QA posted 5 Oct 09 Finalx.pdf

Questions with Answers, Amend 3 to RFP H92222-09-R-0034, posted 5 Oct 2009. Official SF 33, Amendment 3 will be posted 6 Oct 2009, due to the procurement writing system upgrade being performed and causing system access restrictions.

1. We understand and are fully supportive of the value of Small Business participation in acquisitions such as GBPS. We are concerned; however, that Clause H.21.1 appears not to contemplate any consideration by the Government of whether a contractor’s failure to meet the mandatory goals occurred despite a good faith effort by the contractor. There may be occasions where the goals are not achieved despite a contractor’s best efforts. As you know, the standard FAR clause for liquidated damages in the case of failure to meet SB goals, FAR 52.219-16, is tied to “failure to make a good faith effort to comply with the subcontracting plan.” We respectfully request the Government modify Clause H21.1 to take into account the contractor’s efforts.

For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph might be revised to state: “If the actual Small Business performance for the overall contract effort does not meet the mandatory goals stated in the approved subcontracting plan for each category, and the Contracting Officer determines that the Contractor has not made a good faith effort to achieve the goals, then the Government shall be entitled….” We would suggest that “failure to make a good faith effort” and a rebuttal process be defined, perhaps along the same lines as FAR 52.219-16 (a) and (c).

Answer: The government is not using FAR 52.219-16 for this very reason. We have determined the percentages are achievable especially when material, travel, and ODCs are now excluded. The clause remains as written.

2. In the government’s Q&A response dated 9/4/2009, Question 12, (Subcontracts for Commercial Items. FAR 44.403 states that 52.244-6 must be included in contracts to allow for the procurement of commercial items. Please clarify the allowance of commercial items and services under this contract.) was answered as follows:

Previous ANSWER: FAR does not state “must”, however, will be added to RFP Section I by reference. “

We do not see that 52.244-6 was added to Section I. Request the government please add this clause as indicated in the response above.

Answer: Amendment 1 added this clause via SF 30.

3. FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts, has the following insertion (clause insertion in bold) in section (c)(2) (ii) of the clause:(d) If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the Contractor nevertheless shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before placing the following subcontracts:

Major subcontractor team members defined as performing over 5% of the work under this contract.

We recommend the government increase this to 25% of the contract work consistent with the revision to definition of “major subcontractor” that increased it to 25% of the contract work.

Answer: This clause had previously been modified in error under paragraph (c)(2) (i) from 5% to 25%. Paragraph (c) (2)(i) has now been corrected back to 5 % and the definition of major subcontractor under (d) has been changed from 5% to 25% via Amendment 3.

4. None of our team partners are projected to perform 25% or more of the proposed work.

Therefore, we cannot submit Past Performance Information Sheets for any of them, limiting our ability to describe the breadth of relevant team experience. Will USSOCOM consider allowing offerors to dedicate a page in Volume 3 to summarize the experience of our primary partners even though they are not projected to meet the work percentage threshold?

Answer: This can be described in your Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW

1.13.4.1 and IAW Teaming Arrangements 2.1.1.3, as we don’t need past performance on every partner or team member.

5. Given the amount of information to be provided in the Past Performance Information

Sheets, will USSOCOM consider increasing the page limit for each to 6 pages? The current limit of 5 pages means that we cannot adequately respond to all headings.

Answer: No

6. Are Factor 3 (Task Order Management and PWS) and Factor 4 (Task Order Price) the only evaluation factors considered in making the Task Order award decision? If not, please clarify.

Answer: Yes.

7. Factor 4 states that the government will roll up subfactor prices into an overall total price for the overall factor (Factor 4; Task Order Price), and there is a notation in the table on page 14 that says “Rollup Price for Prime Award Evaluation.” Please clarify (a) how price is evaluated for the IDIQ award and (b) whether the sum of all four task order prices has any bearing on the award of individual task orders.

Answer: a) The total of the four task order prices will be used for prime contractor selection. b) The sum of all four task order prices has no bearing on award of the four initial task orders.

8. The paragraph states “Ensure products adhere to the standards established in the production SOP.” Please provide a copy of that production SOP to offerors.

