Govt_Responses_Draft_RFP_12_Mar18_FINAL.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 50 KB Posted
- Attached to
- POTFF Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- H92222-18-R-0010
- Issued by
- United States Special Operations Command
About this file
Government Responses to Draft RFP Questions
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DIRECTIONS
TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.
| Directions & Explanation of TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX |
| This Tailored Comment Matrix is provided in order for potential offerors to provide feedback, comments, and ask questions with regard to the released DRAFT RFP. |
The sheet labeled "DIRECTIONS" explains this document, and provides directions for its use.
The sheet labeled "MATRIX" contains a table with all labeled and numbered elements from the DRAFT RFP. This table is where potential offerors may respond to the Government with feedback, comments, or ask questions.
| Directions and explanation of sheet labeled "MATRIX" |
| The MATRIX sheet can be reached by clicking the "MATRIX" Tab at the bottom of this spreadsheet. Add rows as necessary under the applicable item. |
| MATRIX COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS: | |
| Column A: | Contains the Item reference number for this item. This number is used for organizational purposes, when referring to this document only. |
Column B: Contains the section number that each element is labeled, within their respective documents. The section number relates directly to the item's location in the DRAFT RFP.
Column C: Contains the written title for the corresponding item/section number.
| Column D: | Contains a drop down box for selecting the type of comment. Available options are "Critical" "Substantive" or "Administrative". |
| Critical: Violations of law -or- Unnecessary risks to safety, life & limb, or DOD Material; waste or abuse of DOD appropriations; unreasonable burden on resources. | |
| Substantive: Appears or is potentially unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections; disagree with proposed responsibilities, requirements, and/or procedures. | |
| Administrative: Address typographical, grammatical, and formatting errors (grammar, punctuation, style, etc.) |
Column E: Contains a drop down box for selecting if the corresponding comments/questions/responses entered in column F contain proprietary information (Yes/No)
Column F: Contains space for potential offerors' comments/questions/responses. Include justification for why the information is considered proprietary if so indicated in Column E.
Column G: The responding Company's name should be entered in the highlighted field in Cell "H5"
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.
MATRIX
| ITEM # | Event | SECTION NUMBER | NAME OF SECTION | COMMENT TYPE | |
| (Select from drop down) | SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IN QUESTIONS / COMMENTS? | ||||
| (Yes/No) | QUESTIONS / COMMENTS | ||||
| (With justification of why considered source selection sensitive if applicable) | Government Response | ||||
| 1 | Initial Draft RFP | SECTIONS "A-M" |
2 Initial Draft RFP A Solicitation/Contract Form
3 Initial Draft RFP B Supplies or Services and Prices
| 4 | Initial Draft RFP | B | Supplies or Services and Prices | Administrative | No | Page 4 of 66. Maximum Amount shows $500M. However, page 2 of 66, shows Max Quantity of $375M and page 3 of 66 shows Max Quantity of $225M. Should max amount be $600M? Prior Final RFP also showed $600M. Please clarify. | This has been corrected in the Final RFP. Reference Section B, pg. 4, $500M Maximum contract ceiling. |
| 5 | Initial Draft RFP | B | Supplies or Services and Prices | Substantive | No | a) Suggest revised CLIN structure at BPA level to indicate Quantity of "1" if Unit remains as "Lot." Unable to structure as is if including Hours and ODCs. | Reference Section B of the Final RFP. The RFP will not include this information and the final contract award will be 1 LOT with unit prices established solely for the purposes of contract reporting. Hours and Materials will be managed at the Task order levels, not the basic IDIQ contract level. |
| C | Descriptions and Specifications |
D Packaging and Marking
E Inspection and Acceptance
F Deliveries or Performance
| 6 | Initial Draft RFP | F | Deliveries or Performance | Substantive | No | The Period of Performance for CLIN 0001 starts on 1/1/19 and the PoP for CLIN 1001 starts on 1/1/23. Is this date intended to be 2/1/23? Suggest change to FEB in the solicitation. | Reference Section F of the Final RFP, the Period of Performance dates have been updated to consistently reflect 9 Oct 18 - 8 Oct 26 for the basic contract period of performance of 8 years. Initial TO performance start date of 1 March 2019. |
| 7 | Initial Draft RFP | F | Deliveries or Performance | Substantive | No | PoP indicates a total of 6 years, however Attach 3 - Price Template indicates 8 ordering years. Please clarify. | Reference Government Response to Item 6 |
| 8 | Initial Draft RFP | F | Deliveries or Performance | Administrative | No | The period of performance in Section F is six years (01 JAN 2019 TO 31 JAN 2025). These do not coincide with the dates listed at Section I 252.216-7006 (uses 1 FEB 2018 - 31 JAN 2026: 8 years), nor with the start dates in PWS Section 6, Transition. Request clarification and/or correction. | Reference Government Response to Item 6 |
| 9 | Initial Draft RFP | F | Deliveries or Performance | Administrative | No | Please clarify key milestone dates (multiple conflicting references). | Reference Government Response to Item 6 |
