANSWER: No, please read header in Section L, List of Attachments which states “THE ATTACHMENTS ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY IN ORDER TO ASSIST OFFERORS WITH DATA REGARDING THE CURRENT ESTIMITATED SUPPORT, THESE ARE NOT MANDATED OR REQUIRED BENEFITS, HOURS, RESOURCES, ETC. “

6. Question: Section C 3.3.1.2, the Government intends to issue statements of objectives, copies of previous task orders, and provide access to Government Contracting Officer Representatives in order to provide information to those awarded prime contracts during the Contractor transition process. We recommend that the government issue copies of previous task orders to all competitors during Phase I.

ANSWER: Noted, all current contract copies and task order copies can be obtained through the Command FOIA office; http://www.socom.mil/foia/contracts.html

7. Question: Does the government have an estimate of the ratio of GBPS work to be conducted in the following areas:

ANSWER: No, not at this time. The Government estimates that world wide support in accordance with the PWS is required; however, the Government did not use labor rates or categories in order to allow for changes in mission, work climate, and requirements. Today, however, approximately 20 task orders include support outside the Tampa area and approximately 6 task orders include a large percentage of OCONUS support. The majority of all work is done in the Tampa area at this time approx 85%. However, this does not include TDY support under the task orders. At any given point and time approximately 1-2% are deployed OCONUS.

8. Question: This reference states “The contractor will also participate in the development and prosecution of operations against select adversaries of the US in accordance with approved USSOCOM authorities. Support required may involve all areas of expertise described within this document.” Please clarify the range of operational support that may be required in high risk areas or specific limits placed upon that support.

ANSWER: This area of support is not defined at this point in time. It was included in order to support the Command in possible future required operations as were required under the current contract after 9-11-2001. There will be no requirement for the Contractor to perform inherently governmental operations, however, the planning, synchronizing of efforts, and operational analyses could be required in the future. The types of analysis and plan development required changes rapidly based on DoD and SOCOM priorities in the prosecution of ongoing and future operations.

9. Question: Please define the term “available” from the requirement, “One of these managers must always be available during normal business hours, 8:00am to 5:00pm EST, Monday through Friday.”

Paragraph 3.3.1, Phase-In and Phase-Out Periods, states: "The Contractor shall include the procedures for the Phase-In and Phase-Out periods of this contract as outlined in Section L of the RFP." However, Paragraph 3.1.2 requires only a plan for Phase-In transition. Will a Phase-Out transition plan be required in the proposal?

ANSWER: Available means available, however the company deems appropriate for performing business with the Government for new or current work. As for Phase-Out, the PWS has been revised to further clarify.

10. Question: Please clarify the potential conflict between sections H.1 and H.2 as to the authority to make changes to the Business Rules:

May we assume all changes to the Business Rules must be authorized by the KO?

ANSWER: Made Section H.1 clearer. Additionally, once offerors see the Business Rules you will notice they are more for internal usage and for primes to understand, but would have no substantial effect on task order or contract changes (H.2) affecting prime contractors.

11. Question: An apparent conflict exists between the two referenced RFP sections in the ability for a contractor to carry firearms. Suggest adding the following text to the end of the sentence at H.4.g that states “except IAW 252.225-7040 - CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED TO ACCOMPANY U.S. ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (JAN 2009)”

ANSWER: Added recommended verbiage to Section H.4

12. Question: Please clarify our understanding of the OCI Mitigation Plan:

ANSWER:

a. Please reference Section M does outline how OCI will be evaluated under Subfactor 3.

b. For the prime offerors, see Question 1. The government is desiring to have a large amount of competition for all task orders which is the reason to have multiple awards therefore, the intent of this clause is not to allow prime contractors to simply not propose on task orders due to having a direct conflict in the areas of the company having direct operational control, for the subcontractors however, the statement in paragraph b above is correct.

13. Question: These clauses reference small business subcontractor participation in terms of both “total direct labor hours” and “actual total contract dollars”. What is the metric for determining percent of small business participation as these measures will provide different results?

ANSWER: All metrics have been changed to now read total contract dollars with percentage for small business set aside changed to 30%.

14.Question: For the purpose of calculating Small Business percentages, will a business who started the contract or Task Order period in a Small Business status, but subsequently exceeds their associated Small Business size standards be considered a Small Business for the duration of the contract and/or Task Order?