Answer: Due to the requirements of this task order and the fact that all of the individuals that are proposed to support this task order must hold or obtain a security clearance at the TOPSECRET-SCI level per the attached DD254 and SCI Addendum. Certain information such as these referenced SOPs is sensitive in nature and will not be released.

The SOPs are simply what contractor employees will be provided, trained on, and adhere to once on the job for certain tasks, but they are not necessary in order to propose on the task order. The Contractors will be responsible for ensuring products adhere to established publication and dissemination standards and requirements, including classification guidelines. Again, you will be trained by the Government on what is to be expected for Product Assembly.

9. The TO-2 SOO requires travel (98 trips per year) as specified in paragraph 7.0. RFP Section L provides for proposing costs for travel on a cost reimbursable CLIN if provided in the ITO. However, the ITO for TO-23 does not specify that cost reimbursable travel is requested.

Please clarify if the travel is to be proposed as part of the FFP pricing and if so, please provide additional details as to location of all 98 trips so we can accurately project travel costs. Alternatively, please provide a “plug” number bidders should allocate for a TO-2 travel cost reimbursable CLIN.

Answer: Please see previous Q&A posted with Amendment 1. There will not be a “plug” number provided.

10. Paragraph 2.0.2.9 is missing text at the end. Please provide the missing text.

Answer: Task order 2 SOO has been Amended to add “solutions or counter points on why proposed solutions will not provide desired results.”

11. Travel for Task Order 2 is “required to various CONUS and OCONUS locations to gather data….” Is our understanding correct that the four trips to OCONUS are to the

AOR?

Answer: OCONUS trips may or may not be in the AOR depending on PEO SR requirements. For planning purposes, at least two trips should be considered in the AOR.

12. Travel for Task Order 2 is “required to various CONUS and OCONUS locations to gather data….” Is our understanding correct that this is intended to mean five days on location in each destination per trip, with additional days (above the five) for travel to and from the location (vice a total trip, departure and return of only five days)?

Answer: Yes, on average the trips will be five workdays on location, travel time is in addition to the time on location.

13. Paragraph includes a reference to: ‘…and all associated ancillary components including

Foreign Military Sales.’ FMS is only mentioned here and not in any of the SOO subtasks.

Please clarify the FMS tasks within the SOAL NS portfolio to be supported under the task order.

Answer: PEO NS is not a Foreign Military Sales office but does support FMS as directed by OSD and the State Department. All the specific requirements listed in the task order do support inherently FMS. The only difference is the customer. The customer would not be SOF but a foreign nation. Funds would be transferred to CCPMO by an International Programs agency but the same subtasks would have to be performed. Only possible difference would be helping the PEO in providing an estimate for additional support for delivering systems not original planned for. FMS support would include financial training, logistical support, acceptance testing, etc. as listed in the specific requirements. FMS case requirements can not be definitive until a Letter of Acceptance is agreed by the US and foreign nation so the GBPS support vendor is not required to put for a specific cost estimate for future possible FMS.

OCONUS travel might be required.

14. Please provide the level of testing involved and specify the testing requirements.

Answer: The level of testing and testing requirements are specified in a Statement of

Work when accepting a system for PEO NS. Contractor test personnel shall have to have a general knowledge of NSW systems including operation and assisting the government in testing the systems to meet contract requirements for acceptance. Obviously, for systems that will be delivered in the future which presently do not have contract in place, the GBPS contractor will assist the Government in defining the testing involved and requirements and assist the government in conducting the test. Production systems include both above and underwater systems for NSW use.

15. Paragraph 2.0 states “Print media will be produced in a variety of languages including, but not limited to, English, British English dialect, Spanish, Modern Standard Arabic, French, Brazilian Portuguese, Thai, German, Russian, Urdu, Pashtu, Dari, and Bahasa Indonesian. The caveat, “but not limited to” requires offerors to price the unknown. Will the Government allow offerors to reprice in the event language translation requirements significantly change?

Answer: Yes

16. There is a difference between languages listed in the two cited sections. Para 2.0 lists Urdu as a language requirement. Para 2.4.1 does not list Urdu. Is Urdu a language required for transcription?

