Q A_to_Draft_RFP.docx

1. Reference Page 67, Section L.1.11, Proposal Submission Requirements:

The page limit for the Program management section is so restrictive that offerors may not be able to provide complete enough information for SOCOM to fairly evaluate the capabilities and approach of each offeror. Since there is a 1.5 line spacing requirement, along with 11 pt font, 25 pages actually becomes about 12-15 pages of text. Since Program Management is the most important factor and the limits on the other factors are not so severe (40 pages on Past Performance, and no limits on the other volumes), please increase the page limit for the Management Section of at least 50 pages (approximately 25-27 pages of text and graphics) to allow offerors the opportunity to present complete responses for SOCOM’s evaluation.

ANSWER: The number of pages has been reviewed and 25 pages is adequate to provide the information requested.

2. Reference: Section L.4.1 Price, factor 3 “Therefore, all travel associated with interviews relocation, annual training certifications, ets., will be included in the fully burdened rate.”

The government states that all travel associated with annual training certifications will not be included in the cost reimbursable travel/ODC CLINS, but would the government consider the cost of the certification be considered a cost reimbursable item or the same as the travel for it?

ANSWER: The travel reimbursable CLIN will only be used for travel associated with the work being performed and not used to pay for training certifications or travel to get training certifications.

3. Reference: Page 52, Section 52.204-8(s)(1) NAIC 541990 and (2) Small Business Size Standard is $14M.

Based upon PWS and depth and breadth of the scope of services to include equipment requirements associated with said support, why did the government select a NAIC with such a limited scope versus one of the following NAICs (541330 size standard (exception) up to $35.5m.; 541513 size standard of $25.5; 54119 size standard $25.5m) which offers a larger scope of performance, allows for the level of equipment to be procured needed to support PWS paragraphs 5.1.5 and increase competition(i.e. the competitive pool) for 8(a) Participants? Would the government be amenable to changing the NAIC to one of those indicated because it increases 8(a) competition and aligns with the performance work statement to capture an increased scope of services?

ANSWER: The NAICS code has been reviewed thoroughly and correctly reflects the work that will be performed for this effort.

4. The size standard for the 8(a) set aside is rather low for a contract this size. Would the government consider raising this to the next 8(a) size standard?

ANSWER: The size standard is based upon the NAICS code and cannot be arbitrarily changed.

5. Reference: Para L.3.1.2.3 Does the $10M criteria refer to an average annual effort, or is it the total effort over the contract life or is it the max value of an IDIQ/BPA?

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

6. Reference: Para L.3.1.2.1 Will contracts with DoD agencies be considered relevant if they meet the general criteria listed in this paragraph even if the even if the contracts do not have the labor categories or level of security classification requirements associated with this solicitation?

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

7. Would the USG consider opening this solicitation to Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDOVSBs)?

ANSWER: Based upon the market research completed and the information received at industry day this will not be moved from the 8(a) program to SDVOSB.

8. Are DCAA pre – award audits going to be required for this program?

ANSWER: It is anticipated that there will be adequate competition for this effort and that DCAA pre-award audits will not be needed.

9. We understand that the requirements for this program are still in the review/development phase. Will this significantly delay the release of the final RFP?

ANSWER: This document is being released in conjunction with the RFP. All interested parties are urged to continue to check FBO (https://www.fbo.gov/) for updates.

10. How does the USG intend to adapt the PWS to changing requirements over the life of this program?

ANSWER: The contract length has been shortened and the PWS addresses the core work that is required to be performed.

11. Reference Section L3.1.2 Relevant contracts Suggestion: To provide 8(a) offerors a realistic opportunity to meet or exceed relevancy standards, I strongly suggest the government reduce the requirement of at least “$10M as a prime” to at $1m annually as a prime or subcontractor.

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

12. Government consider 8(a) offerors past performance on task order type contracts that require contractors provide qualified personnel to perform a variety of professional and technical functions (extending the type so services from those being procured in this solicitation) in support of the DoD.

13. Reference L.1.12.1 Top Secret Facility Clearance. The offeror must have Top Secret Security Clearance as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS). And L.3.1.2.1 Relevant is defined as contracts that include: a diverse level of expertise was required (multiple labor categories) performance in multiple location, contained personnel security classification requirements, Companies with Top Secret Security Clearance will have the capability to provide personnel with security classification. However, it is possible the cleared personnel provided are not the same contract(s) as those provided by the offeror to support performance capability.