| 10 | Initial Draft RFP | F | Deliveries or Performance | Substantive | No | Per the Release Synopsis which accompanied the DRFP, the ordering period was identified as a total of eight (8) years if all options are exercised. Delivery Information in Section F has dates of 1/1/2019-1/31/2023 (4 years) for CLINs 001 and 002 and dates of 1/1/2023-1/31/2025 (2 years and overlaps prior CLINs) for CLINs 1001 and 1002. Does the Government intend to include CLINs 2001 and 2002 for the additional two (2) years or will CLINs 1001 and 1002 be modified for a 4 year period of performance? | Reference Government Response to Item 6 |
| G | Contract Administration Data |
H Special Contract Requirements
| 11 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | RFP Pg 18, para H 17. States prime must have an approved purchasing system. In reviewing the RFP and PWS, we do not see where major purchases are required for this contract. From what we can read, we believe from the context of the paragraph, the government is requiring a DCAA approved accounting system. Can the government please clarify? | Reference Section L.4.3, both an acceptable accounting system and purchasing system are required IAW DFARS 252.242-7005, 252.244-7001. L.4.3 has been updated for additional clarification in the Final RFP. |
| 12 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | Paragraph H.4 Work Period and Authorized Holidays. Second paragraph, second sentence discusses Task Order Ceiling Hours in the case of cost type orders. Since TOs will be issued as T&M, suggest removing that sentence. | Corrected in the Final RFP. Reference H.4 and PWS 2.4.7 for updated language. |
| 13 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | Paragraph H.6 Billable Materials. We understand that relocation OCONUS is cost reimbursable; please confirm that includes repatriation. Respectfully suggest adding repatriation with relocation costs. | Clauses H.5 and H.6 have been revised in the Final RFP to further clarify reimbursable costs. |
| 14 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | Paragraph H.18.2.1. FAR 17.207(c) states: |
(c) The contracting officer may exercise options only after determining that --
(1) Funds are available;
(2) The requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing Government need;
(3) The exercise of the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government’s need, price and other factors (see paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section) considered;
(4) The option was synopsized in accordance with Part 5 unless exempted by 5.202(a)(11) or other appropriate exemptions in 5.202,
(5) The contractor is not listed in the System for Award Management Exclusions (see 9.405-1);
(6) The contractor’s past performance evaluations on other contract actions have been considered and;
(7) The contractor’s performance on this contract has been acceptable, e.g., received satisfactory ratings.
| Please clarify in what instance the contractor would be required to provide supporting data before an option period is exercised? | Reference Section H.18.2 updated language in the Final RFP, the contractor will be required to provide supporting data (e.g. market research, pricing data IAW 17.207 (c),(d), and (e)) to assist the Contracting Officer with the determinations. This data will be required prior to exercising the option period (yrs 6-8) | |||||
| 15 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No |
Current subcontractors and employees of the incumbent indicated they cannot be interviewed by or accept offers of employment/subcontracts from other potential bidders because of restrictive terms in their subcontracts or employment agreements with the incumbent on the current POTFF contract (-13-D-0004). They have also indicated either those subcontracts or exclusive Teaming Agreements (TAs) entered into with the incumbent for this acquisition (-18-R-0010) prohibit them from having discussions with or entering into TAs with other Offerors. The RFP makes clear keeping the current workforce in place for the personal services contract to be awarded against RFP -0010 is exceptionally important to the Government, and the plans, processes, and procedures for how Offerors will accomplish recruiting and retaining the current workforce is high on the RFP -0010’s evaluation criteria. Accordingly, we request the Government please revise H.3 to read: “H.3 Non-Compete Provisions. The use of non-compete conditions in employment agreements or in subcontracts (to prevent loss of personnel by the contractor) effective only during the period of the contract performance is acceptable. However, the use of non compete conditions in teaming agreements or similarly intended documents, employment agreements and/or in subcontracts that prevent employees and/or subcontractors of the incumbent from being interviewed by, employed, or accepting offers of employment and/or subcontracts by potential competitors on this acquisition or the follow-on contracts is unacceptable. It hinders the government's ability to accomplish the mission of providing medical care to beneficiaries. Awardee, and their subcontractors, may not include such conditions in employment agreements and/or subcontracts while performing under this contract.” Supporting rationale: PWS Section 3.0 and 6.1.1 and Section M.1.3 strongly imply, if not require, that "incumbent employees" be transitioned to this personal services contract. FAR 52.222-46 is required for the Prime and it appears at least major teammates. Section H.3 however appears to not preclude exclusive teaming arrangements for this acquisition, which makes effective competition difficult (e.g., how would Professional Compensation Plans really get evaluated if a company was not part of a non-incumbent's offer because they were exclusively teamed with the incumbent?)