Answer: Urdu is a future language requirement

17. Under section 2.4.3 it states “Translators shall be certified by the American Translators Association and have a written performance level score of 12 on the ALTA scoring protocol (or equivalent translation assessment).” Will the government accept The Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale level 4 or 5 as an equivalent translation assessment to the ALTA 12? The ILR is the standard grading scale for language proficiency in the Federal service.

Answer: Please reference Amendment 2; this was already answered

18. Travel for Task Order 4 requires offerors to “Plan four trips per magazine to each GCC

AOR, with up to 2 personnel for 3 days each for content gathering purposes.” Is our understanding correct that this is intended to mean three days on location in each AOR per trip, with additional days (above the three) for travel to and from AOR (vice a total trip, departure and return, of only three days)?

Answer: For planning purposes, 3 days on the ground. Travel in addition to.

19. Reference 1.2. The RFP states that the “Contractor shall perform the standards of this PWS in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner…” Can USSOCOM advise us as to what is considered as “environmentally acceptable”?

Answer: See DoD Green Procurement Policy (GPP) strategy based on Executive Order 13423. DoD requires all defense programs to purchase green (or environmentally friendly) products and services to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the requirements of relevant federal procurement preference programs. Additionally, reference clauses 52.223-2 and 52.223-17

20. Reference 2.3.3.2. This paragraph states, “Reserved.” Does the government remain intent on including a PWS requirement for this line item?

Answer: If the Government wishes to change this from “reserved” we will do so via modification to the contracts.

21. Reference H. 15.1(b)(2) states that contractors shall not participate in the development of any system, hardware, or software that has the potential of being tested by the contractor under a task/delivery order issued under this contract. As written, this is a very broad restriction, and it is difficult for contractors to identify which systems, hardware, or software would have the potential of being tested under this contract. Currently, SOCOM modifies several major end items which have been originally developed for specific Services. These major end items are highly complex and consist of many systems, hardware components, and software; and therefore involve large numbers of contractors.

To provide a realistic and balanced approach to OCI for GBPS, there should be two methods of separation, one at the IDIQ level and one at the individual Task Order level.

First, any prime contractor for GBPS should not be the prime for any DoD ACAT I program. This will ensure there is no inherent bias or impaired objectivity at the IDIQ level. Second, if a GBPS prime discovers that they or anyone of their participating sub contracts has a potential OCI for a particular Task Order, then it is incumbent upon them to self-disclose the OCI and request a waiver to no-bid that specific Task Order. This will ensure non participation at the Task Order level. This approach will still allow contractors to form teams to cover the entire GBPS PWS, attract the number and verity of small businesses needed to achieve the 30% requirement, and also minimize the need for government oversight to manage the risks associated with OCI.

We therefore request that USSOCOM:

Modify Subparagraph (b)(2) to state that GBPS Prime Contractors shall not participate as a Prime Contractor in the development of any DoD ACAT I programs (systems, hardware, or software) and that successful GBPS Prime Contractors and any participating subcontractors must self-disclose any potential OCI for each Task Order by requesting a waiver to no bid that specific Task Order.

Answer: While we understand the questioner’s concern, limiting the application to ACAT I programs doesn’t achieve the program goal of maintaining maximum competition for individual task orders. H.15.1(b)(2) remains as posted.

22. Reference H.15.1(d)(5) This was not in the clause in the draft RFP. The Government’s intent is unclear and we believe that by including the term “First Tier subcontractors” in the definition the Government is creating an implied “privity of contract” with the Prime’s subcontractors. Since the entire clause will be flowed down in all subcontracts we would recommend that the Government delete H.15.1(d)(5).

Answer: H.15.1(d)(5) is deleted and H.15.1(i) is added as follows “(i) The contractor shall include this provision, including this paragraph, in subcontracts of any tier. The use of this clause in such subcontracts shall be read by substituting the word "subcontractor" for the word "contractor" wherever the latter appears.”

23. Reference H.15.1(e) This significantly changes the definition of affiliates from what was in the draft RFP. The definition of affiliate in the final RFP is very broad. Some companies are affiliated only loosely through investments that do not include control of day to day operations or technical direction. We therefore suggest that for the purposes of this solicitation, the definition of “affiliate” be modified to add the following qualification, “Affiliate shall not include any organization owned by the parent of the Contractor if that parent does not exercise day to day control over the business or technical direction of the operations of the Contractor.”

