13Q&A_Set_One_140620.doc

Q&A JGASS

1. QUESTION: M.1.4.1 does not define how key personnel resumes will be evlauted. Will the Government please provide evaluation criteria for key personnel resumes required in L.2.1.1.1?

ANSWER: Personnel requirements are outlined within SOW Section 4. All proposed resumes will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.1.4.1.

2. QUESTION: Format questions- Recommend the government reduce the minimum font size and spacing from 11pt. Times New Roman one and one half spacing to 10 pt. Times New Roman single spacing. Recommend the Government permit offerors to use 8pt. Arial Narrow for Table Text and Graphics. For offeror’s to effectively substantiate responses to all L.2.1.1, recommend the Government increase the page count for Volume 2 – Factor 1 – Management/Technical Capability to 50 pages. Please confirm whether an Adobe PDF or Microsoft 2007 file would be an acceptable alternative to Microsoft 2010.

ANSWER: The Offeror may use 8 pt. Arial Narrow for table text and graphics. Adobe PDF or Microsoft 2007 is acceptable. All other requirements remain unchanged.

3. Please confirm that the 20 resumes of personnel that are not currently supporting the USSOCOM imagery contract, are in addition to the resumes for the proposed key personnel? Will the Government provide formatting instructions on the 20-resumes and provide Evaluation Criteria for how the 20 resumes will be evaluated and scored?

ANSWER: Key personnel resumes required per Section L.2.1.1.1 are in addition to the 20 resumes required in Section L.2.1.1. Formatting is at the discretion of the Offeror. Personnel requirements are outlined within SOW Section 4. All proposed resumes will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.1.4.1.

4. Regarding the Transition Plan--In order to provide a graphically detailed contract transition that depicts a critical path and accounts for Forward and OCONUS personnel, will the Government exclude the graphic representation from the Volume 2 – Factor 1 Management/Technical Capability page count?

ANSWER: No, it is included within the Volume 2 page limitations.

5. Since the OCONUS AOR is unknown until execution will the government supply a plug number for post differential, hazardous duty pay?

ANSWER: Please see the revised Attachment J-5, revised Section L.4.4, and revised Section M.1.6.

6. Will the Government clarify whether Factor 1 Management/Technical Capability will have more importance than Factor 2 Past and Present Performance as discussed during Industry Day?

ANSWER: Section M.1.1 is accurate. “Management/Technical Capability, Past and Present Performance (Factors 1 and 2) at the Factor level are equal and when combined are significantly more important than Price (Factor 3).”

7. SOW Paragraph 12 states “Some personnel may be required to process through the National Deployment Center”. Will the government define “some people”? Will this be at the direction of the Government or should offeror’s account for the National Deployment Center requirement?

ANSWER: This will be rare and at the direction of the Government. The Government does not understand what is meant by “account” for the National Deployment Center requirement.

8. For various proposed personnel positions the Government states that Security+ is a required certification and IAT level II certifications are desired. According to DoDD 8570.01 the Security + certification qualifies as IAT II, please clarify this discrepancy.

ANSWER: Security + is required. References to IAT level II will be removed from the SOW.

9. Regarding L.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - Please confirm the term deployment in this context refers to the time in calendar days from recruitment to deployment to an individual employees job on the JGASS program, and not deployment to an OCONUS location since there are no “full-time” deployed positions on this program.

ANSWER: Deployment in this sentence refers to beginning work on the contract.

10. Regarding the DD254, Would access be Top Secret/SCI in govt facilities in Ref 11c on page 4? Ref 11f specifies Top Secret/SCI OCONUS.

ANSWER: TS/SCI access will only be at government facilities and locations.

11. Regarding Past Performance Information Sheets for each subcontractor/teaming partner. Please confirm the government is NOT expecting information sheets from technology vendors on each Offeror’s team, for instance references from Digital Globe?

ANSWER: Correct. Section L.3.1.1 states in part “Submit information on contracts you consider most recent and relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort”. L.3.1.1.1 states in part “Subcontractor information sheets shall clearly indicate what efforts that subcontractor will be performing in support of the prime Offeror”.

Therefore, you would only submit information sheets for those major subcontractors that you feel demonstrate your ability to perform the requirements outlined in the RFP SOW. Additional clarification has been added to Section L.3.1.1

12. Regarding Subcontractor references are developed to clearly substantiate performance in the task areas they will be supporting on the JGASS program--To ensure compliance, are subcontractor’s past performance information sheets exempt from providing the required sections, including Program Management experience, Management of a geographically diverse workforce, Experience assessing internal and external team resources, and experience with average washout rates?

ANSWER: Correct. Section L.3.1.1.1 states in part “Subcontractor information sheets shall clearly indicate what efforts that subcontractor will be performing in support of the prime Offeror” and L.3.1.3.2 states “For proposed subcontractors/teaming partners, relevancy is defined by that which reflects experience in the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to actually perform under this enterprise contract, (i.e. specific areas in the SOW/labor categories).” Additional clarification has been added to Section L.3.1.1.1 and M.1.5

13. Section L.1.11 identifies a 40 page limit to the past performance volume. Section L.3.1.1 identifies a requirement for at least 1 past performance information sheet from each subcontractor/teaming partner with a 5 page limit for each information sheet in addition to a maximum of 5 information sheets from the prime.-- There is conflicting guidance between L.1.11 and L.3.1.1. If an offeror has more than 3 teammates, the 40 page limit will be exceeded if 4 or more teammates and the offeror submit a 5 page information sheet. Will the government consider the following options: (1) relax the 40 page limit if the requirement in section L.3.1.1 remains, (2) limit the number of information sheets to only 3 significant teammates.

ANSWER: The 40 page limitation is suffcient. Section L.3.1.1 requires each information sheet to not exceed 5 pages. Therefore, offerors may elect to use less than 5 pages per effort. In addition, Section L.3.1.1 limits the number of information sheets for the primes to a maximum of five sheets. Therefore, a maximum of 25 pages will be used for prime offerors past performance, leaving the remaining pages for subcontractor information.

14. L.3.1 identifies six parts required for the past performance volume. This section also says the consent letters are exempt from the 40 page limit. Will the government clarify if the table of contents summary page, and organization structure change history are exempt from page count?

ANSWER: Organization Structure Change History is exempt as well. However, the 1 page table and one page summary is not.

15. L.3.1 identifies six parts required for the past performance volume. Will the government identify if a glossary of acronyms and compliance matrix is required for this volume and if they are exempt from page count?

ANSWER: Not required, and if proposed will count against the volume page limitations.

16. Please confirm the government does NOT require consent letters from technology vendors.

ANSWER: Reference answers to questions 11 and 12. Consent letters are required for those that you propose information sheets on.

17. L.1.12.3.1 states,“…HUBZone small business (no mandated minimum but should still be addressed)” however, L.1.12.3.2 provides a table where the HUBZone minimum requirement states 1%. Can you please clarify the discrepancy?

ANSWER:

Section L.1.12.3.1 states in part “HUBZone small business (no mandated minimum but should still be addressed)”

Section L1.12.3.2 states “* HUBZone Small Business subcontracting is highly encouraged. Any percentage of subcontracts awarded to HUBZone Contractors will be counted and included in the overall required 30%.”

Meaning, we are not mandating a minimum goal for hubzone that you are required to meet, however, you are required to still address HUBZone SB in your proposed plan and any subcontracting to HUBZones will count towards the overall 30% mandatory goal.