| The Government previously assessed the need to prohibit various forms of exclusive teaming arrangements in order to ensure all potential offerors have the ability to propose and with no one offeror having an unfair competitive advantage. The Government's research concluded that due to the personal services nature of the requirement and incorporation of the Non-Compete clauses both within the Final RFP (H.3) and in the current H92222-13-D-0004 contract as H.1, it is not necessary to restrict the use of exclusive teaming arrangements as defined in FAR part 9.6. The requirements included within this RFP do not require the use of or access to and one company in order to propose on or successfully perform this effort. Offerors only need the ability to "capture" the incumbent employees. A copy of the Notice being disseminated to all Component Directors and POTFF Incumbent employees has been provided with the Final RFP posting for your reference. This notice outlines the Rules of Engagement with the incumbent workforce, and is entitled "POTFF Recompete ROE Incumbents" | ||||||
| 16 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | Reference Section H.3. To further reinforce the requirement of non-exclusivity, we recommend the Government consider adding to Section H.3 an H.3.1 as follows: H.3.1 Prohibition and Certification Regarding Exclusive Teaming Arrangements |
Exclusive Teaming Agreements and subcontracts or any other method that precludes Offerors from assembling the best offer and team are prohibited for this acquisition and solicitation and any follow-on POTFF acquisition. “Acquisition” is defined at FAR Part 2.
(a) Certification. By submitting an offer and performing on any resultant contracts the Offeror/Contractor is certifying the Offeror/Contractor has not and shall not enter into any Exclusive Teaming Arrangements or subcontracts associated with this acquisition and solicitation or any resultant contract.
(b) Definition. "Exclusive Teaming Arrangement" means an agreement between two or more companies in writing or otherwise: “subcontract” uses the definition at FAR 44.101.
(1) To team together to pursue a Government contract, in a prime contractor-subcontractor relationship or as a joint venture, and not team with any other competitors for that contract; or
(2) That precludes a potential offeror from competing for a Government contract.
(c) Prohibition. Offerors are prohibited from entering into any exclusive teaming arrangements or subcontracts associated with this solicitation or any resultant contract and any follow-on acquisition. The Government has determined that such arrangements unduly limit competition. The Government will direct the dissolution of any teaming arrangement disclosed in paragraph (a) or otherwise discovered by the Contracting officer, or will prohibit the offeror from further award consideration or continued performance.
(d) All Teaming Agreements will be submitted as part of the proposal.
(e) Remedies--
(1) The Contracting Officer may require at any time that the Contractor is in compliance with this clause. Any such certification is a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and the making of a false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject to prosecution under Title 18, Section 1001, United States Code.
(2) Additionally, any such certification as contemplated in paragraph (e)(1) is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when making award and authorizing continued performance. If it is later determined that the Offeror knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract resulting from this solicitation for default.
| Reference Government Response to Item #15 | |||||||
| 17 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | Reference H.6, specifically "relocation expenses". What are the Government's requirements for reimbursing relocation expenses? E.g., is there a limit on the expenses, is there a required "tour of duty" at a location where a relocation would be reimbursed, etc. | Reference Government Response to Item #13 |
| 18 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Administrative | No | Reference 5652.209-9003 Use of Contractor Support/Advisory Personnel (2015) Section H (Revised August 2015). Request the Government please identify the companies who will perform the tasks/services identified in this clause to avoid potential OCI. Will the Government make available to the Contractor copies of the NDAs these companies have signed? | The Government has performed an OCI assessment and determined no conflict exists. This assessment included (but was not limited to) consideration of the administrative support provided (for various IT, acquisition, financial systems, etc.) via HQ SOCOM major service support contracts such as SITEC II, SWMS A, B, and C, etc. currently being provided and if this support has created a potential OCI that must be mitigated. There are no contractor support personnel involved with requirements development for this RFP or the source selection evaluation process. If there were, a SOFARS provision 5652.209-9002 identifying those companies would be included in the RFP. This clause is for post award administration purposes only. A copy of this OCI Determination has been provided with the Final RFP posting for your reference and is titled "OCI Assessment MFR Signed" |
| 19 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | H.16 indicates "The contractor's approved small business participation commitment document is a material requirement of this contract." Does the information requested in Section L.1.1 for Volume I, Subfactor 1 and L.2.1.1 for Volume II meet this requirement? Is a Small Business Participation Plan required with the proposal? If not, please clarify the requirements for the contents and submission of this small business participation commitment document. | Reference H.16 updated language in the Final RFP that removed, ""The contractor's approved small business participation commitment document is a material requirement of this contract." The updated language in H.16 now states, "Due to the personal services nature of the requirements, a subcontracting plan as defined in FAR 52.219-9 is not required; however, the magnitude of this contract may require many business concerns to team, partner, and/or subcontract with other business concerns (large and small). Therefore, the Government has set a small business subcontracting requirement of 15% of total contract dollars for this contract. The contractor will be required to meet and maintain this requirement throughout the life of the contract. The contractor shall submit a Standard Form (SF) 294 Subcontracting Report for Individual Contract and the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR), using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at http://esrs.gov ." |