Suggestion: Suggest the Government remove the phrase “contained personnel security classification requirements,” from past performance relevancy.

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

14. L.3.1.2.1 Relevant is defined as contracts that include: a diverse level of expertise was required (multiple labor categories) performance in multiple locations, contained personnel security classification requirements, subcontracting was accomplished (for prime efforts), and the performance was in support of the DoD.

Suggestion: Small business, including 8(a) companies are not required to subcontract portions of their prime contracts. Suggest the Government remove “subcontracting was accomplished (for prime efforts)” from past performance relevance.

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

15. I realize this is an 8(a) set aside effort. Do you expect to include a past performance clause for this effort that will indicate who has to have the past performance? If so, who will have to have the past performance, the prime or the team?

16. L.3.1.2.3 Is it the Government’s intent to hold SB primes (within a $14M NAICS Code) to the below thresholds? Wouldn’t two contract past performance (required to submit as a prime at a value of $10M) almost ensure the company is NOT within the $14m threshold?

17. Clauses. FAR 52.230-2 – Cost Accounting Standards, 52.230-1 – COST Accounting Standards Notices and Certification (May 2012), 52.230-6 Administration of cost Accounting Standards and 52.230-7 – Proposal Disclosure – Cost Accounting Practice Changes (apr 2005) should be deleted as Small Businesses and this contract are not subject to CAS by the procurement being a 8(a) set-aside.

ANSWER: FAR 52.230-1, 52.230-2, 52.230-6, and 52.230-7 have been removed. Not applicable to small business.

18. Contract type. Section B Core Tasks show months as the “units” but H.10.1 requires hours and labor rates for Task Order Proposals. In Section L there is a statement that the rates proposed by labor category are ceiling rates. If this is a FFP by month for the Core Tasks, and the Government’s intent is to award the Core Tasks via a Task Order, we do not see the tie to the Labor hour rates. Particularly in execution vice proposing. It appears the government may want a FP LOE for the Core and the other Optional Task Orders, where the billings would be a function of Labor category times and Labor rate time hours vice a set amount per month. If this is the case, recommend changing language to reflect a FP LOE. If not, then request language in the RFP describes the relationship between the monthly FFP and the Ceiling labor rates in proposing and during execution of TOs. If it is intended as FFP, in PWS 6.0 Deliverables, the Progress, Status, Finance, Travel and Materiel Management Report should be tailored to remove the requirements for reporting Overhead rates, admin support hours and detailed costs.

ANSWER: The contract type in Section B Core Tasks “units” is correct. The core tasks will be paid monthly. The information for the core tasks is being requested to ensure that the overall price is fair and reasonable. The optional task could be put on a task order has LH or FFP LOE. PWS 6.0 will be updated.

19. Reference 52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS. (OCT 1995) has reference to $480,000,000; however, using the Schedule’s hours estimated on Attachment 1 Labor Categories as specified in 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995) suggests a much lower limitation is applicable. If it is the Government’s intent to have a certain ceiling (e.g., $400M+) we recommend a specific ceiling be stated. Otherwise, we believe it will default to the total evaluated price from Schedule B.

ANSWER: The contract length has been reduced from 5 years to 3 ½ years so the value has been updated.

20. Reference Section J, Attachment 1 Labor Categories. As implied by the attachment title (SOCOM Attachment_1_Optional_Task_Personnel_Qualifications_v6) this is only for Optional tasks. We believe it is in error because some Labor categories tie to Core tasks. Recommend one labor category listing with qualification whether a core or optional task.

ANSWER: The core tasks are to be completed Firm Fixed Price and Performance Work Statement has been provided. It is not the intent of the Government to dictate what the contractor will need to complete core tasks Optional tasks may or may not be needed. It is anticipated from time to time that additional personnel will be needed. The Government anticipates these labor categories may be needed occasionally for short durations.

21. Reference Attachment 1 Labor Categories:

a. As stated it appears the LOE is for both Core and Optional tasks (111 FTES).

b. There is no Qualification for the Program Manager. We want to confirm the PM’s Qualifications are at the offeror’s discretion as the person would obviously be a Key Personnel. Also, should we add the PM to the Core Excel Spreadsheet?

c. Can the Government provide an estimated set of hours for the SME IVs and SME IIIs?

ANSWER: It is stated that core task will be awarded as FFP. Optional tasks will utilize the attachment with labor categories and hourly rates if and when they are needed. It is up to the contractor on the PM’s qualifications.