ANSWER: Reference FAR 19.301-2 regarding prime contractors re-certification requirements every 5 years. Subcontractors are not required to re-certify at this time.

15.Question: Paragraph H.21 includes a table entry for “E. Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business” whereas Paragraph 3.3.1 includes entries for both “Veteran owned” and “Service disabled veteran owned” businesses. Please clarify which reference is correct.

ANSWER: Sections H, L, and M all have matching tables now. They are separated into the two categories.

16.Question: RFP Section L.1.12 indicates the Executive Summary and resumes are in addition to the 50 page limit for the Program Management Proposal whereas RFP Section L.2.1.1 indicates that the Executive Summary is included in the 50 page limit and is silent with regard to resumes. Please clarify that the Executive Summary and resumes are excluded from the Program Management Proposal 50 page limit.

ANSWER: The Executive Summary (5 page limit) and resumes (2 page limit each) are excluded from the Program Management Proposal 50 page limit, Section L has been clarified with revised chart.

17. Question: The last bullet of this section appears to suggest the Government intends for the contractor workforce to assist in the awarding and administering of GBPS Task Orders. Can you please clarify the expected role of contractors in this process?

ANSWER: We may require in the future, once a program office for services has been developed, that each prime have a contract administration person located within that office.

18. Question: The third sentence beginning “The offeror shall submit a maximum of …” is unclear. Please specifically clarify the Past Performance requirements in terms of Prime vs. Sub and number of Performance Information Sheets required (3, 4 or 5).

ANSWER: Section L clarified.

19. Question: What methodology should Prime contractors use to determine each subcontractor’s work allocation as the scope and content of future Task Orders are unknown at this time?

ANSWER: It is your anticipated level of effort you intend on having each subcontractor perform.

20. Question: As Teams could be quite large given the magnitude of this effort, requiring up to 5 Past Performance Information Sheets from the prime and all subcontractors who are expected to perform 5% or more of the work could produce a Past Performance Volume well in excess of the 25 page limit. Would the government consider an unlimited page count to allow us to meet this requirement with sufficient detail for evaluation purposes?

ANSWER: Major subcontractor definition has been modified from 5% to 25%, this should alleviate the concern.

21. Question: The referenced section appears to conflict on exactly who is required to submit Past Performance Information Sheets. Are Past Performance Information Sheets required for the offeror and subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform any of the proposed effort:

Please clarify.

ANSWER: Clarified definition of major subcontractors in Section L

22.Question: Past Performance Relevancy appears to be defined in multiple ways; some instances considering only the Program Management subfactors (L.4.1.3 , M.6.0) and others considering relevancy to the PWS functional areas (M.3.2, M.3.4). Relevancy uncertainty is increased by the requirement to provide past performance for major subcontractors (defined as either providing greater than 5% of the work or critical to overall successful performance) which would only be appropriate if relevancy to PWS requirements was the intended purpose of the past performance references. Can the government please clarify their intended evaluation of relevant past performance references?

ANSWER: Made all definitions of relevancy consistent throughout.

23. Question: Paragraph 5.1.2 requires the prime contractor to identify “… total cost of the work to be performed by the offeror, and the total cost of the work to be performed by each major subcontractor, under the contract.” With a team composed of companies based on their individual qualifications and capabilities, please clarify the estimation process to be used for total contract value and work share (cost portion per major subcontractor) within the team with an unknown Task Order list.

ANSWER: Changed to “estimated” in paragraph 5.1.2 and are “projected to perform”

24. Question: Paragraph 5.1.7 requires the prime contractor to provide a “detailed basis of rates and factors (Format 1) for all primes and major subcontractors and then a summary submission (Format 2).” As these rates are proprietary to each company, the only option to submit these rates for subcontractors is utilizing a sealed package. Given that necessity, it is not possible for the prime to calculate a summary submission as requested. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Section L further clarified as follows; “If there are concerns from major subcontractors with providing proprietary cost data to the prime offerors they may submit Format 1 or FPRA directly to the Government or to the prime in a sealed envelope for inclusion in the proposal.” And next Para “The subcontractor’s data here is just the total amount not the detailed cost elements from Format 1 or FPRA.”

25.Question: This reference requires (if appropriate) offerors to provide “For example, if an offeror has three labor overhead rates—on-site, off-site, and professional and a separate fringe benefits rate for each of the three labor overhead rates, the offeror is to indicate which labor category (ies)”. As there are no labor categories to be provided, how are offerors to satisfy this requirement?