| 20 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | Reference Section H.5 Billable Hours. For positions subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), will time spent in travel be considered a billable hour? | Reference Government Response to Item #13. Additionally, all personal services employees under this effort are considered exempt professionals IAW 52.222-46. |
| 21 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Administrative | No | Current draft of Section H.11 indicates that the contractor “shall not use any individual to provide direct health care services under this contract if that individual has had his/her clinical privileges limited, suspended, or revoked.” Please clarify whether there are caveats associated with that condition (e.g., by a public or a private health care facility or within a specific timeframe. | |
| Yes, within 5 years prior to employment. Reference H.11 in the Final RFP for updated language. | |||||||
| 22 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Administrative | No | Section H.17 requires an offeror’s to have an “approved purchasing system”. Can the government please clarify the source of the “approval”? | Reference Government Response to Item #11. Additionally, Section H.17 has been removed in the Final RFP. An "acceptable accounting system" is required per the DFARS references provided in Section L.4.3 |
| 23 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Administrative | No | H.16 Can the government please describe how often the Small Business participation will be measured? Task Order size and locations may impact how much SB participation is possible on a given TO. This will impact the participation percentage depending on when and how the participation will be calculated. | H.16 has been updated in the Final RFP. It is total contract dollars, and is not calculated by individual task orders. |
| 24 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Special Contract Requirements | Administrative | No | H.18 indicates that this contract will have T&M or LH task orders, however H.17 indicates CPFF and FFP task orders may also be included. Can the government please clarify if this IDIQ will only have T&M task orders? | Reference Government Response to Item #22 |
| 25 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Non-Compete Provisions | Critical | No | H.3 This section addresses non-compete provisions, "The use of non-compete conditions in employment agreements or in subcontracts (to prevent loss of personnel by the contractor) effective only during the period of the contract performance is acceptable. However, the use of non-compete conditions in employment agreements and/or in subcontracts that prevent employees and/or subcontractors of the incumbent from being interviewed by, employed, or accepting offers of employment and/or subcontracts by potential competitors on the follow-on contracts is unacceptable. " |
The incumbent’s period of performance extends to 28 February 2019 as noted in PWS 6.1.2. PWS 6.1.1 provides for a transition-in period beginning on October 9, 2018 to 28 February 2019. The incumbent cannot have non-compete clauses in their subcontracts that preclude the recruiting and hiring of incumbent staff during this interval.
| Will the government confirm that under current contract potential competitors can initiate discussions and recruitment of incumbent's subcontractor personnel upon contract award, and during the Phase 1 Transition period? | Yes. Reference Government Response to Item #15 | |||||||
| 26 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Work Period and Authorized Holidays | Substantive | No | H.4 Are contractors limited to 40 hours a week? | Reference Government Response to Item #12. The majority of contract personnel are 40 hours a week; however, mission needs may require personnel to surge within the total allocated hours. | |
| 27 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Billable Hours | Substantive | No | H.5 Can the government please clarify if the 21 days of orientation is billable or unbillable to the contract? | Reference Government Response to Item #13 | |
| 28 | Initial Draft RFP | H | License Verification et al | Critical | No | H.14.1.2 Suggested language to clarify this requirement in the draft RFP redline provided with our response. | Reference H.14.1.2 for updated language in the Final RFP. | |
| 29 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Small Business Participation | Substantive | No | H.16 Please confirm the required SB percentage is to be tracked at the IDIQ level rather than at individual task order level. | Yes, Reference Government Response to Item #23 | |
| 30 | Initial Draft RFP | H | Task Order Completion | Substantive | No | H.18.2 Will the government consider adding Quick Closeout procedures if the cumulative indirect cost not covered by a final indirect rate agreement is less than $1 million? | Not applicable to the fixed T&M hourly rates. Additionally, reference Section H.7 in the Final RFP regarding indirect ceiling rates for the Material CLIN. | |
| I | Contract Clauses |
| 31 | Initial Draft RFP | I | Contract Clauses | Substantive | No | The period of performance dates in clause 252.216-7006, Ordering, do not match the dates in Section F. Please correct. | Reference Government Response to Item #6 |