22. Reference the Program Manager – During the Pre-solicitation conference it was stated that folks would work in Government spaces and it is so stated in the RFP. We understand the support personnel (travel, finance, etc.) are not in Government spaces but we are unsure about the PM. Request the final RFP clarifies this because it impacts resources and pricing.

ANSWER: Space will be provided for the personnel that the contractor believes to be necessary to complete the contract.

23. Reference - Subfactor 3 Transition Plan and related pricing, and Paragraph 5.2.9 Transition Section C states there are a variety of POPs and contracts to cut over to this effort. Section L asks the offeror to provide a smooth transition plan in a variety aspects. If the Government intends for the offerors to map all the contracts and provide transition timelines and execution plans then it needs to provide offerors with the Government’s plan for the contracts to transition, the LOE of the current effort and the corresponding PWS paragraph(s). Based on conversations at industry day we suspect that actual transition dates may not have been finalized or set yet. If this is the case, it may be prudent to ask for a notional plan for a specific contract. Perhaps use the example mentioned during Industry day of the current provider in Suffolk, VA and the positions transitioning to Tampa or another contract in order for the Government to evaluate the company processes used in transition efforts.

ANSWER: The Transaction information being requested is how the contractor is going to be awarded the contract and be completely up and running with adequate resources.

24. Reference Section L Past Performance Paragraphs L.3.1.2.1 and L3.1.2.3. Both define what is “Relevant”. Recommend combining the two paragraphs if it is the Government’s intent that both apply. Recommend language such as:

a. “Relevant is defined as contracts that include: a diverse level of expertise was required (multiple labor categories), performance in multiple locations, contained personnel security classification requirements, subcontracting was accomplished (for prime efforts), and the performance was in support of the DoD. For prime contractors the value (Base plus options or for Single award IDIQs the ceiling) of the contract must be at least 10 million. For holders of a Multiple award IDIQ the $10 million threshold is defined as the Task base plus all of that Task Order’s options.”

b. We infer that the intent of the $10M threshold is to establish a baseline for contract and program management of efforts of similar size and complexity. We are aware of contractors that apply a threshold such as the $10M requirement to their awarded MAC (e.g. Seaport-e, CAAS IV, etc.), rather than awarded Task Orders, which does not show their ability to manage multiple large value task orders as would be applicable to a single award IDIQ.

c. Also, we recommend the $10M relevancy threshold apply only to the Prime’s past performance. The Past Performance of niche smaller subs that provide true value may not meet that threshold, and would not be applicable to evaluating the ability to manage a contract of this size.

d. Finally, we believe the duplicated reference to ‘similar scope’, is a qualitative assessment (as opposed to the quantitative $10M threshold) as there are degrees of similarity, and these are covered in Performance confidence assessment ratings in Section M.

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

25. Reference 9.0 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: Stated that it may be required for personnel to deploy to hazardous duty locations. Request the Solicitation state the ceiling rates provided may be escalated per the Department of State Regulations for allowances such as Danger Pay, Post differential, etc. Also, it would be required to provide Defense Base Act Insurance and typically the Government will state where it would like those costs charged i.e. travel.

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

26. Section B, CLIN 0004 Equipment states it is related to PWS 5.1.5 but it appears it may tie to 5.1.6 Material. If correct then recommend the CLINs with “Equipment” be changed to “Materials” and the reference be changed as well.

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

27. Price - we request clarification about the alignment of the Section B FFP CLINs, Section C PWS, Section J Attachments 1-3, Section L submission, and ultimately Section M Pricing Total Evaluated Price. Using the first full year of performance as an example, Section B FFP CLINs are 2002 and 2005. These are aligned to Section C PWS 5.1 and 5.2

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

28. If the prime is required to have a TS level FCI, will you sponsor the prospective 8(a) firm?

ANSWER: The requirement is that the prime contractor has a TS level SCI at time of proposal submission.

29. Is the solicitation based upon availability of funds?

ANSWER: The clause is included in the RFP.

30. Can the security clearance be held by a partner company or does the prime have to hold the security clearance?

ANSWER: The Prime contractor must have the security clearance.

31. Is this the most updated timeline information? Is the timeline still accurate?

ANSWER: Continue to monitor FBO(https://www.fbo.gov/).

32. IAW Section C, para 13.0, page 29 of 73, would the Government consider using $950K as the “plug number” for each of the cited item numbers since Travel will be cost reimbursable?