ANSWER: Paragraph has been deleted from Section L

26. Question: Will the Government provide a list of CDRLs (DD 1423s) associated with the GBPS contract (e.g., monthly cost reports, task order products, 294/295, etc.)? This will ensure that offerors have a common understanding of the required deliverables.

ANSWER: Reference PWS Section 3.1.1 for all contract deliverables and timelines. DD1423s stating the same thing is not required for Service contracts.

27. Question: Section G.4 reads as if anyone who is getting foreign differential pay CANNOT get travel per diem at the same time. Please clarify the Government’s intent in this regard.

Some information appears to be missing from Section G.6. The current text jumps from travel issues in G.6.1 to contract closing procedures. Paragraph numbering seems to indicate that a section has been left out.

ANSWER: Section G.6 was corrected in the RFP to remove the claim and closeout verbiage. Further research showed that G.4 clause was outdated and regulations have seen caught up; therefore, it has been deleted from the RFP.

28. Question: The HUBZone requirements will be difficult to meet under a contract like GBPS. For a company to qualify as a HUBZone, they must have 35% or more of their staff working in a HUBZone. Since the majority of GBPS work will be in government or Prime contractor facilities, the HUBZone business would have to add one person in their HUBZone facility for every two people working elsewhere. HUBZone companies are unlikely to be able to maintain this pace as their GBPS work increases. Will the Government consider decreasing the HUBZone requirement or removing it altogether?

ANSWER: Hubzone requirement has been reduced to having a 0% mandated minimum, however, still required to address Hubzone in the SB plan.

29. Question: Section H.21.1 states “if the actual Small Business performance does not meet the mandatory goals stated in the approved subcontracting plan, the Government shall be entitled to a reduction on contract price.” With potentially dozens of task orders running on different periods of performance, colors of money funding sources, etc. this could be difficult to do. We recommend that you provide additional details on how the reduction will be implemented.

ANSWER: H.21.1 has been modified to reduce the fee amount for all task orders versus contract price.

30. Question: Thirty days seems to be an excessive time period for submitting task order proposals and could result in unreasonable delays for task order customers. Ten days is the typical suspense time for submitting task order proposals on other similar contracts. We recommend reducing the amount of time for contractors to submit proposals to 10 days.

ANSWER: Clarified Section H, not all task orders will have 30 days, however, dependent on the size of the task order and to ensure true competition is achieved, the appropriate amount of days will be established per instruction to offerors (ITOs) in each task order.

31. Question: Section H.22.2 states that “during the initial task order evaluations, since current task order past performance has not yet been demonstrated, all prime offerors will be given a neutral rating. “ The current incumbent contractors may have demonstrated performance relevant to the initial task orders. How will this past performance be considered in Phase II of the source selection?

ANSWER: Current performance of incumbents will be evaluated during Phase I only. Past performance at the task order levels for GBPS will focus solely on GBPS task orders.

32. Question: Clause 52.222-39 references union membership. Are unionized personnel anticipated for inclusion on GBPS? If not, we recommend that this clause be omitted from the RFP.

ANSWER: Per the FAR 22.1605 this clause is required with only 2 exceptions, Sec of Labor exemption or under 100K and is included for that reason. However, to answer the question, no, the government does not anticipate having unionized personnel under GBPS.

33. Question: For this contract-level document, the markings should be changed to be consistent with the PWS (3.3.1) and Section H. Specifically, requirements for SCI and SAP need to be addressed along with access to classified documents.

ANSWER: Per SOCOM Security Management Office, Mike Cauble, the DD 254 is the facility clearance, TS level. All SCI, SAP, NATO, etc. is at the DD 254 task order levels. The DD254 is correct.

34. Question: Section H.27 states that “substantive material purchases require approval by the COR unless otherwise described in the ITO. “ Please specify what constitutes a « substantive » material purchase. Are we correct in assuming that this in accordance with the simplified acquisition limits of $100K?

ANSWER: Yes, clause has been clarified.

35. Question: The hierarchical location and definition of “Relevant” and “Somewhat Relevant” past performance appear to be transposed. Please clarify that “Relevant” and “Somewhat Relevant” definitions are reversed.

ANSWER: Corrected in Section M.

