Q A-0820.pdf

Q1. L.3.1.5.2 ‐ The first sentence cites: “Offerors shall complete the matrix below, listing the percentages of work to be subcontracted (excluding items bought through the purchasing system with the exception of Ability One) and type of work for each type of business.”It not clear what items are being referenced. What are the type of items are meant by "items bought through the purchasing system"?

A1. Materials, equipment, etc. as it pertains to direct support of task orders.

Q2. The parenthetical in Area III of Section M‐3, states that "Reasonableness (Attachment 27)" is more important than "Total Evaluated Cost/Price or Fee Structure"? Should not all three ways of analyzing whether the offerors' costs are fair and reasonable be of equal importance and, if so, should not the phrase "Factors are in descending order of importance" be deleted from the first sentence of Area III?

A2. See amendment. Equal importance.

Q3. Given that offerors have the discretion to choose the contract types for the sample tasks, how will the government decide which proposal costs less? Stated differently, if one offeror proposes a higher‐ priced fixed‐price contract, and another offeror proposes a lower priced CPIF or CPFF contract, how will the government evaluate which one is preferable? For clarity, we are not asking how the government will make a best‐value decision, but rather how the government will compare the offerors' respective cost proposals, if offerors elect to propose different contract types?

A3. The Government intends to evaluate the sample task proposals in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L and the sample task criteria published in Section M. As it relates to contract type, the Government assumes that the contract type proposed by an offeror reflects their perception and understanding of the technical requirements, the offeror's approach to meeting the objectives of the sample task and the offerors allocation of risk to the effort. As stated in the RFP, a total evaluated price (TEP) for each of the sample task proposals will be obtained by calculating the total average for the sample tasks across all ten years. This will be done by taking the total of sample task one (year one) +sample task one (year two) + sample task one (year three) + sample task one (year four) + sample task one (year five) + sample task one (year six) + sample task one (year seven) + sample task one (year eight) +sample task one (year nine) + sample task one (year ten). This will be done for sample task one, two and three. Sample task four will not go across the 10‐year period. The Government will evaluate Offerors for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement. Price reasonableness as stated above includes, but are not limited to, prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate, as appropriate. Each of the sample tasks will stand alone to determine reasonableness for the 10‐year period except sample task four will be for a maximum of 3‐months. In other words, they will not be averaged. Offerors should use Attachment 27 rates for pricing of the sample tasks. Keep in mind that contract type is “cost risk” and mitigation options should be stated.

Q4. Amendment 1, CLIN X006 Labor Hours; L‐3.3.3.1, Amendment 1 adds a $2M ceiling per year.

L.3.3.3.1 still identifies that 10% of the contract is estimated to be labor hours. These values appear to be in conflict. Will the government revise the anticipated contract type percentages to reflect the $2M ceiling for the labor hour CLINS?

A4. The Offeror’s must keep in mind that these are estimates only. The $2M was established for the LH of the hard to fill positions CLIN. The Offeror’s should calculate the difference and apply it to the CPIF

CLIN.

Q5. Reference Attachment 032: In as much as the RFP and Task Order 2 requests long term plans in terms of the evolution of IT systems, it is critical to understand what functionality is being provided by all currently used software (COTS, GOTS and system integrations) currently in use at SOFSA. Please provide a description of the functionality provided by the interfaces and applications listed in Attachment 032.

A5. See last page of Q&A

Q6. With the recent release of RFP Amendment 1 and the Government‐Owned Software list, the following questions arise:

a. The SOFSANet diagram provided by the Government shows the Track‐It product, a help desk software system. However, this product does not appear in the Government Owned Software List which was attached to the Amended RFP. The Helpstar software product, another help desk software package, is listed in the Government‐Owned Software list. Which product is the Government currently using to support the help desk function?

A6a. Track‐It is used by one of the projects at SOFSA, the MIS department uses Helpstar as their Help Desk software.

The Government‐Owned Software list shows Oracle E Business Suite 2009 Professional & Module as a product currently owned by the Government. How is the Government currently using this product and what SOFSA function is being supported by this product?

A6b. Oracle is used as the back‐end database for several COTS products in use at SOFSA, including GOLD, TeamCenter, and GOTS JCMIS. Oracle Interconnect, Enterprise Manager Grid Control, and Discoverer are also used. Oracle E Business Suite 2009 Professional is not currently used on the SOFSANet.