| 32 | Initial Draft RFP | I | Contract Clauses | Substantive | No | Reference Section I, FAR 52.237-3 Continuity of Services. Request the Government consider requiring the incumbent contractor to develop a draft of the Plan required by this clause (if requested by the Contracting Officer) and make the Plan available to Offerors. Supporting Rationale: The Government has a strong desire to retain incumbent workforce in this personal services contract (e.g., M.1.3 Subfactor 3: Initial Phase-In Transition, and the SDS in the PWS). Making the Plan available in a bidders library prior to the RFP will foster better competition and offers for the Government by providing insight to assist Offerors to identify requirements and associated costs and time. | Reference Government Response to Item #15. In addition, 52.237-3 requires that the contractor perform such actions as "specify a training program and a date for transferring responsibilities for each division of work... provide sufficient experienced personnel during the phase-in, phase-out period ...allow as many personnel as practicable to remain on the job to help the successor maintain the continuity and consistency of the services... shall disclose necessary personnel records and allow the successor to conduct on-site interviews with these employees. If selected employees are agreeable to the change, the Contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date and negotiate transfer of their earned fringe benefits to the successor." Based upon the personal services nature of this effort and the non-compete provisions included in both the current contract and in this RFP (H.3). The Government does not anticipate difficulties during the transition from one contractor to another which would drive the need for such a plan. The Government has mandated the transition timelines and by contract the incumbent contractor will be responsible for providing these services until 28 Feb 2019 therefore, there isn't a need to establish mutually agreeable dates, the Government will remain responsible for managing the POTFF program, credentialing, and orientation training. Moreover, employees are required to already possess the necessary qualifications and/or training per PWS 2.4 and PWS Appendix 1 nor will the incumbent be responsible for "division of work". Furthermore, access to employees and their records will be made available. |
| 33 | Initial Draft RFP | I | Contract Clauses | Substantive | No | Reference “SOFA Korea Clauses” and Atch_3_Price_Matrix_Draft_RFP_13Feb18: Request the Government please identify what SOFA status and any associated logistics privileges will be afforded Contractors working in Germany, Japan, and the U.K. Supporting Rationale: Personal and corporate taxes and personal living costs can be greatly different depending on whether or not SOFA status & privileges are received, which can have an impact to recruiting and retention and the prices Offerors proffer. | The Final RFP has been updated to provide additional information related to OCONUS requirements. Specifically, Section H.8. |
| 34 | Initial Draft RFP | I | Contract Clauses | Substantive | No | Will the Government be including tax clauses in the final RFP, such as 52.229-6 Taxes—Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts (applicable to T&M contracts, too)? Supporting Rationale: This provides terms and conditions for determining the allowability of and the administration for any changes to tax costs. This clause states taxes which are exempt are not to be included in the price of the contract, and any tax that the Contractor is not exempt from paying is included, along with how to administer after-imposed or -relieved taxes. Such costs can be significant. The Government should advise what taxes the Contractor may be exempt from in performing this contract if the Contractor meets certain criteria (e.g., TCSA in GE). | No. The Government has determined that the use of such clauses are not appropriate for this requirement and will not be including them at this time. IAW FAR 29.402 these are applicable to FFP and/or Cost reimbursement type contracts, not T&M. Additionally, there are no "non-TCSA" positions, without this approval we will not have contractors supporting these requirements in Germany. Additionally, the Government does not determine what taxes the Contractor may be exempt from when working in these countries, it is the responsibility of the contractors to research this and ensure compliance. Moreover, the risk to a substantial cost increase due to any tax increases (that would be remedied by these clauses) has been determined low due to the small % of the overall requirement being located in OCONUS locations. |
| 35 | Initial Draft RFP | I | Contract Clauses | Administrative | No | Will the government be including SOFA Japan and DOCPER Germany requirements for this solicitation? | Reference Government Response to Item #33 |
| 36 | Initial Draft RFP | I | Next of Kin Notification | Substantive | No | Will SERE training be provided by the government for all new hires (e.g., Operational, Psychologist) during the initial phase-in period? | SERE training is required per country specific guidance and will be provided by the Government. When task orders are awarded on 01 Feb 2019, SERE training will be scheduled and trained as required. |
| J | List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments |
K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors
37 Initial Draft RFP K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors Substantive No Recommend adding the following Section K Representation and Certification:Prohibition and Certification Regarding Exclusive Teaming Arrangements Exclusive Teaming Agreements or any other method that precludes Offerors from assembling the best offer and team are prohibited for this acquisition and solicitation. “Acquisition” is defined at FAR Part 2.
(a) Certification. The Offeror hereby certifies it has ( ) or has not ( ) entered into any Exclusive Teaming Arrangements associated with this solicitation or any resultant contract.
(b) Definition. "Exclusive Teaming Arrangement" means an agreement between two or more companies in writing or otherwise:
(1) To team together to pursue a Government contract, in a prime contractor-subcontractor relationship or as a joint venture, and not team with any other competitors for that contract; or
(2) That precludes a potential offeror from competing for a Government contract.
(c) Prohibition. Offerors are prohibited from entering into any exclusive teaming arrangements associated with this solicitation or any resultant contract. The Government has determined that such arrangements unduly limit competition. The Government will direct the dissolution of any teaming arrangement disclosed in paragraph (a) or otherwise discovered by the Contracting officer, or will prohibit the offeror from further award consideration or continued performance.
(d) All Teaming Agreements will be submitted as part of the proposal.
(e) Remedies--
(1) The certification in paragraph (a) concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and the making of a false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject to prosecution under Title 18, Section 1001, United States Code.