36. Question: Paragraph 3.1.4 states “The offeror shall include job qualifications, for the top key management positions, include resumes ….” Does each offeror determine which positions qualify as “key management positions?” Are there any other resume requirements?

We assume the required Consent Letters are excluded from the 25 page limit for Volume II. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Clarified Section L matrix, consent letters, executive summary, and resumes are excluded in the page count. Yes, each offeror determines who their key management personnel are going to be, not the Government. Ensured consistency in Sections L and M to state “Key management personnel” versus “Key personnel”

37. Question: In addition, we recommend that all graphics be submitted as single-space to ensure readability. The DRFP requires electronic submittal of all proposal material and states, “Microsoft word processing, presentation, and spreadsheet products are preferred.” Because conversion issues can occur when opening different versions of Microsoft Office, does the Government have a version preference for the electronic files (e.g., Microsoft Office 2007)?

ANSWER: Added Microsoft Office 2007.

38. Question: Pages 81 and 82 of the DRFP provide instructions for the number of copies to be submitted for the proposal; however, the instructions are inconsistent. Page 81 states an original + X hardcopies, while page 82 doesn’t mention originals. Please confirm the number of hardcopies required.

ANSWER: Clarified in Submission table of Section L

39. Question: The Proposal Submission Requirements table (Section 1.12) appears to indicate that the 5-page Executive Summary is not included in the 50 page limitation for Volume I. Section 2.1.1 states that the Executive Summary is included in the Volume I page limitation. Please clarify whether the Executive Summary is excluded from the Volume I page count.

ANSWER: Clarified Section L, consent letters, executive summary, and resumes are excluded in the page count.

40. Question: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements state that offerors must “describe the strength and specificity of each corporate commitment (i.e., what type of commitment, how binding is the commitment, how specific is the commitment to this proposed effort, and what types of tasks are included in these subcontracting opportunities).” Since this is a multiple award contract where offerors will compete on task orders, it is impossible at the time proposals will be submitted to make specific commitments to small businesses regarding tasks that will be subcontracted. Are we correct in assuming that the Government intends for offerors to discuss their small business commitments in general terms, including the type of work expected to be performed by small business entities?

ANSWER: Yes, however you should specify the information requested based upon the estimated and anticipated level of work you intend to subcontract in relation to GBPS.

41. Question: The OCI Mitigation Plan requires disclosure of “business activities of the offeror, its affiliates, its team members, and affiliates of its team members.” The size and length of this disclosure will vary widely among offerors depending on the size of their teams and the nature of their business activities. Will the Government consider excluding the disclosure of business activities from the Volume I page count to ensure that offerors with large teams and significant business activities are not unfairly penalized?

ANSWER: Yes, Section L matrix updated

42. Question: Section H, ¶8: We suggest that the definition of Key Personnel be refined to apply to individuals whose resumes are submitted for the evaluation of Task Order proposals.

ANSWER: Would be defined, if applicable, to the task order in the ITO.

43. Question: Section H, ¶H.22.4: Can the Government clarify the timeline within which the contractor can expect a written record of the authorization to be provided once a verbal authorization to proceed is given?

ANSWER: Would depend on the circumstances of the task order. Normally this all occurs within a day or two.

44. Question: Section L, ¶1.11: The requirement for Times New Roman, 11 pitches, in charts, graphics and tables, significantly limits the presentation of critical data in an easy to evaluate format. Suggest you allow a smaller pitch as was allowed in the 2001 ALMBOS RFP; we suggest 10 pitch in tables and 9 pitch in graphics or charts.

ANSWER: Noted

45.Question: Section L, ¶1.11 and ¶4.11: The 25 page limit for the Past Performance Proposal (¶1.11) and the specific requirements for a Summary Page, Performance Information Sheets for the prime and each major or critical subcontractor, Past Performance on Subcontracting, and Consent Letters for each subcontractor and Organizational Change History required (¶4.11) could have the effect of limiting the number of past performance submissions to a number so small that a minimum of three could not be provided for the prime and each major or critical subcontractor. We recommend that the Table of Contents and Consent Letters not be counted in the total page count and that the total page count be defined as follows:

· Maximum of 25 pages (excluding the Table of Contents, Consent Letters and Past Performance Information Sheets)

· Past Performance Sheets (Maximum 2 pages each, Maximum of 5 from the prime and up to 5 each for the major or critical subcontractors) This would allow the Offeror to fully define its team’s past performance history and limit the total volume page count to 25 pages for offerors that only submit a total of 5 Past Performance Information Sheets for its major or critical subcontractors.

