Q_A Govt Answers_15Nov24.pdf

Government Answers

MSOFS 2.0 RFP H9224025R0001

Questions

15 November 2024

Question Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(1) RFP

Pg 54, M5.2.1

Q: One of the restrictions provided for category 1 is: “The work sample chosen must also have a period of performance of at least a consecutive six months or more as shown on the contract, Section F.” Would the government accept a work sample that has two separate periods of performance during a calendar year on a single task order as long as the combined period of performance is greater than 6 months, and the task order’s DD254 required the contractor to perform personnel security tasking in support of the same task order for longer than 6 consecutive months?

Government Response: No. Consecutive by dictionary definition means “following continuously” so cannot be a break in service or separate period of performance. The period of performance must be consecutive as shown in Section F of the contract.

(2) RFP

Pg 54, M5.2.1

Q: In solicitation paragraph M5.2.1, the government identified category 1 as relevant because it “demonstrates the offerors capacity to perform a contract of this magnitude in terms of total number of filled positions”.

Following government and industry standards it is our intent to use past performance for Category 1 that is comprised of a single task order executed in support of NSW with varying manpower during that period to substantiate our total manpower provided as Full Time Equivalents.

The calculation suggested would be:

TOTAL HOURS / 1880 HOURS/LABOR YEAR = Labor years LABOR YEARS * (365 DAYS / PoP IN DAYS) = FTE Equivalents

Example:

50 personnel provide 30,080 hours of labor over a 200 day PoP.

30,080 hours / 1880 hours/FTE Equivalent labor year = 16.00 labor years

16.00 labor years * (365 days / 200 days) = 29.12 FTE Equivalents.

Will the government confirm this is acceptable?

Government Response: Yes that is acceptable. The Government will use 1880 hours for any FTE equivalent and resulting calculation.

(3) RFP Pg 55-56 Q: Follow on to Pre-Solicitation Questions 97, and 98.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

M5.2.4to M5.2.6

The government’s intent behind the relevancy for Categories 4, 5, and 6 is to demonstrate the offerors familiarity with NSW requirements and demonstrate reach into a pool of personnel that can meet the requirements.

If position descriptions identified in contract documents do not exactly meet the criteria, but the contract is in support of NSW and the positions 1) require significantly more experience than that listed in section M, or 2) The individuals used to fill the positions clearly have the experience outlined in section M, as demonstrated by their resume, will the government accept those individuals to count toward scoring for the category (justified by proof of employment, and a copy of the resume) scoring under the premises that it demonstrates the company’s reach, familiarity, and understanding of the NSW mission?

Government Response: M5.2.4, M5.2.5 and M5.2.6 state in the restrictions: “The work samples chosen do not have to match the exact position name but must clearly meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience.” So long as the work sample and burden of proof meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience it will suffice.

(4) RFP

Pg 56 M5.2.7

Q: In a case where an employee is hired to work as a General Schedule (GS) employee to oversee a contract they were previously working on; would the government accept this loss be omitted from the retention calculation the same way it would be if the loss were due to the mandatory transfer of a Military Spouse, medical issue, injury as confirmed in Q&A question 46 released

08OCT24?

Government Response: Yes. Should the employee be hired by the Government during performance it would be omitted from the retention calculation.

(5) RFP

Pg 55, M5.2

Q: M5.2 states: “Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each respective Team Member must be provided if Category 2 [Work samples performed by a Team Member] work samples are to be used. Signed teaming agreements shall be placed in Volume 1(b)”.

Will the government confirm it want’s Teaming Agreements in both Volume I(a) and Volume I(b) if a Teammates work sample is submitted?

Government Response: Teaming Agreements are only required in Volume I(a).

(6) RFP

Pg 56

Q: As a follow-on to pre solicitation question 46 released on 08OCT24, “When calculating the retention rate, many companies do not include employee losses due to retirement, death, mandatory transfer of a military spouse, or disabling injury”, would the

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments government accept adding the circumstances surrounding the National health crisis Covid-19 Pandemic to this list with also providing objective evidence from the customer granting approval to a specific circumstance?

Government Response: No.

(7) RFP

Pg 57 M5.2.9

Q: Currently there is a USG methodology/guideline for CMMC self-assessment, but no format for a CMMC formal authoritative assessment, i.e. by a USG agency. Please provide the burdens of proof required for SPRS scoring and how the USG will determine the validity of submitted scores?

Government Response: The Government has removed M5.2.9 from the RFP with Amendment 1.

(8) RFP

Pg 57 M5.2.9

Q: The self-scoring required within M5.2.9 is subjective to the individuals that performed the self-assessment, with little objective requirements for the score until recently. Some self-scores may have been inaccurate, and some self-scores may have been deliberately misstated. It wasn’t until the Department of Defense (DoD) officially published the final rule for the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 on Wednesday, October 15, 2024, which is set to take effect on December 16, 2024, that all requirements and metrics were set.