ANSWER: It is indicated in the RFP that Travel and Equipment dollar values are being provided by the Government.

33. IAW Sec C, para 5.1.6, page 19 of 73 cited item numbers will be used to purchase minor materials. Would the Government consider using a plug number for each of the cited item numbers?

ANSWER: It is indicated in the RFP that Travel and Equipment dollar values are being provided by the Government.

34. Section C, 4.0, Applicable Documents. Will the applicable documents be made available in a library or online for review?

ANSWER: Documents are being compiled and will be provided electronically.

35. Section C, 5.12 Joint Training Support Center. The PWS references “communication capabilities.” Will the Final RFP indicate if these capabilities would expand to secure mobile platform solution?

ANSWER: No, the JTSC is at a fixed location and there are currently no plans to expand it to a secure mobile platform capability.

36. Section C, 5.1.2 Joint Training Support Center. The Government indicated expectation to “ensure JTEN Information Assurance (IA) accreditation and certifications sustainment” and “maintain security accreditation of STEN.” Will the Final RFP provide the historical and current Accreditation status (Authority to Operate (ATO) of the Joint Training Enterprise Network (JTEN) and SoF Training Exercise Network (STEN) that support Joint Training Support Center (JTSC)?

ANSWER: Current and historic information follows:

Temporary connection approval obtained for past events:

Hohenhfels GE. Joint Multinational Readiness Center/Joint Readiness Training Center repetitive Close Air Support (CAS) Training Missions in support of EMERALD WARRIOR-12 and EMERALD WARRIOR-13.

Past interim approval to operate and interim approval to connect for

· Hurlburt Primary Exercise Facility (PEF)

· II MEF Camp LeJeune

· Charleston AFB SC C-17 Facility

· Cannon PEF

· Eglin Range 46 Complex

Accredited Networks/Network Components:

1. STEN Transport

2. STEN VOIP Services

3. STEN Support Services (establishes STEN Hardware & Software Baselines, Systems/components that support exercises modeling & simulations)

4. USSOCOM/SOCCENT - Unclassified Coalition Mission Network (UCMN) VPN ATO in support of EAGER LION

5. 551st Cannon AFB STEN Add on Software:

1. Solarwinds

2. Host Based Security Service (HBSS)

3. Standard Operating Systems (Windows/Red Hat/Linux) STEN M&S Unique Add on Approved Software:

1. Joint Semi-Automated Forces (JSAF)

2. ASTi DIS voice

3. ASTi PC-Ver DIS Voice

4. TACCSF Software Router (TSR)

5. DIS Filter Software

6. Joint Battlespace Viewer (JBV)

7. Virtual Battlespace2 (VBS-II) Accredited Systems/Type Accreditations:

1. Joint Fires Product line (JFPL) Simulator (Stone Bay, NSW Coronado, Ft Bragg, Hurlburt Field, Cannon AFB)

2. AFSOC Special Air Mission Suite (SAMS-C2) Digital Dagger Package

3. CX-I (CENTRIX ISAF) Node

4. CENTRIX K APIIN VPN ATC

37. Section C, 5.1.2. The PWS state “ensuring connectivity and accreditation to remote sites.” Will the Final RFP provide the total number of remote sites that support JTSC environment? This information may be required to factor in costs associated with site surveys across the remote sites.

ANSWER: Current and projected STEN Sites:

- JTSC Hub, Eglin AFB, FL (moving to Hurlburt Field, FL during May 2013);

- Hurlburt Field, FL, 1st SOW PEF, 19th SOS, HAVE ACE East (Future);

- Charleston AFB, SC, USAF AMC;

- Ft Bragg, NC, AVTEG, USASOC;

- Camp Lejeune, NC, II MEF, MARSOC, Stone Bay (future);

- Ft Irwin, CA, NTC;

- Cannon AFB, NM, 3rd SOS, 27th SOW PEF, HAVE ACE West, 551st SOS (Future);

- USSOCOM, MacDill AFB, FL (Future)

38. Section C, 5.1.2. The Government has requested to “provide recommendations to maintain the security and accreditation of STEN hub, nodes/clients.” Would the Government please provide the number of current hubs and nodes/clients and future expectations?

ANSWER: This has been answered above for question 37.

39. Section C, 5.1.2. Would the Government provide the historical workload data (or specific number of Full Time Employee (FTE) positions) for supporting JTSC that houses STEN and JTEN?