Answer: The RFP definition of affiliate comes from FAR part 2. The RFP remains as posted.

24. Reference H.22.2, Proposal Content. This subparagraph stipulates “If an actual subject matter expert, specialist, or technical expert is proposed in order to provide services under the task order, a resume should be provided in the management proposal.” On page 57, Paragraph H.22.2, subparagraph titled “Task Order Management Proposals shall contain…”

“If a specific subject matter expert/Key Personnel are required to meet the Government requirement, this information will be provided by the government at the task order level, the Offerors shall then also provide:

� Proposed personnel individual’s qualification summaries/resume

� Rational for the personnel, knowledge and skill levels proposed”

a. Does the government require duplicate resumes/statement of qualifications for offeror-nominated subject matter experts/Key Personnel in both the Management Volume II and the relevant Task Order Management and PWS volume?

Answer: Reference Section H.22.2 proposal content “Additionally, ITOs may specifically require the submission of certain resumes.” Offerors may provide resumes qualifications, etc when not specifically required in the ITO if you so choose to use those to demonstrate your capability. The required resumes will always be in the ITO. Additionally, Section H has no bearing on the evaluation and award of prime contracts. Sections L and M do not refer to Section H.

b. Does the reference to “…management proposal” on page 56 refer only to the Task Order and PWS volume and not the Management Volume II?

Answer: Follow Sections L and M for Factors 3 and 4, not section H for post award task order competitions.

25. Reference H.28, Transfer of Business Unit Executing the Contract. Please confirm that this clause applies only to the prime contractor.

26. Reference L.3.1, Volume 3 Contents. Does the government require consent letters for all subcontractors/teaming partners, regardless of workshare?

Answer: No. Section L states: “Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information”. If you are not required to submit past performance on the subcontractor per Section L, then we will not be evaluating their past performance, and therefore would not require consent letters to discuss adverse past performance.

27. Reference L.3.1.1, Past Performance Information Sheets. May the offeror submit subcontractor quals for companies performing less than 25% of the workshare? Previous versions of the RFP had language encouraging this, the latest version does not.

Answer: No

28. Reference L.3.1.4.1, Relevant Contracts. When defining relevance, the government includes factors such as diversity of expertise, scope of PWS, magnitude, project complexity, security requirements, business management processes, contract type, number of employees, SOF and DoD support, and the same major functional areas as the PWS. Will the government assign a higher weight to any of these factors (i.e., magnitude/$40M minimum) when determining relevance?

Answer: No. We are not assigning “weights” to past performance relevancy criteria.

29. Reference M.1.1, Evaluation. The RFP indicates that “a color rating technique will be used to evaluate the Program Management and Task Order Management and PWS,” however, no color rating definitions were provided. Will the government please provide these definitions?

Answer: No, the Government is not required to provide in Section M the rating definitions.

30. Reference DD254. The DD254 for TO 2 indicates three existing task orders to be included in this recompeted task. It is clear how TO 175 and TO 176 map to the new TO 2 SOO, however, it is unclear how TO 437 (SOAL NSSS Support) maps to the new SOO. Will the government clarify within which TO 2 Subtask is the existing work performed under TO 437 included?

Answer: Yes as of Amendment 1

31. Reference ITO. Will the government provide the historical level of effort per existing TO

(how are the 16 FTE aligned with the three existing TOs that are rolled up into the TO 2 scope)?

Answer: Historical 175 and 176 is 13 FTE, Historical for 437 (portion incorporated under TO 2) is 3 FTE. The other support required under the current TO 437 (approx 1 FTE and 6 part time employees) was not incorporated under this TO 2

32. Reference SCI Addendum. The SCI Addendum indicates this task order requires that “6 contract billets be established in order to fulfill the contractual obligations incurred,” however, the TO 2 ITO indicates the historical level of effort is 16 full-time employees all of which must hold or obtain a TS/SCI clearance. Will the government clarify whether all contractor personnel assigned to this task order will be required to hold or obtain TS/SCI clearances, or whether the requirement is for only 6 members of the contractor team?