Asking for self-scoring from 12 months ago, facilitates a potential unfair or unearned advantage to companies that may have scored inaccurately and may impose an inaccurate and unfair disadvantage to companies that were scrupulously honest and/or more technically knowledgeable and therefore provided more valid scoring. Additionally, companies that made SPRS entries multiple times per year x3 - x4 - etc. times, as networks were remediated, are at an unfair advantage since each entry increases the overall average score (but does not translate to overall better security posture), versus companies who only reported annually as the DoD requirement states. There is no stop gap in place within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) site to prevent a company from making serval updates and score entries increasing their SPRS Score average over a 12-month period based on this proposed evaluation methodology. This scoring system using averages is an erroneous security metric which deviates from the intent and spirit of the DoD Defense Contract Management Agency DCMA Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center (DIBCAC) Supply Chain Risk Management initiative.

The Government’s goal is to best assess the vendors ability as it “directly relates to NSW’s posture on OPSEC and protection of controlled unclassified information.”

An objective measurement of an offeror’s security program may be obtained by using either or both of the following.

Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) audits, which are the US Government’s approved mechanism and check and balance over the security posture for cleared defense contractors.

• An example of how to score this is assigning weighted scoring based on the DCSA audit results from the most recent audit year or a weighted average for the preceding 3 years. DCSA provides 5 separate rating categories:

Superior, Commendable, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory.

• Security Benefit to the USG: The USG is not relying on a company's internal assessment but instead on the rating of an independent USG agency focused on security auditing.

Current SPRS scoring, which can be independently audited and verified by the US Government by requiring submission of the company's System Security Plan (SSP) at time of proposal submission.

• Security Benefit to the USG: USG can independently review the validity of the SSP instead of relying on any deviations due to a company's lack of knowledge, inattention, etc. to submitting unverifiable SPRS scoring over the last 12 months.

Will the Government consider altering this requirement to remove the inherent security risks of inaccurate SPRS self-scoring based upon the non-auditable self-assessment from 12 months ago?

(9) RFP

Pg. 44, L1.5

And

Pg. 47 L4.2

Q: Section L1.5 states: “a JV without its own FCL is required to submit, as part of its proposal, a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure which, at a minimum, includes the following…”

Section L4.2 identifies: “Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure for JV” is required as part of Volume I(a).

Will the government confirm a “Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure for JV” is not required if the JV has its own TS FCL with Secret Safeguarding?

Government Response: Correct. The Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure is for a JV without its own FCL.

Number: RFP

(10) RFP

Pg. 44, L1.5

And

Pg. 47

L4.2

Q: Regarding Secret safeguarding in an unpopulated Joint Venture (JV), would the USG clarify what it intends by “at least one member has Secret Safeguarding”? In SBA Title 13, Chapter 1 in defining a Protégé/Mentor JV, SBA has directed that the JV must designate the protégé small business as the Managing Member/Venturer (MM/V of the JV. The MM/V may/can designate a named employee of the same small business managing venturer as the manager (Responsible Manager) who would have ultimate responsibility for the performance of the contract to include in this case the facility clearance and secret safeguarding (DD254 requirements). Does the USG intend for the “one member has Secret Safeguarding”, performing the secret safeguarding, to be from the Managing member/venturer?

Government Response: No. Either the non-managing member or managing member shall possess the Secret Safeguarding at time of proposal submission.

(11) RFP

Pg. 57 M5.2.6

Q: Following the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, and the curtailment of counter terrorism operations NSW has increasingly become involved in sensitive Integrated Deterrence operations which require different expertise/support than NSW was in need when MSOFS 1.0 competed.

Category 6, Positions for Training Support lists three position types that encapsulate legacy, incumbent NSW requirements that do not account for the current and future direction of NSW: 1) Technical Instructor, 2) SOF Training Specialist, and 3) Tech Writer.

Would the government consider adding a fourth position type, “Sensitive Activity Advisor” with the following qualifications/ certifications/ experience: “Minimum of 3 years of experience embedded with SOF elements providing technical operations and sensitive activity Integration, inclusive of deployments with NSW elements”

Government Response: No. MSOFS does not have this type of recurring requirement.

(12) RFP

Section L 2.3 Would the government accept an 11x17, landscape orientated page to include a complete Integrated Master Schedule as an appendix that would not count against page count limitations?

Government Response: Yes

(13) RFP

Pg. 56 M5.2.5

Q: Following the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, and the curtailment of counter terrorism operations NSW has increasingly become involved in sensitive Integrated Deterrence operations which require significantly more U.S. Country Team (Embassy) engagement than NSW was in need when MSOFS 1.0 competed.

Category 5, Positions for Training Support lists three position types: 1) Intel Analyst, 2) Special Security Officer (SSO) Support, and 3) Scripter.

Would the government consider adding a fourth position type, “U.S. Country Team Personnel” with the following qualifications/certifications/experience: “Must have served as a Senior State Department Liaison, N/J2, N/J2X, Defense Attache, or Chief of Station, positions that traditionally support intelligence analysis at the command level”?

Government Response: No. MSOFS does not have this type of recurring requirement.

(14) RFP

M5.2.9 Will the Government allow the points for category 9 to be claimed from a subcontractor?

(15) RFP

M5.2.7 Will the Government please clarify what supporting/evidence documents can be submitted to substantiate points claimed on this category?

Government Response: Burden of Proof documents with examples listed in M5.3 may be provided as determined by the offeror.

(16) RFP L6.5.1 Q: Please confirm that for unpopulated JV’s, that the government will accept an audit report, finding or letter from the cognizant DCMA Admin Contracting Officer for both members of the Joint Venture.

Government Response: Yes, confirmed.