(2) Additionally, the certification in paragraph (a) is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when making award. If it is later determined that the Offeror knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract resulting from this solicitation for default.
| Reference Government Response to Item #15 | ||||||
| 38 | Initial Draft RFP | K | Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors | Critical | No | If the contractor employees only require access to classified information in accordance with paragraph Para 5.1, at government locations, then why does paragraph L.4.1 require the Contractor headquarters to be “Authorized Secret Safeguarding as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS) at the time of proposal submission?” (see language change below for consideration) |
L.4.1 Top Secret Facility Clearance and Secret Safeguarding Capability. The offeror must have and provide proof of a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the start of the contract. and Authorized Secret Safeguarding as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS) at the time of proposal submission.
| A Facility Clearance is required to perform on a contract or procurement action requiring access to classified information or material. Defense Security Service (DSS) processes and approves a FCL for contractors participating in the Nation Industrial Security Program (NISP). A FCL is the clearing of a company’s Key Management Personnel (KMP) and not the Contractor’s Facility. Reference PWS 4.2 and 4.3 regarding the requirements for safeguarding which are not determined by whether or not access to NIPRNET/SIPRNET/JIANT/JWICS computer systems are required at the Contractor's facility. Based upon these requirements, the SECRET safeguarding is required in order to execute these requirements and therefore the PWS remains unchanged in the Final RFP. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders |
| 39 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Paragraph L.0.8 Will the Government clarify the physical and electronic delivery of the proposal and will the Government accept hand delivery of proposals? | There is no "electronic" only delivery allowable for the initial proposal submissions. Reference Section L.0.3, and L.0.8-L.0.10 for delivery methods of proposals. Hand delivery instructions have been added to L.0.8 in the Final RFP. |
| 40 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Section L.0.9 includes a requirement for 1.5 spacing. Request that single-spacing be allowed for text for all volumes. | For ease of evaluation, the one and one half spaced requirements outlined in Section L.0.9 remain in the Final RFP. |
| 41 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Request that compliance matrix be added to the list of items not included in the page count. | Section L.0.9 was updated in the Final RFP to include "compliance matrices" in the list of exclusions, however, please note that compliance matrices, acronym listings, etc. are not by the RFP nor desired. |
| 42 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Paragraph L.1.1.1, If 1.5 spacing is required, will the Government allow the Resumes page limit be increased to 3 pages? | The Government has updated L.1.1.1 in the Final RFP to allow for up to 3 page resumes. |
| 43 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Paragraph L.2.1, Bullet 5 - Request that Consent Letters be required from 'major subcontractors' only as defined in section L.2.1.1. | Section L requires this from only major subcontractors. The Government has included additional clarification within the Final RFP to Section L.2.1 bullets 2 and 5 to include the word "major". |
| 44 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | "Re-competition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance.” The incumbent contractor has set salary and wage compensation for the professional workforce currently performing services. Based on this requirement, can you provide the incumbent’s hourly salaries and wage rate by employee PWS/location included in the latest task order rate schedule? | No. The Government is not authorized to release this proprietary cost data. | |
| 45 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Proposal Submission and Preparation | Substantive | No | A) L.0.10 - Request page limit be removed from Volume 3, Price. B) Suggest reordering presentation of requirements in Volume 4 by moving L.4.2 to L.4.1 and L.4.1 to L.4.2. | A) The Final RFP includes the page limitations for the executive summary. No limit on the Total Compensation Plan as shown in Section L.0.10. B) The order of the requirements in Section L.4 remain unchanged in the Final RFP. |
| 46 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Past Performance Information Sheets | Critical | No | In Section L.2.1.1, the government acknowledges that it " does not anticipate a single prime offeror will have the capability to perform nor has performed in the past the entire scope of the effort on its own". And, as such, the government expects Primes will form teams to meet the totality of the equirements. However, in Section L.2.1.4.1, Instructions for Past Performance Relevancy, the government will only use the Prime's Past Performance: "Table 2 below outlines the criteria the Government will consider in determining relevancy (for prime offeror efforts only) ". The statement from the government in L.2.1.1 seems to contradict the method of evaluation in L.2.1.4.1. | The Government does not believe there is a contradiction. Considering that relevant performance for a prime offeror would be different than those of any one major subcontractor based on many factors such as level of responsibility, management oversight of all subs, system requirements (Acct, purchasing, etc.), facility clearances, etc. L.2.1.4.1 defines relevancy for the prime and L.2.1.4.2 describes relevancy for all major subcontractors. However, as stated in Section M.2.2 the Government will be considering the team's past performance. M.2.2 states "Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign a confidence assessment rating for Factor 2 considering the offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record. The Government will use a holistic approach to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence of the offeror’s team’s (including both the prime and major subcontractors) ability to successfully perform the required effort. The confidence assessments ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 3 below." |