Answer: SCI Addendum for TO 2 has been modified via Amend 3. All employees supporting this task order must have TS/SCI clearances.

33. Reference Q&A dated 21 Sept 2009, Question #16. If the Cost Reimbursable Travel CLIN is not to be used for Task Order 2, will the government please indicate the number and location of trips that should align with each of the two subtasks?

Answer: For planning purposes, each sub task will require 50% of the total travel.

34. Reference TO 2 SOO. The SOO includes inconsistencies in the numbering of the paragraphs. Will the government clarify if sections 2.1 and 2.2 were intentionally omitted?

35. Reference TO 3 SOO Paragraph 2.4.1.1, Required Skills. Requires a Master's Degree plus 9 or greater years experience to meet resume requirements. Will the government accept a Bachelors Degree with a given number of years experience in exchange for a Masters Degree (e.g., 15 years experience and Bachelors Degree to substitute 9 years experience and Masters Degree)?

Answer: No.

36. TO 4 Reference DD254. The TO 4 DD254 indicates that 20 contractor employees working on this effort will require access to SCI information and refers the reader to the SCI Addendum; however, no SCI Addendum was provided for TO 4. Will the government provide this document?

Answer: Amendment 3 provides a revised DD 254 removing SCI verbiage for TO 4.

37. Reference ITO and DD254. The TO 4 ITO indicates a period of performance of 31 May 2010 – 29 May 2011, however, the DD254 indicates a period of performance of 30 May 2010 – 29 May 2011. Will the government please the correct period of performance?

Answer: 30 May start is correct, ITO is revised, Amend 3

38. Reference TO 4 SOO. Paragraph 2.4.1 refers to translation services and cites the need for both Pashtu and Dari. In Paragraph 2.5, the descriptions of printing requirements do not refer to either Pashtu or Dari. Are translation services required for both Pashtu and Dari?

Answer: Pashtu and Dari are emerging languages for RMI. The Government expects possible requirement within six months after contract award.

39. Reference TO 4 SOO Section 4.0, Service Delivery Summary. For each of the six magazines, will the government please provide the following data?

a. How many formal customer complaints/contract discrepancy reports have been received each year for the past 4 years?

Answer: No.

For each of the past 4 years, what is the average time in which formal customer complaints are resolved?

Answer: no. Current task order does not track customer complaints, this QASP is applicable to GBPS RFP, not current ALMBOS.

40. Reference TO 4 SOO Paragraph 8, Travel. The requirements state: “Plan four trips per magazine to each GCC AOR, with up to 2 personnel for 3 days each for content gathering purposes.” Given the JMISC produces four editions of each magazine per year, it could be interpreted that offerors need to plan four trips per edition, thus 16 trips per year per magazine to each GCC. Please clarify how many trips are required per edition per magazine.

Answer: 4 trips per magazine per year.

41. Reference Amendment 1, Task Order 4. This amendment is marked as ‘FOUO’. Is it the government’s intent that the response for Task Order 4, to include the volume it is contained in, be marked FOUO? If so, does that carry over to any other volumes?

42. Will the government provide existing publishing materials/templates to the contractor that wins the award (assuming it is not the incumbent)?

Answer: Yes

43. Will the government be providing software licenses for the desktop publishing suite used to design the current magazines or should offerors price these items in their cost proposal?

44. Can the government provide the name of the software used to layout the magazines?

Answer: In-Design ME.

45. Does the government or current incumbent “own” the current magazine publishing templates and software? Will these templates be available or turned over to the winning bidder as part of the transition?

Answer: The Government owns the templates and they will be turned over to the winning bidder as part of the transition. There is not special software requirement.

46. Will the government provide the current “transition out” plan of the incumbent team to offerors with the responses to these questions?

Answer: The incumbent’s “transition out” plan will be designed after the winning bidder provides their “transition in” plan.

47. Does the government intend to pay any royalties or fees associated with obtaining news stories for the various publications? If so, is should offerors price those costs into the FFP portion of the proposal or will it be reimbursed at cost as a separate ODC?

Answer: The offerors should price those costs into the FFP portion of the proposal.