(17) RFP M6.1.1 b & c Q: For an offeror that is an unpopulated joint venture, where performance will be provided by the members of the joint venture, should offerors provide a Compensation Plan that defines minimum Unburdened Wages and Fringe Benefits for all members of the unpopulated joint venture?

Government Response: Yes.

(18) RFP &

RFP

Attachment

RFP

Paragraph

L6.5.1; RFP

Attachment 3

Q: For an offeror that is an unpopulated joint venture, where performance will be provided by the members of the joint venture, should the offeror provide indirect rates in Attachment 3 that define maximum indirect rates per contract year applicable to all members of the unpopulated joint venture?

Government Response: Yes.

(19) RFP M6.1.1 Q: Does the government require a full cost buildup from Direct Labor cost through fee to evaluate Realism and Reasonableness?

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: Not at this time with proposal submission. However, IAW L6.2 Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data, “The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate data for the Determination of Price Fair and Reasonable; however Offerors may be required to submit supplemental information for Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data or (if necessary) Certified Cost or Pricing Data IAW FAR 15.4.”

(20) RFP M6.1.1 Q: If so, for an offeror that is an unpopulated joint venture, where performance will be provided by the members of the joint venture, should the offeror provide a buildup from all members of the unpopulated joint venture and use the highest rates across those members to define ceiling rates for the joint venture during execution?

Government Response: For an unpopulated joint venture, the fully burdened labor rate IAW L6.1.1 should be the maximum ceiling rate across all members. Of note IAW M6.1.1e) “Proposed pricing from the ELIN Worksheets within Attachment 3 will be incorporated into any resulting contract(s) and will be the maximum allowable rates allowed for those labor categories on any Task Orders awarded during the life of the contract.” Only one Attachment 3 will be included in the contract so should be representative of any JV members and/or major subcontractors’ rates.

(21)

RFP

L6.0

VOLUME

III –

FACTOR

2:

Cost/Price Proposal

L6.1 Price General Instructions

c) Price Narrative File, Pg. 49

Q: Can the government clarify whether our subcontractors must include indirect rates in the Total Compensation Plan.

Government Response: The TCP for the IDIQ does not need to include subcontractors’ indirect rates as it will likely be different than the prime offeror. However, the Government anticipates the clause may flow down to subcontractors and be required at the task order level.

(22)

RFP

Pg. 2 Attachment 7 Part III

Q: May the government please clarify – for the Work Sample Cover sheets what counts as a character i.e. will a character be considered a word, or will a character be considered a letter or symbol?

Government Response: Word Count as included in Microsoft products considers characters as symbols and letters. Spaces will not be counted.

(23)

RFP

Section L

L2.1 Proposal Organization and Due Date, Pg. 45

SF33 Block 9

Q: The Government states, “Due Date/Time: All portions of the Offeror’s proposal shall be received NLT 5 December 2024 at

0900 EST.”

The Standard Form 33 (SF33) states 09:00 AM, 05 December 2024 “local time.” The address is San Diego, California. Please clarify the due date and time of the proposal. Is it EST or PST?

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: The due date and time is 09:00AM EST, 05 December 2024. The SF33 cannot be changed to reflect anything but local time. Both SAM.gov and Section L state EST which is correct.

(24)

RFP

Section L

L5.3. Work Sample Cover Sheet(s), Page

Q: The Government states, “L5.3. Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) The Offeror shall provide one Work Sample Cover Sheet for each work sample used to substantiate the Offeror’s self-score, along with any additional substantiating documents needed by the Offeror to substantiate their self-score for all evaluation criteria. If the work sample falls under the existing NSW MSOFS IDIQ and/or NSW’s NEXT IDIQ, cover sheets need not be signed by the corresponding NSW Contracting Officer.” Are all of these work sample cover sheets and substantiating documents supposed to be included (cut and paste) into one consolidated volume? This will make the file size very large if the items must be pasted in as pictures.

Government Response: Although the intent is that a single volume is provided as Volume II, it is not anticipated that items have to be pasted as pictures. Additionally, Volume II can include separate files for each Work Sample and its substantiating documents so long as it is clearly formatted and cross-referenced.

(25)

RFP

Section I - Contract Clauses

5652.237-9001 Key Personnel Requirements (2003), Pg. 29

(c) The follow positions are identified as Key Personnel:

IDIQ Program Manager Others, as specified at the task order level

Q: The Government states, “5652.237-9001 Key Personnel Requirements (2003) (a) Certain experienced professional and/or technical personnel are essential for successful accomplishment of the work to be performed under this contract. Such personnel are defined as "Key Personnel" and are those persons whose resumes were submitted for evaluation of the proposal.” Is a resume for the IDIQ Program Manager required for submission in the proposal? If so, in which volume and does it count toward the page limit?

Government Response: No. The IDIQ Program Manager’s resume is not required at proposal submission. Rather, if awarded a resultant contract, the resume shall be submitted prior to the IDIQ kickoff meeting.

(26)

RFP L6.6 L6.6

Professional Employee Compensation Plan / Total Compensation Plan – (TCP)), Pg. 50

Q: Will the government please confirm whether the requirement specified in L6.6 is applicable to the Prime Offeror (only)?

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Draft RFP Subcontractor Total Compensation Plan

Government Response: Yes, the TCP is only applicable to the prime offeror.