ANSWER: Current FTEs are; 5 FTEs at JTSC and 3 FTEs at HQs.

40. Section C, 5.1.4. Would the Government please clarify if the statement “the contractor shall collect real world cyber attack incident reports and integrate like events and effects” pertains to incident response and would this requirement be identified in Section C.5.1.2, JTSC Operations?

Also, would the Government please indicate if the collection of cyber attack incidents expected from the contractor be in addition to those collected by the applicable Cyber Network Defense Service Provider (CNDSP)? Will the government be able to indicate the CNDSP applicable to this contract?

ANSWER: This requirement is much broader than JTSC Operations at it applies to the Cyber Exercises Planning and Design Requirements. Any Cyber Exercises Planning and Design requirements associated with this RFP are over and above any CNDSP related services.

41. Section C, 5.1.4. The Government has indicated the need to “indicate cyberspace activities and emergent S&T capabilities (OCO, DCO & DODIN). “ Will the Final RFP clarify in labor requirements if specific Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) be needed (e.g., Penetration Testers and Certified Ethical Hackers)?

ANSWER: It is incumbent upon the offerors to digest the stated requirements and propose a mix of technical specialties that will be necessary to fulfill the requirements.

42. Section C,5.2.9. The Government cites “multiple contracts with multiple delivery orders.” Will the Government identify their plan for transition of this effort so that our transition plan can be coherently developed?

ANSWER: It is incumbent upon the offerors to provide a transition plan to ensure the work to be performed under this effort is supported by the offerors proposal.

43. Section H, H.7. Would the Government confirm that “mission essential contractor personnel” does not equate to “key personnel.”

ANSWWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

44. Section H, H.10. Since it is the intent of the Government to have the Core tasks to be FFP, would the Government consider providing labor categories to facilitate comparative pricing among the bidders?

ANSWER: No, it is not the intent of the Government to dictate what labor categories the Contractor will need to complete the core tasks.

45. Section L, L.2.1.1. The DRFP indicates there are key personnel requirements that must be incorporated into the offeror’s proposal. Currently, key personnel are not identified in the DRFP. Is it the Government’s intent that the offeror make its own determination on what constitutes key personnel or will key personnel be identified in the Final RFP?

Also, it states that each organizational element’ organizational plan should include, “Identification of the key management positions in addition to their education and training.” Currently, Attachment 1 does not detail the requirements of the contractor’s Program Manager or any other preferred Key Personnel. Is it the intent of the Government that these personnel have no requirements?

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

46. Section L, L.3.1.2.3. We infer “similar scope and magnitude to at least $10M as a prime of similar effort” to be specific to the Prime offeror and not the subcontractors. Will the Government please confirm?

ANSWER: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

47. Section L, L.4.1. This section states that the contractor is required to “submit prices for all labor categories in Attachment 2 and 3” or be deemed “ineligible for award.” There are no labor categories in Attachment 2. Will the Government please provide a revised Attachment 2?

ANSWER: The Government will not be providing the labor categories for Attachment 2 the language in the RFP will be modified to reflect that Attachment 2 labor categories will be completed by contractor.

48. Is USSOCOM will to consider this work for an SDVOSB set-aside?

ANSWER: Currently this effort is being set aside to be competed among 8(a) companies.

49. Offerors need to clearly understand the relationship between these three attachments in order to submit pricing that can be easily understood and which can be quickly and effectively evaluated. Encouraging offerors to provide alternative hours on the Optional tasks and not defining the labor categories and hours for the Transition and Core tasks will result in offerors pricing solutions varying significantly with no basis for price to performance comparison.

ANSWER: Minor clarifications to the RFP have been incorporated. The core tasks are FFP, optional tasks are to be completed by labor categories and hours proposed. Overall price will be evaluated.

50. We do not clearly understand how the SOCOM team will evaluate the management approach we use to develop the combination of categories and hours for Transition, Core and Optional tasks. Our concern is that SOCOM will not be able to conduct an “apples to apples” comparison of offerors’ proposals for price realism, performance and technical sufficiency.

Answer: This information has been modified for the final RFP.

51. Section L, paragraph 4.1 (submitting pricing for Attachment 2 and 3). We are unclear on how to accurately and competitively price the Transition, Core and Optional tasks based on the RFP instructions and evaluation criteria.

Answer: This information has been modified for the final RFP.