48. Does every location where work is performed on the RMI contract need to have a SECRET facility clearance? For example, does a freelance photographer (who has a secret clearance) have to process all images in a “cleared” facility? Or can the non-classified elements of the project be done in a non-cleared location?

Answer: The non-classified elements of the project can be done in a non-cleared location.

49. Will the government provide a sample copy of the latest issue of each magazine with the responses to these questions (preferably in native language they are produced in)?

Answer: Yes. Copies will be available upon specific request via email to the Contracting Officer, deanna.cox@socom.mil. If you are local you can make arrangements with Ms.

Cox to pick up the magazines at the Marina facility in Tampa FL. If you are not local then you can provide a mailing address and POC to Ms. Cox and they will be federal expressed to you.

50. The SOO states that the Dialogo Magazine has two versions: Spanish/English and Brazilian Portuguese/English. Are these versions done in the “flip flop style” as is indicated for the Asia Pacific Defense Forum? Can a sample of an existing “flip flop” version be provided to give bidders as a clear expectation as to what is required to be developed and produced?

Answer: No, they are not done in flip-flop style. The flip-flop style for Asia Pacific Defense Forum will not be ready in time for offerors to review.

51. SOO 2.1.7.6 requires establishing and maintaining a facility for SOAL NS and CCM systems. Would the government please clarify if that is a government facility since the ITO states place of performance as HQ USSOCOM? Also, if the facility is a government facility, please clarify its location.

Answer: The facility will be a government facility and will be located near the vicinity of

HQ SOCOM. The vendor will assist the government in establishing the facility.

52. SOO 2.1.7.6 includes the requirement to “establish and maintain proper facilities to produce….” SOAL NS and CCM systems. Please clarify what is meant by “to produce” in this context. (We assume this does not mean to procure or fabricate the systems, since the GBPS contractor will be providing acquisition support for these systems. In addition, SOO 8.0 says all materials will be provided by the Government.)

Answer: The facility will be used to support logistics functions (ordering, distributing, storing etc. of GFE and spares) in support of SOAL NS and CCM systems.

For 8.0, all materials such as office supplies and office equipment will be procured by the government.

53. Reference Task Order 4 SOO. In SOO Paragraph 1.0, the government indicates the RMI program, “as directed by the Government, produces other collateral print media such as special editions, calendars, inserts, and brochures” that are above and beyond the six quarterly magazines. The following paragraph 1.1 states that “the primary objective of this contract is to provide an integrated solution for planning, developing, producing, translating, printing, and distributing of all products for the RMI program.” The remainder of the SOO focuses on the planning, development, production, translation, printing, and distribution of the six quarterly magazines only. For cost estimating purposes, will the government provide specific parameters for the “other collateral print media” that will be required (e.g., volume, frequency, printing requirements, distribution requirements)?

Answer: For pricing equity, plan for 1) six calendars per year each (36 pages, page size - 8.25" x 10.75", Image area - 7.75" x 10.25", Bleed area - 8.75" x 11.25"); 2) Special edition, one per GCC with a total of 6 per year (36 pages, other specs same as magazine); 3) Inserts, 2 per GCC with a total of 12 per year (tear-out subscription card, at least 4½ by 3 ½ inches, 75-pound high bulk paper); 4) Brochures, one per GCC with a total of 6 per year (80lb Gloss #3, 4/4 Heat Process, Flat - 24" x 18" / Folded to 6" x 9", Image Area - 23" x 17", Bleed Area - 24.5" x 18.5")

54. Reference TO 4. With Amendment 2, the government provided distribution lists for 5 of the 6 magazines. Will the government provide the distribution list for the Pro Concordiam magazine as well for cost estimating purposes?

Answer: Pro Concordiam is still in developmental stages and the initial distribution list has not been finalized. As a benchmark, and to keep everyone on an even playing field, use the same costs associated with pricing African Defence Forum magazine.

55. Is the table of contents for each volume included in the overall page count for that volume?

Answer: Not all factors request a table of contents, only 2 require it. Section L, paragraph 2.0.1 states “The table of contents, title page, acronym lists and tab dividers are not included in the page count.” for Factor 1, Program Management. Factor 2, past performance, the table of contents is included in the overall volume page count.