(27)

RFP

Section L

L3.1 Contracting Points of Contact Questions: 13 November 2024 @ 11:00

AM EST

Proposals: 4 December 2024

@ 11:00 AM

EST

Q: Will the government consider a small extension deadline IAW the administrative requirement of the HTRO solicitation?

Government Response: The question’s reference is inaccurate. L3.1 states “Proposals: 5 December 2024 @ 09:00 AM ET”. No extensions at this time.

(28) RFP N/A Q: Can companies utilize Meaningful Relationship to act as the prime offeror for its MSOFS 2.0 proposal response? If so, is an offeror allowed to use a work sample from its meaningful relationship and have that considered to be a prime work sample?

If the Meaningful Relationship is permitted, what is the standard for documenting the Meaningful Relationship?

Government Response: No. Work samples must meet the criteria in M5.2.

(29) RFP Pg 56 M5.2.2

Q: Will the Government please further define what it means by “performance” with regard to the Category 2: Geographic Locations requirement? What aspects of the work need to have been executed to be compliant in the Government’s estimation?

Government Response: To be considered a performance location, the location shall be specified in the contract or PWS/SOW document.

(30) RFP Pg 56 M5.2.3

Q: Will the Government please specify what documentation would suffice as proof of the number of positions transitioned for a given work sample? Would an employee roster be sufficient?

Government Response: Documents are listed in M5.3 Burden of Proof.

(31) RFP Attachment 3 - Price

Q: Will the Government please clarify how it wants offerors to present their Top Secret Price Differential? Does the Government expect the Differential to be stated as a percentage or a range?

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Worksheet All Tabs

Government Response: The expectation is that the Top Secret Differential is a percentage that is applied on top of the fully burdened labor rate if the position requires a TS clearance. Rates and the differential are ceiling rates in Attachment 3 not to be exceeded during the life of the contract.

(32) RFP Attach 06 – HTRO Self

Score Matrix

Q: Is there a minimum quantity or group of Categories that a work sample must satisfy to be considered compliant?

Government Response: No. The work sample requirements are contained within M5.2.

(33) RFP Page

M5.2.9 Category 9

Q: " If proposed offeror is an unpopulated JV, the score shall be reflective of the managing venturer." Taking into account only the protege's NIST score contradicts other SBA guidance on Mentor- Protege joint ventures. The SBA has directed evaluation of both the Mentor and Protege. We request you use both the Mentor and Protege NIST scores in the calculation. With the Mentor performing up to 60% of the joint venture work, an average of 50/50 or 60/40 between the Mentor and Protege in this calculation is more appropriate and in line with SBA guidance.

(34) RFP Page

M5.2.9 Category 9

Q: "As an example, if an offeror has a score of 110 for the past 7 months but no score for the preceding 5 months, the average assessment score would be 64: (=110*.583)." There is nothing in the DFARS or NIST guidance that is retroactive. Imposing a penalty for a company without 12 months of scores contradicts guidance (SBA around proteges, CMMC standards not being implemented previously, etc) and is not compatible with other evaluation practices. We request removing the negative element of this calculation and accept the most recent score as the figure in the calculation if there are not 12 full months of scores.

Government Response: The Government has removed M5.2.9 from the RFP with Amendment 1.

(35) Attachment 3 Price

Worksheet

Instructions line 12 and

Tabs Column X

Q: Per pricing instructions, “The offeror shall include a price differential (%) for labor categories that require a Top Secret Clearance if applicable.” In order to accurately price this for each Tab and ELIN Labor Category, offerors need the government to provide details on which ELIN Labor Category will be Top Secret.

Specifically, can the Government indicate on the Attachment 3 – Price Worksheet which ELIN Labor Categories are Top Secret for adequate pricing?

Government Response: Any of the labor categories may require Top Secret clearances at the task order level.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(36) RFP Pg 54, M5.2, Category 2

Q: For Category 2 work samples, which are provided by a teammate, the evaluation of work samples states that “for the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor who will perform at least 10.00% of the work-share on this effort.” Is it the intent of the Government for any teammates providing Category 2 work samples to have a Teaming Agreement indicating they will perform at least 10% of the work-share on the overarching MSOFS 2.0 IDIQ? Or, should their Teaming Agreement indicate they will perform at least 10% of the work-share for relevant Task Orders under their respective scope of work/capabilities?

Government Response: Either are acceptable based on the individual business relationship forged.

(37) RFP Pg 52, M2.0 Q: This section references, “Should any of the “Top Five” not have a minimum score of 1400, the Government reserves the right not to make an award.” Can the Government provide additional details on how this minimum score is calculated? Is this a minimum score per work sample? A minimum total score of all work samples combined? An average of all work samples combined?

Government Response: The score is auto-calculated in Attachment 6, HTRO Self Score Matrix and represented in cell I13.

(38) RFP Pg 56, M5.2.3 We understand that verification documentation is required for all scoring criteria. Could the Government please clarify the types of documentation that would be acceptable for M5.2.3, Category 3:

Positions transitioned within 14 days? Specifically, would documents such as offer letters, internal HR records, and other company-created records be considered acceptable for verification, given that some records may not originate from Government sources?

Government Response: Yes. M5.3 Burden of Proof lists the types of example documents.