Q7. Reference RFP Section C, Paragraphs 2.3.4 and 2.4.2:

Paragraph 2.3.4 states as a Business Operations objective: “The Contractor shall manage facility/workload throughput, so as to optimize workforce capabilities against the CLS work being performed under this contract vehicle.” Paragraph 2.4.2 states as a Program Management objective:

“The Contractor shall manage facility/workload throughput optimizing workforce capabilities against the CLS workload being performed under the contract.” Please clarify if facility/workload management objective has been inadvertently duplicated or is it intended to be a shared Business Operations and Program Management objective? If inadvertently duplicated, recommend Paragraph 2.3.4 be deleted.

A7. The Government sees this as a shared responsibility. However, the contractor approach will determine how this will be accomplished.

Q8. In order to adequately address potential liability for previously existing environmental conditions at the Commonwealth of Kentucky‐owned BGS facility and the Government/Department of Defense‐ owned other SOFSA sites, we request that the Government add the following clause to Section H of the RFP: “The Government agrees to reimburse the Contractor, and the Contractor shall not be held responsible, for any environmental related liability (including without limitation, a claim involving strict or absolute liability and any civil fine or penalty), expense, or remediation cost which may be incurred by, imposed on, or asserted against the Contractor arising out of any environmental condition, act, or failure to act which occurred before the Contractor assumed responsibility for contract performance. To the extent the acts or omissions of the Contractor cause or add to any environmental liability or create new environmental liability, expense, or remediation cost, the Contractor shall be responsible in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract. “

A8. Disagree. This provision will not be added. The successful Offeror will be required to comply with all environmental regulations and laws.

Q9. Reference RFP Section J: Attachment 004 Wage Determination designated SCA WD 05‐2222 (Rev. ‐

5) has been updated May 2008 as revision 7. Should offerors use the Wage Determination version 5 as listed in Attachment 004 or the updated Wage Determination version 7 as per the Department of Labor website?

A9. The Offeror’s should use the latest version of the wage determination available. They are located on the DOL website.

Q10. Reference RFP Section L‐3.1.5.2 SB/SDB/WOSB/HUBZone‐SB/DVOSB/LB:

This paragraph states: “Offerors shall complete the matrix below, listing the percentages of work to be subcontracted (excluding items bought through the purchasing system with the exception of Ability One) and type of work for each type of business. Type of work includes all services to be subcontracted.

Discuss the level of commitment the Offeror has to meet the proposed small business target and explain the rationale if there are differences in procedures for interfacing with different subcontractors.”

Please clarify if the phrase: “…(excluding items bought through the purchasing system)…” means the SOFSA local purchasing system used for MILSTRIP acquisitions or the successful offeror’s purchasing system?

A10. Offeror’s purchasing system.

Q11. Reference RFP Section L and Answers to Questions dated 16 August 2008:

The Section L‐3.1.1 requirements of the “Operations” paragraph and the “Key Functions” paragraph appear to apply to all of the subsequent plans (Enterprise Management Plan, Program Management Plan and Subcontract Management Plan) in addition to the Business Operations Plan. This appears to be the Government’s intent since the last sentences before section L‐3.1.2 reads “The results of this will be these distinct plans. These plans will become part of the resulting contract”. However, the response to Question 58 indicates that the Operations requirements should be addressed in the Business Operations Plan. It further appears that this is the Government’s intent since the instructions for Key Functions reads “The authority, responsibility and accountability of each key function shall be discussed in the plans as required for evaluation in Section M”. Still further evidence is that the subject matter required in these paragraphs is global in nature and applies to all of the plans equally.

Recommendation: Add evaluation factors similar to Factor 3, 3.1.6 to Enterprise Management Plan, Program Management Plan and Subcontract Management Plan. See amendment. In addition, in order for the Government to more easily evaluate these requirements in the offeror’s proposals, recommend Government number the “Operations” paragraph as L‐3.1.2, Key Functions as L‐3.1.3 and sequentially number the following paragraphs (Enterprise Management Plan, Business Operations Plan, etc) in turn.

A11. See amendment for first recommendation. Second recommendation we are not changing the numbering system this late in the RFP stage.

Q12. Reference RFP Section L‐3.3.2 paragraph 1:

Should the contractor apply its indirect rates and factors to the Government provided estimates for material, ODC, and travel dollars?

A12. No.

Q13. Reference Section M AREA II heading in factor 6:

This heading refers to section L‐3.2.2. There is not currently a section L‐3.2.2. Please clarify if this is intended to refer to section L‐3.2, or if a new section L‐3.2.2 is expected to be added.