| 47 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline | Substantive | No | L.2.4.1 Suggestions for the past performance relevancy criteria baseline in Table 2. These suggestions are noted with track changes in the redline draft RFP document provided with our response. | Suggestions were Noted |
| 48 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Organizational Change History | Substantive | No | L.2.1.4.4 The government is requiring an "Organizational Structure Change History". Can the Government make this requirement optional for any company that can stipulate that the Past Performance references/Informational sheets provided are not for programs/contracts that have been novated between corporate entities through acquistion or merger? | This "roadmap" required by Section L.2.1.4.4 is required for ease of evaluation. Companies often use various different cage codes across multiple divisions, due to facility clearances, locations, etc. and thus they also vary by contract and CPARs. Since, IAW M.2.the Government is not only evaluating the efforts provided in the information sheets, we need to ensure we are gathering data on the same Company Division that is being proposed to prime this effort. |
| 49 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Total Compensation Plan | Substantive | No | DL.3.2 oes the Government consider HOLA, COLA, locality, hazardous duty pay, and DoDDS required elements of a total compensation plan? | Please reference Final RFP Section Attachment 3 within the instructions tab which states in part "The proposed unburdened direct annual salary shall be inclusive of the base salary, fringe benefits specifically related to paid time off (PTO) (i.e. sick/annual/administrative leave and holidays), applicable locality pay (CONUS), Cost of Living Allowance (OCONUS), Education Allowance (OCONUS), Living Quarters Allowance (OCONUS), incentive pay (if applicable), and escalation (if applicable), etc.) for all listed labor categories and clearance requirements (S or TS/SCI clearance)..." Further, Hazardous duty pay isn't required as there are no hazardous duty locations currently in the RFP (Ref H.8). Finally, reference Section H.6., L.3.2 and 52.222-46 for additional evaluation elements of the total compensation plan requirements. |
| 50 | Initial Draft RFP | L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | "L.4.3 Acceptable Contractor Business Systems. The offeror shall provide documentation from DCMA, DCAA, or other Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) that allows the Contracting Officer to determine that the contractor’s accounting system as defined in DFARS clause 252.242-7005 is acceptable or is capable of being deemed acceptable as defined in the applicable business system clause DFARS 252.242-7006. If the offeror does not have documentation from DCMA, DCAA or other CFA approving its accounting system due to Government caused delay, the offeror must provide evidence that approval was requested and describe how the business system(s) is acceptable as defined in the applicable business system clause. If the offeror does not have documentation approving its accounting system, the offeror shall describe its understanding of the system requirements and explain the offeror’s processes related to the system." |
| If the offeror has a previous DCAA review of the contractor’s accounting system, may the offeror provide a copy of the determination along with a narrative explaining any major accounting system changes since that time? | Reference Government Response to Item #11 | ||
| M | Evaluation Factors for Award |
| 51 | Initial Draft RFP | M | Best Value Evaluation | Substantive | No | M.0.2 Will the government consider providing an individual color rating for each subfactor instead of an overall rating for Factor 1? | No. Reference M.0.2, Trade off must be accomplished at the Factor level, not the subfactor level. Ref Section M.0.2 which states in part "Factor 1 is individually more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3. Factors 1 and 2 when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3. |
| 52 | Initial Draft RFP | M | Subfactor 1: Management Organization Structure and Teaming Arrangements | Critical | No | M.1.1 Suggested language to evaluate proposed program support task areas, as we have noted in the PWS redline document. | As stated in the PWS, the POTFF-TF programs are managed by Government personnel both at the Headquarters (HQ) and Component levels. The Government does not desire nor require contract support related to program management, program development, etc. This requirement is solely to provide qualified personnel under a personal services contract in support of these programs. The PWS has been updated to further clarify this requirement. |
| 53 | Initial Draft RFP | M | Subfactor 2: Personnel Management and Continuous Retention/Recruitment | Critical | No | M.1.2 Suggested language to evaluate proposed program support task areas, as we have noted in the PWS redline document. | Reference Government Response to Item #52 |
| 54 | Initial Draft RFP | M | Proposed: Subfactor 4: POTFF Program Support | Critical | No | Proposed M.1.4 Suggested language to evaluate proposed program support task areas, as we have noted in the PWS redline document. | Reference Government Response to Item #52 |
| 55 | Initial Draft RFP | M | Total Compensation Plan | Substantive | No | M.3.2 Under what basis can the government evaluate: |
"proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work" when the proposed bidders don't have access to the current compensation levels provided under the "predecessor" contract?