(39) RFP Attach 06 –

HTRO Self Score Matrix

Q: Please confirm the Government only wants a single selected work sample for M5.2.1 Category 1? Therefore, only one contract or Task order work sample/substantiating data would be provided for Category 1 from each offeror?

Government Response: Correct. Offeror is the prime offeror and not meant to be a team member as stated in the Restrictions of M5.2.1.

(40) RFP Attach 06 – HTRO Self

Score Matrix

Q: For M.2.8 Category 8, can the Government provide recommendations of what kind of official documentation can be provided to verify the requisite clearances? As an example, offerors can provide a DD254 to verify the clearance level, but that document will not delineate the number of positions at that clearance level. DISS will only show the number and names of people cleared but not what contract they are tied to.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: Typically a PWS or SOW will delineate which positions require the clearance in addition to the DD254. An SCI addendum, if applicable, to the DD254 will clearly show number of positions as it is required to be listed.

(41) RFP Attach 06 – HTRO Self

Score Matrix

Q: For the Attachment 06, please confirm all work samples and aggregate scoring should be in one Attachment 06 file, including details for all work samples provided for each contract/task order in Columns L - P? For example, if an offeror submits five work samples, all five should be included in one Attachment 06 and each work sample score should be added together to comprise “offeror’s count.”

Government Response: The work samples do not get added to the Attachment 6 spreadsheet. They should be a separate file(s). The Attachment 6 should merely indicate which work sample and documentation citation is applicable to the various categories in Columns L-P. The Offeror’s Count in Column E is required to be filled in with the corresponding category count. This count is reflective of each individual category as explained throughout M5.2.1-M5.2.8 and not just the number of work samples. Work samples still need to demonstrate what is being required in M5.2.1- M5.2.8.

(42) RFP Attach 06 – HTRO Self

Score Matrix

Q: We understand that our work samples and substantiating docs should be listed on Attachment 06. Does the Government also require offerors to annotate specific sections of the submitted substantiating documents with comments on the burden of proof, such as with a comment and/or highlighted text? Or, should offerors only include details about the substantiating documents with the sections/pages to reference within the cells provided in Attachment 06?

Government Response: See answer to #41.

(43) PWS Section 5.9, Q: Section 5.9 of the PWS states "Some positions may be subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA)" while Section L6.6 of the Solicitation states, "For the purposes of this evaluation, the offeror shall consider all labor categories listed in Attachment 3 as “Professional Employees.” Can the Government clarify which labor categories are considered exempt versus non-exempt?

Government Response: For the purposes of this evaluation and all attachments, offerors should consider all labor categories listed in Attachment 3 as Professional Employees. Positions subject to SCA will be identified at the task order level.

(44) Attachment 3 Price

Worksheet

Attachment 03 Q: Can the Government provide LCAT descriptions for all seventy labor categories to ensure adequate pricing and staffing plans?

Government Response: No. Skill levels are provided for all positions and the majority of labor category descriptions are provided.

(45) Attachment 3 Price

Worksheet

Attachment 03 Q: Can the Government clarify the difference between labor categories X22 (General Maintenance) and X23 (General Maintenance Technician)?

Government Response: A technician is typically more specialized in skills.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(46) Attachment 3 Price

Worksheet

Attachment 03 Q: Can the Government clarify the difference between labor categories X25 (Highly Qualified Expert) and X58 (Subject Matter Expert)?

Government Response: A highly qualified expert is typically more qualified in a certain area than a subject matter expert.

(47) Attachment 3 Price

Worksheet

Attachment 03 Q: Can the Government clarify labor category X24 (Heavy Equipment)?

Government Response: Operator of heavy equipment such as a vehicle.

(48) Attachment

3 Price Worksheet

Attachment 03 Q: Can the Government confirm that labor category X41 (Program Manager) is the IDIQ Program Manager (PM)?

Government Response: No. The IDIQ Program Manager is not a direct labor category. It is an overhead position and not priced on any individual task order.

(49) RFP Section B Q:Is the offeror required to fill in any pricing information in Section B of the RFP?

(50) RFP L.3.3 Q: :Due to the large number of documents which must be embedded in the Technical Proposal is it permissible to use a separate file for a summary including Attachment 6, and then a separate file for each Work Sample (e.g. Work_Sample_1 file 2 of 6 etc.)

Government Response: L2.1 states “Offerors shall include an electronic copy of the completed self-scored matrix in both Volumes I(a) and II. The Offeror’s self-scored matrix (Attachment 06) shall be printed to PDF and placed directly behind the cover sheet in Vol I (a) and behind the cover sheet in Vol II.” Work samples can be separate as necessary for file size.

(51) RFP l..4.2.3. The RFP states:

If applicable fill-in provisions and clauses shall be provided in Volume Ia.

Q: What fill-in’s and clauses are Offerors to provide to satisfy this requirement?

Government Response: The offeror shall review the RFP for all fill-ins and clauses that are applicable. Although SAM.gov Reps and Certs may be included, there are certain provisions that must be filled in as they are not included in SAM.gov and it is the responsibility of each offeror to complete this as applicable.

(52) RFP l.6.5.1 Accounting

The RFP states.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

System Summary

The Offeror shall provide a current (within 12 months from the date of proposal submittal) audit report, finding, or letter from the Offeror’s cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or DCAA office stating that the Offeror’s accounting system has been audited and/or determined to be both compliant with the FAR and is adequate for cost type contracts.