ANSWER: Section L excludes DD 254 and consent letters, also major subcontractors are now defined as 25% vs. 5%, and this should elevate all concerns.

46. Question: Section L, ¶1.12: As there is no requirement for a Technical Proposal in either the Phase 1 or Phase 2 Submissions, and Section M ¶5.1 states “proposals will be evaluated for demonstrated technical ability …,” can the Government elaborate on how technical performance will be considered in the overall evaluation?

ANSWER: Your technical ability should come out in your program management proposal; however, the word technical has been removed

47. Question: Section L, ¶1.12: The PWS provides for 46 task areas of support. The RFP provides for 50 pages to describe the management approach and capabilities to respond to those task areas. We recommend that either the page limit on the Program Management Proposal be increased or a separate Technical Proposal be included to fully demonstrate technical abilities.

ANSWER: Nowhere in Section L does it ask for offerors to address detailed 46 functional areas of the PWS. Sections L and M were clarified from “all PWS” to major functional areas.

48. Question: Section L, ¶4: The previous ALMBOS RFP allowed only the submission of Task Orders issued under an IDIQ as Contract references and did not allow the submission of the IDIQ as a contract reference. Will this also apply to GBPS?

ANSWER: No

49. Question: Section L, ¶4.11: Does the Government plan to provide a standard format for Performance Information Sheets or is the format at the discretion of the Offeror.

ANSWER: No, discretion of the offeror on format as long as all data required is submitted

50. Question: Section L, ¶4.11: As each Performance Information Sheet is limited to 2 pages, will the Government consider allowing these to be single spaced at 10 pitch?

ANSWER: No

51. Question: Section M, ¶7.2: It is stated that the Government will determine the ability of the Offeror based on past proposed indirect rates to actual finalized DCAA audits to gage the Offeror’s ability to accurately forecast indirect costs.

· We assume that the phrase “past proposed indirect rates” refers to provisional rates proposed by the contractor and approved by DCAA. Can the Government confirm that this assumption is correct?

· Since actual finalized DCAA audits for a contractor are often completed two years after completion of the year, it is likely that the most current data available for comparison is 2006. If the most recent completed DCAA audit does not fall within the 3-year timeframe defined in Section 6.0 Past Performance, how will the results of the analysis be weighted?

ANSWER: Section M further clarified.

52. Question: Section C, ¶3.3.1: Can the Government clarify if the specified phase-in and phase-out period is in calendar days or business days?

ANSWER: calendar days

53. Question: Section C, ¶3. 3.1.1: Not all SDS Objectives have a corresponding metric. Should there be a metric for each objective? For example, the first objective concerns report accuracy; however, there is no corresponding metric.

ANSWER: All have metrics; added “accurately along with timely”

54. Question: Section H, ¶H.19: States that 35% of hours need to go to small business; however, reporting is in dollars. Can the Government clarify whether small business should receive 35% of the hours or dollars?

ANSWER: All sections changed to total contract dollars and the small business subcontracting percentage rate has been lowered to 30%.

55. Question: Section L, ¶1.12 and ¶2.1.1: The page limits specified in Section L, ¶1.12 and ¶2.1.1 appear to conflict. Section L, ¶1.12 states that, for the Program Management Proposal, the number of pages will be 50 + Executive Summary (5 pages) + Key Personnel Resumes. Section L, ¶2.1.1 states that the Executive Summary is limited to five pages, but is included in the page limit for Volume I. Can the Government clarify if the five pages allowed for the Executive Summary is exclusive of the 50-page limit on Volume 1?

ANSWER: Clarified Section L, consent letters, executive summary, and resumes are excluded in the page count.

56. Question: Section H.21 and Section L, ¶3.3.1: The requirements for small business participation do not agree in these two paragraphs (Section H makes no mention of Veteran Owned where Section L does). Which is correct?

ANSWER: All sections now match, Section L was correct

57. Question: L.3.3.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest, Page 85 Will OCI clauses be incorporated at IDIQ level or on individual task orders? Recommend that they be incorporated at the TO level?

ANSWER: OCI is at the contract level for all primes. As stated in Question 1 it is the prime contractors responsibility when subcontracting at the task order levels to ensure there are no OCI issues with having the a particular subcontractor working that task order.