A13. No L‐3.2.2 will be added. This was an error. L‐3.2 is correct for Section M Area II

Q14. Reference Answers to Questions dated 16 August 2008:

Q&A #2 indicates that “all CLINS will include those things considered Enterprise Management and all CLINs will be task order driven.” Given this guidance, please clarify the scope that will be performed within CLIN X002 and how that scope will be authorized.

A14. Scope cannot be clarified if there is no SOO or PWS defined. What I believe you are asking is how does the Enterprise Management areas get picked up. The Enterprise management areas are expected to be part of the overall overhead structure as these are directly related to the management of the “GOCO like” facilities that is used across the task orders.

Q15. Reference RFP Attachment 27:

Do the hours included in Attachment 27 include the subcontractors’ hours?

A15. Yes

Q16. Reference Answers to Questions dated 16 August 2008:

Based upon responses to Q&A #3 and Q&A #24 please clarify if the Government wants offerors to include ODC and material costs in the total estimated cost of CLIN X002 and X005 entered into Section B?

A16. FFP task orders are not expected to include any cost reimbursable CLINs.

Q17. Reference Answers to Questions dated 16 August 2008 question #65:

Does the Government want the contractor to submit the escalated costs for years 2‐10 for the 12 month sample task orders?

A17. No, the Government will escalate based on the current consumer price index during the source selection process.

Q18. Reference RFP Section L‐3.1.5.2:

In reporting achievement of small business subcontracting goals, the referenced paragraph states: “All Offerors participating in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Program shall prepare and submit a Standard Form 294 that addresses relevant contracts. The targets in paragraph L‐3.1.5.2 will be addressed in the comments section of the form.” Normally a Standard Form 295 is submitted for a Comprehensive Subcontracting Program (CSP). Is it acceptable to submit a Standard Form 295 for the Comprehensive Subcontracting Program in lieu of a Standard Form 294?

A18. Yes, however you need to review the notice posted on 18 Aug 08 to FEDBIZOPS

“Please be advised that the Department of Defense (DoD) will use the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) for the October 2008 subcontracting reporting period. Prime contractors, along with their subcontractors, are required to submit subcontract reports using the eSRS for the October 2008 and all subsequent reporting periods.

Instruct prime contractors to modify all subcontracts subject to the flow down requirements of FAR 52.212‐5,

52.219.9 and 52.219‐25. This requires each subcontractor with a subcontracting plan to provide the prime contract number, their own DUNS number, and the e‐mail address of the Government or Contractor Official responsible for acknowledging or rejecting the reports, to its subcontractors with subcontracting plans so their subcontractors can file ISR and SSR reports. Instructions on eSRS can be found at (http://www.esrs.gov). Contractors are advised to review the training material located on the website prior to submitting a report. Training presentations can also be found on the DPAP website at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/eb/electronic_subcontracting_reporting_system.html.

Q19. Reference Sample Task 003, Paragraph 2.1:

This section states: “For purposes of this SOO, the SOFSA warehouses possess 17 million parts in JOBSCOPE and another 2.7 million parts in GOLD.” Are these 17 million "parts" and 2.7 million "parts" actual parts maintained in inventory, or are they data records? The numbers represent actual numbers in Jobscope and GOLD. Does the JOBSCOPE quantity include stock that has already been assigned to manufacturing/production? No Do the numbers include historical records? No

Q20. Operations and Key Functions are to be included under the PWS. Is it assumed this discussion is included in the 50 page PWS limit?

A.20 Yes.

Q21. Does the Note immediately following the Key Functions on page 140 apply to both the Operations and Key Functions paragraphs? These two paragraphs may not have been intended to be solely part of the PWS, as the paragraph numbering and placement currently suggests.

A.21 Yes

Q22. Section M (1.1.4) “The Offeror has demonstrated their ability to execute the nine core capability areas as defined in the SOO” Does the government intend to make this a pass/fail criteria, or a graded criteria?

A22. If this was a pass/fail criteria the solicitation would state that.

Q23. Reference, Section M, Area III, Factor 2. The RFP States that “The Government will evaluate Offerors for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement.” Can we assume the “basic requirement” to be the contract base year period only and the “options” to be the option year periods. If not, please clarify.

A23. This area is sample tasks whereas the sample tasks will be added across all years of the contract period.

Q24. Reference Attach 25, Past Performance Questionnaire. Our customers may experience difficulty using the color scale indicated as many of these questions are binary – “yes” or “no” response.

Examples of those questions are shown below.