| Assuming a somewhat industry standard total compensation plan and commensurate salaries by position, will the government consider evaluating the actual cost to employees for the various coverages they elect? | We will evaluate this as outlined in Section M.3 of the Final RFP. Offerors do not require access to actual incumbent salaries in order to provide adequate total compensation plans demonstrating an understanding of what those salaries should be in order to meet all RFP requirements. The Government will have access to this data which will then be used as one point of evaluation as outlined in Section M.3 and Attachment 3. Additional clarification has been provided in the Final RFP Attachment 3 Instructions as well. | ||
| Exhibit A | CDRLs |
A001 Quarterly Assessment Report
DD 254
Attachment 1 DD 254
| 56 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 1 | DD 254 | Administrative | No | We did not see this form included with the draft solicitation. Will this be included with the final RFP? | Yes, it is Atch 1 DD254, to the Final RFP. |
| POTFF II PWS |
Attachment 2 PWS
| 57 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | Paragraph 2.3 Program Management Tool. Will the Government provide a CLIN to pay for the software tool and/or licenses? | No. The cost associated with the Program Management Tool should be built into the indirect rates being applied to the fully burdened labor rates and/or Material CLIN. |
| 58 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | PWS 2.3 states that the tool is fully functional not later than 30 days prior to performance start date. Please define the performance start date. | Updated language provided in the Final RFP; Reference PWS 2.3, the Program Management Tool shall be fully functional not later than 30 days prior to initial task order performance start date of 01 March 2019. |
| 59 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | PWS 6.1.2. Phase-In Period states that TOs will be awarded by 1 February 2019, to allow a min of 30 days transition and that the contractor shall ensure 100% full operating capability (FOC) of the TO requirements (as identified per TO) are filled within 30 days of TO performance start date of 1 March 2019. There are not 30 days between 1 February 2019 and 1 March 2019. In order to allow a minimum of 30 days transition, Task orders need be awarded by 30 January 2019. | The Government has updated the language in PWS 6.1.2 in the Final RFP |
| 60 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | “All travel or expenses associated with non-mandated personnel interviews, training required to meet minimum qualification/ licensure requirements, mandatory annual training requirements required as part of licensure or credentialing renewal, or continuing education (CE) requirements as required by assigned MTF or other source of clinical oversight are considered unallowable and shall not be billed to the Government as a direct cost under this contract.” Please clarify the previous wording. We assume these are unallowable as a direct cost, but allowable as an indirect cost under this contract? | Sections H.5, and H.6, have been updated in the Final RFP. |
| 61 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | PWS 6.1.2 Please clarify the definition of FOC (i.e., number of positions, expected dates). | The Government has updated the language in PWS 6.1.2 in the Final RFP |
| 62 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | 2.0 SPECIFIIC REQUIREMENTS, 2nd paragraph states, “Performance under this contract may require contract staff ride on watercraft…” Will the government specify the positions where this would apply so we can screen candidates? | Reference Revised PWS language in the Final RFP PWS Section 2.0, all potential positions may be required to ride on watercraft, aircraft, and other vehicles utilized by special operation units to accomplish their missions. |
| 63 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Administrative | No | 2.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES AND LIABILITY. In this section, is the Government indicating that liability insurance is not required for Contractors since the Government will represent them in personal injury claims? |
5.1 Security will be in accordance with the attached DD254. Specific security requirements for individual task orders will be identified in a separate DD Form 254. Task Orders clearance requirements may range from Secret to Top Secret with SCI eligibility. Contractor team individual(s) supporting this task will be cleared at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET level at the start of the task unless approved by the SOCOM Component and with written permission from the KO to start with an interim security clearance.
| It is the contractor's responsibility to determine whether they need liability insurance and they should consult with their legal advisor if they have any questions. IAW the PWS 2.1 "any personal injury claims alleging negligence by the individual HCPs within the scope of the HCP’s performance of the TO shall be processed by DoD in the same manner as claims alleging negligence by DoD military or civil service HCPs." The question related to the security language is unclear to the Government, however reference Government response to Item # 38 related to clearance requirements. | ||||||
| 64 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Administrative | No | 2.3 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOL REPORTING. The second paragraph, bullet 2 states that the website shall have the capability to “run reports and extract the data into Microsoft Excel.” Does the Government anticipate that this will be done using Commercial Standards but requiring CAC access? |
| The Final RFP updated this Reference to PWS 2.3. and CAC is not required, but is provided as an option. | ||||||
| 65 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Substantive | No | 2.3 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOL REPORTING. The second paragraph, bullet 3 states that the website shall have the capability to “send automatic email notifications to appropriate levels of personnel on changes to positions.” Is the government referring to changes to all Contractor positions or PMO contractor positions? Please clarify. |
| he Final RFP updated this Reference to PWS 2.3., the Government wants the Program Management Tool to provide updates to all positions that are on task order. | ||||||
| 66 | Initial Draft RFP | Attachment 2 | PWS | Critical | No | 3.0 Service Delivery Summary (SDS). The performance standard related to PWS 6.0 Performance Objective, Bullet 1 states, “All proposed transition and recruitment plans were realized: 90% of incumbent employee |
and 100% of all critical incumbent positions filled within 143 days after contract award.“ Does the government mean to imply offers accepted vice positions filled since FOC date is expected to be Day 144?
| The Government's expectation is that all positions are ready to start on Day 1 of performance other than those not currently identified in Appendix 2, Tab 2, and identified at the time of TO award, you would get an additional 30 days. The Final RFP PWS 6.1.2 has been updated to further clarify this. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.