Q: If the Offeror is an unpopulated mentor protégé JV, is this requirement satisfied if the Managing Partner provides the required documentation?

Government Response: No. This is required for both the managing partner and mentor.

(53) RFP l.6.6.

Professional Compensation Plan

The RFP states:

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993)”, is applicable to this RFP, and the Government will evaluate whether the offeror considered for award, understands the contract requirements, and have proposed a compensation plan appropriate for those requirements.

Q: If the Offeror is an unpopulated mentor protégé JV, is this requirement satisfied if the Managing Partner provides the required documentation?

Government Response: No. See Q&A #17.

(54) RFP L.5.1.7 and M.5.2.7

The RFP states in L.5.1.7:

L5.1.7 Offerors shall redact work samples of any unnecessary Potentially Identifiable Information (PII) to the maximum extent practicable while still enabling adequate information for substantiation and Government validation. PII is defined as any information that includes name, social security or any other personal information that would identify an individual.

The RFP also states in M.5.2.7:

The Offeror shall identify the number of its employees performing on each work sample at the beginning of the selected annual period, and then identify how many of those employees remained employed by the offeror at the end of that annual period.

Providing copies of invoices at the beginning and end of the period would provide the needed proof, but keeping the names of the employees unredacted would violate L.5.1.7.

Q: How are Offerors to demonstrate individuals that have been retained throughout the period of performance without violating Section L.5.1.7 by providing the names of the individuals involved?

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: Redacting names is acceptable. A document that shows a total and not per names could also be utilized. See M5.3 Burden of Proof for examples of types of documentation.

(55) RFP L5.0 Volume II

– FACTOR 1:

Technical Proposal and

Substantiating Data

Q:

May substantiating documentation (along with an accompanying narrative) be submitted as separate files, or should substantiating documentation for each work sample be combined into a single document?

Government Response: It is preferred that a single work sample with substantiating documentation is contained within a single document. If that is too large for transmission, multiple files may be submitted. However, IAW M5.3, “It is not the Government’s responsibility to search through documentation provided without any clear, concise cross reference.”

(56) RFP L5.0 Volume II

– FACTOR 1:

Technical Proposal and

Substantiating Data

Q:

If a work sample falls under multiple HTRO categories, should we submit separate narratives and substantiating documentation for each category, or can a single narrative cover all relevant categories?

Government Response: A single cover sheet and narrative can cover all relevant categories.

Substantiating documentation, to include appropriate extracts, may differ and should be cited for each category as applicable.

(57) RFP M5.2.4 –

Category 4

Positions for Logistics Support

Q:

Will the government consider removing or rewording the definitive Suzuki requirement and allow it to be an "and/or" requirement for OEM certifications from any manufacturer, such as Evinrude, Honda, Mercury, Yamaha, or Suzuki? This change would reduce barriers to competition by not limiting eligibility to Suzuki-certified dealers or distributors.

Government Response: Yes. See Amendment for revised language.

(58) RFP Pg 29; Section I 5652.237- 9001 (2003), Key Personnel Requirements, paragraph (a)

Q: For compliance with FAR 5652.237-9001, under which volume should the resume of the Key Personnel, specifically the IDIQ Program Manager (PM), be submitted? Is there a page limit or specific format required for this resume?

Government Response: See Q&A #25

(59) RFP Pg 50; L6.5.1 Accounting

System Summary

Q: Are subcontractors required to submit documentation as specified in L6.5.1 paragraphs (a) and (b) to demonstrate an adequate accounting system? If subcontractors lack such documentation, should they follow the same process as the Prime contractor to establish adequacy?

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Government Response: No.

(60) RFP Pg 47; L4.2.4, Cross Teaming Limitation & Pg 54; M5.2, Evaluation of

Work Samples

Q: Please provide clarification on Teaming Agreements:

• Should all Teaming Agreements be included in Volume 1(b) or in Volume I(a) “Cross Teaming Limitations, Teaming Agreements to include JV, and identification of Subcontractors” or is this required only when a teammate/subcontractor was/is involved in a referenced work sample?

• Do Prime/Subcontractor teams need to submit their Teaming Agreements, if so where?

• Also, will Teaming Agreements, if required, be excluded from the page count as stated in Volume I(b)?

Government Response: L4.2 requires Teaming Agreements for the IDIQ in Volume I(a). Teaming Agreements are not part of Volume I(b). Volume I(a) does not have a page limit.

(61) RFP Pg 47; L4.2.4, Cross Teaming

Limitation

Q: Will the Teaming Agreements with subcontractors be required in Volume I(a)?

Government Response: Yes.

(62) PWS &

RFP

Pg 2; PWS 5.1 & Pg 29;

5652.237-9001 (2003), Key Personnel

Requirements

Q: Does the government allow the IDIQ Program Manager to be an employee of the offeror, or must this individual be sourced externally?

Government Response: The IDIQ PM location and recruiting strategy is at the discretion of the Offeror but is considered Key Personnel and must be approved by the Government. See also Q&A #25.

(63) PWS &

RFP

Pg 2; PWS 5.1 & Pg 29;

5652.237-9001 (2003), Key Personnel

Requirements

Q: Will the government require the IDIQ Program Manager to travel or maintain a physical presence on-site as part of their duties?