T3.1 “Is contractor data accessible, retrievable and can it be validated?”

T4.1 “Is the contractor ISO 9001:2000 experienced or certified? If not ISO what quality system do they use?”

T6.1 “Are network administrators maintaining required DoD certifications IAW DoD Directive 8570.1?”

T6.2 “Are network administrators LINUX certified?”

T6.3 “Are network administrators Microsoft certified?”

T6.4 “Did contractor perform network system ‘Penetration’ testing?”

T7.1 “Is the contractor ISO 14000 certified?”

T7.2 “Does the contractor have a history of meeting environmental standards?”

T7.3 “Has the contractor received any documented environmental violations?”

P5.2 “Has sound emergency/continuity plans”

P7.1 “Does the contractor conduct inventories regularly?”

A24. Offeror’s need to use the questionairre that went out with the RFP.

Q25. Section C.2.2.2.2 requires the offeror to develop software, in support of the basic contract or from Government direction, to DoD standards. What procedures are in place to validate software code?

A25. Standard procedures are used to valid software code.

Q26. Section L‐2.2.2 limits page size to 8.5 x 11inches. Will the Government consider allowing the use of 11 x 17 inch foldouts for graphics and spreadsheets?

A26. We are not doing paper – we are doing total automated proposals.

Q27. H.10 says in part, “The incumbent on contract USZA22‐03‐D‐0006 and 03‐C‐0056 has agreed that in the event they are not the successful Offeror against this solicitation they will novate any open contracts and all active task orders unable to be completed prior to transition period completion. Will the Government consent to a novation agreement in which the incumbent contractor remains responsible for violations of procurement law or regulations occurring prior to transfer of contracts?

A27. The Government will consider. However, through Novation the novated company is no longer a viable company.

Q28. Specifies that completed questionnaires should be sent via US mail or faxed. Will the Government consider allowing customers to send completed questionnaires via e‐mail?

A28. Email would be great! The questionnaires can be emailed to debra.nicholson.ctr@socom.mil and todd.purdy@us.army.mil.

Q29. Section L, 5652.215‐9008 Past Performance Data (2001)Specifies that contract Federal Supply Code should be included in the past performance contract information. Will the government consider changing the Federal Supply Code to NAICS code as this is how all procurements are categorized in FBO?

A29. The Contracting Officer does not have authority to rewrite the provision. However, industry should consider FSC to be NAICS.

List of Government Owned Applications and Services with Descriptions

Software Program Description

BGS.SOFSA.MIL Internal website for web enabled applications on the SOFSANet BVA Budget vs Actuals for controllables Configuration Management - Implementation Request, Risk Assessment, Change Request & Release Readiness

CM tool to manage changes to the approved Network baseline

CQS -Customer Query System Customer Query System - DFAS Invoices from GOLD to Jobscope Automated system to input DFAS invoices from GOLD to Jobscope ECHO Warehouse System Warehouse Mgmt System Facility Utilization Notebook (FUN) Facilities maintenance database HOME.SOFSA.MIL Website for web enabled applications on the SOFSANet Issue/Receiving Ticket Prints sends issued and receiving tickets to appropriate printers ITReports Front end to reports created using

Crystal Reports Jobscope interface to GOLD (MILS receiving)

Automated MILS receipt between Jobscope to GOLD

Jobscope/Autotime interfaces Moves workorders from Jobscope to Autotime and moves labor from Autotime to Jobscope

JOG Web Reports Web portal used to run reports from GOLD Material Transfer Allows transfer of material between jobs within Jobscope MIS Property Database Maintain listings of all MIS equipment MPM/Jobscope CSPEC Bridge Updates WBS structures from MPM to Jobscope MPM/PCS (aka Mr. Thumb) Query /Reporting System that details monthly actuals and committed costs by job PCS -Project Cost Status Project cost system that includes actual estimated and committed costs SAFES -SOFSA Award Fee Evaluation System

System used to receive customer input on the Prime Contractor to help determine Award Fee every six months

Soffunds Gov’t system to track financials SOFSANet Access Request Form Form to request access to different systems on the SOFSA Network SOFTAV Customer project SPEAR interface to GOLD (Material Reserve)

Customer project

SSAVIE/GOLD Interface Customer project TeamCenter Document Management Repository for technical drawings ULLS-A/GOLD Interface Customer project Voucher Processing System Prime Contractor system for tracking and vouchering the Gov’t WAWF/GOLD Interface Proof of concept connectivity between the WAWF and GOLD