Government Response: The Government does not plan to dictate the business strategy for the IDIQ

PM.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(64) RFP Pg 57; M5.2.7, Category 7:

Retention Rate

Q: Could the government clarify what qualifies as the “last annual period of performance”?

Specifically, does this refer to the last full annual accounting period on which the company’s financials are based, the final annual period for the relevant work sample, or the 365-day period preceding the release date of this solicitation, as suggested in previous guidance?

Government Response: The “last annual period of performance” is based on the specific contract and not a company’s accounting period since the two are likely different. If the contract is currently in the middle of performance, the last full year of contract performance would be utilized.

(65) RFP &

Attachment

3 – Price Worksheet

Pg 50; L6.4 Rounding & Attachment 3

Q: L6.4 states: Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest hundredth of a percent (e.g. 12.34%). Standard rounding methodology otherwise applies. Offerors are encouraged to utilize the “Round” function in Microsoft Excel to eliminate rounding errors from their proposal.

a) Are offerors allowed to adjust the format in Attachment 3 – Price Worksheet so that the rounding is acceptable according to the statement made in L6.4?

b) Additionally, in the ELIN Pricing Tabs within Attachment 3, the fields for inputting rates such as “Labor Fringe,” “Labor OH,” “Labor G&A,” “Travel G&A,” “ODC G&A,” and “Escalation” are formatted as percentages for Ordering Periods in Years 1 through 5, but not for Years 6 & 7. The Escalation Rate field lacks percentage formatting for all years, including Beyond Year 7. Can offerors modify the format in Attachment 3 – Price Worksheet to apply the appropriate percentage formatting for these fields?

Government Response: Offerors may modify Attachment 3 to allow for rounding or percentages IAW the RFP.

(66) RFP Pg 55-56;

Category 2:

Geographic Locations

Q: If the Offeror’s headquarters includes a government-authorized position dedicated to contract performance, would this location count as one of the two required geographic locations for M5.2.2, Category 2? Alternatively, does the Government strictly exclude headquarters from consideration, even when authorized on-site personnel are assigned for contract performance?

Government Response: No. M5.2.2 specifically states in the Restrictions “The offeror’s headquarters does not count toward the “two separate geographic locations”…”

(67) RFP Pg 55-56;

Category 2:

Q: If the Offeror is performing as a subcontractor and has a contract with a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) position located 200+ miles apart from the MSOFS IDIQ Program Manager (PM), would this

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

Geographic Locations arrangement satisfy the 200-mile requirement for Category 2:

Geographic Locations? As a subcontractor, we maintain required communication and coordination with the IDIQ PM, demonstrating a separation distance of over 200 miles. Would the Government consider this setup as meeting the intent of managing performance across distinct geographic locations?

Government Response: No. M5.2.2 specifically states in the Restrictions “The offeror’s headquarters does not count toward the “two separate geographic locations” regardless of if a Program Manager is not onsite at the performance location.”

(68) RFP Pg 55-56;

Category 2:

Geographic Locations

Q: Would the Government consider a network of multiple managed locations that, when combined, cover a distance exceeding 200 miles as meeting the requirement for M5.2.2, Category 2?

For instance, if the Offeror manages 30 locations spread across three states, would this meet the intent of demonstrating capability in managing a distributed workforce over distinct geographic regions if the locations together span 200 miles?

Government Response: No.

(69) RFP Pg 57-58;

Category 7:

Retention Rate

Q: If personnel from the Offeror’s team are recruited by the Government into GS positions during the selected annual period, should these positions be excluded from the retention rate calculation?

Similar to Government-directed changes in position numbers, would the Government consider excluding positions lost due to direct recruitment by the Government to ensure the retention rate accurately reflects the Offeror’s performance?

Government Response: Yes. See Q&A #4 as well.

(70) PWS &

RFP

Pg 2; PWS 5.1 & Pg 29;

5652.237-9001 (2003), Key Personnel

Requirements

Q: Will the government confirm a resume does not need to be submitted for the Key Personnel, IDIQ Program Manager?

Government Response: Yes. See Q&A #25.

(71) PWS Pg 4; 5.9 Wage Determination s

Q: The PWS only mentions “some positions may be subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA)”. Will the government confirm which positions fall under SCA?

Government Response: This will be determined at the task order level.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(72) Attachment 3 – Price

Worksheet

Tab TEP Q: No values are populating in the TEP tab. Will the government please adjust this as offeror’s are not to input information on this tab?

Government Response: The TEP tab auto-calculates from the ELIN tabs with labor rates populated.

The Government confirmed it is working.

(73) RFP Pg 47; L4.0 – L4.1

Q: Volume I appears to consist solely of the Master Table of Contents. Could the government confirm this, and clarify if it should be submitted as a separate file from Volume I(a) and Volume I(b), which also should be submitted as separate files?

Government Response: IAW L2.6, each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents. This should be separate from Volume I(a) and Volume I(b).

(74) RFP Pg 47; L4.2 Q: Regarding Volume I(a) Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure (SOP):

a) Is a Security Plan/SOP required only for Joint Ventures (JVs), or must Prime/Subcontractor teams also provide one?

b) If Prime/Subcontractor teams are required to submit this information, does each subcontractor need to provide its own Security Plan/SOP?

c) Will the government accept the Prime and Subcontractors' Top Secret Facility Clearance (TS FCL) documentation to satisfy this requirement, or must a separate Security Plan still be provided?

Government Response: a) The Security Plan/SOP is not required for Prime/Subcontractors.

b) The Security Plan/SOP is not required for Prime/Subcontractors.

c) For a prime offeror, only the FCL is required for the prime. The prime must meet the requirements of L1.5 and cannot rely on a team member to meet the requirements.

(75) RFP Pg 57-58;

Category 7:

Retention Rate

Q: Does any supporting documentation need to be submitted to validate the retention rate for each Work Sample? If so, what type of evidence is expected (e.g., personnel rosters, employment records, or official company reports)?

Government Response: Yes. See M5.3 Burden of Proof for examples.

(76) RFP Pg 57-58;

Category 7:

Retention Rate

Q: If employees who are called to active duty from the Army Reserve or National Guard, does this affect our retention rate although they return to work upon completion of their service?

Should any supporting documentation be submitted to verify these instances, such as military orders or company records showing re-employment post-service?

Government Response: The Government will exclude this but requires proof that the employee was called on military orders.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(77) RFP Pg 57-58;

Category 7:

Retention Rate

Q: Will the government confirm whether the retention rate should be calculated for all employees on the contract during the selected annual period, or only for the minimum number of positions needed to obtain maximum points for the category that the work sample supports? For example, if Category 4 requires 15 employees for maximum points, but the offeror has a total of 30 employees on that contract, should data be submitted for all 30 employees or just the 15 with the best retention rate?

Government Response: Retention rate is calculated for all positions on the given work sample and not just a select few the offeror chooses.

(78) RFP Pg 57-58;

Category 7:

Retention Rate

Q: How does the government intend to verify that the retention rate accurately represents all employees on the contract, rather than the minimum number of employees needed to achieve a high score?

Government Response: The burden of proof documents as listed in M5.3 should demonstrate the retention.

(79) RFP Pg 58; M5.3 Burden of

Proof

Q: To demonstrate proof of burden for contract documentation, if a teammate is not comfortable providing the full awarded contract document, will the government accept an excerpt from that document, or would an FPDS report also satisfy this Work Sample requirement?

Government Response: IAW M5.3, “The submission of extracts may be appropriate and is permissible since it is not necessary to provide entire documents that include many pages of extraneous information, but extracts shall be clearly marked to indicate the clearly verifiable source.”

Most FPDS reports will lack the specific information needed to substantiate the score.

(80) RFP Pg 55; M5.2.1 Category 1:

Total Positions on a Single

Work Sample

Q: When the government requests the number of employees for a Work Sample (e.g., Category 1: Total Positions on a Single Work Sample), does this refer only to the positions required by the government to perform the work?

If the contract is large and an additional role (e.g., Program Manager) was added at the company’s headquarters to ensure effective contract performance, should this position also be counted, particularly if it’s designated as key personnel or otherwise required by the government?

Government Response: The positions must be required of the work sample. If the Program Manager was a direct labor position for the specific contract submitted, it could be counted. Many times a Program Manager is an overhead position in which it is indirectly supporting a task order even if Key Personnel.

(81) Attachment 7 – Work Sample

Cover Sheet

Pg 1; Part I Q: If submitting a task order as a Work Sample, does the "Work Sample Value" refer only to the value of that individual task order?

Government Response: Yes.

Number: RFP

Document Para./ Section Questions/Comments

(82) Attachment 7 – Work Sample

Cover Sheet

Pg 1; Part I Q: Does “Total Period of Performance, Including Options” refer to the TO’s start and end date being used as the Work Sample?

Government Response: Yes.

(83) RFP Pg 54; M5.2 Evaluation of

Work Samples & Pg. 49;

L5.1.6 Acceptable

Work Samples

Q: From RFP:

• L5.1.6 Acceptable Work Samples. An acceptable work sample is defined as a “stand alone” contract, or task order issued under a master Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract (FAR 16.501-1). When referring to work samples, the terms “contract” and “task order” are interchangeable with “contract” often used as the all encompassing term. An IDIQ contract and all its task orders may not be used as a work sample. Rather, individual task orders with specified requirements and periods of performance must be submitted and will count as single work samples.

• M5.2 Evaluation of Work Samples Period of Performance must be at least 6 months and no more than five years prior to the issuance date of this solicitation.

If using a task order or contract as a Work Sample, must it cover a full year to be counted for Category 7: Retention Rate? To ensure fair evaluation across all submitted Work Samples, we recommend that any task order or contract submitted as a Work Sample has a complete annual period of performance. This would prevent an offeror from submitting a task order with only 6 months of performance, which might not accurately reflect a full-year retention rate and could show a higher retention percentage due to the shorter period with less risk of employee turnover.

Government Response: M5.2.7 requires the use of “all submitted work samples”. Each individual Category has restrictions that may not allow a Period of Performance of less than a year but this is not a restriction imposed for all work samples.

(84) RFP Pg 50; L6.6 Professional

Employee Compensation

Plan / TCP

Q: Will the government confirm that subcontractors do not need to submit Compensation Plans since it was deleted from L6.6 and subcontractors are allowed to be added after…