SCS_RFP_QnA_Consolidation_(20190801).pdf

SCS Question and Answers

RFP

(Consolidated) 1 August 2019

NOTE: DUPLICATE QUESTIONS (IN ANY FORMAT) HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED

Any Answer that reflects a revision to the Solicitation (SOW, Sections H, L, or M) has been highlighted and changed to red font within the SF 30 Amendment itself for ease of identification.

RFP Section Pg./Para. Questions/Comments

1 M- Evaluation Factors for Award

M2.2.1.1 M2.2.1.1 states “an offeror with redundancy within its team, in a manner that encourages healthy internal competition, will demonstrate agility and reach. A team construct that ensures equitable workshare will demonstrate stability.” These are conflicting statement: if workshare is predetermined and equitable then internal competition would be limited, and if competition is desired then equitable workshare cannot be guaranteed.

Q: Which of these should offerors consider the correct guidance?

A: The statements are not contradictory. The Government’s expectation is that the contractor balance redundant capability and work share to optimize the offerors proposal.

2 SOW, Section L and Industry Day Slides

Solicitation Page 11, Paragraph

1.1 of the SOW.

Page 50, Paragraph

3.2.1.1 of Section L, and Slide #4 of the Industry Day Slides presented on March 4th.

There is a discrepancy in the definition and description of the three imperatives in the three referenced sections.

Q: Will the government please clarify the exact definition of each services imperative?

A: There is no discrepancy in the service imperatives definitions within the solicitation.

The definitions in SOW Section 1.1 are correct and do not contradict the instructions in Section L Paragraph 3.2.1.1.

Slide 4 of the Industry Day identify macro level descriptions on the three imperatives across all service contracts.

3 L – General Information

Pg. 50, L3.2.1.1 Q: Section L3.2.1.1 states, “Agility is informed by the team’s aggregate ability to address all mission areas.” Can the government confirm what is considered mission areas as it relates to this solicitation?

A: SOW Section 5.0 defines the required mission areas.

4 Sec L OCI Disclosure Form (Attachment 2)

Q: For the “Number of MYEs” information request, what does MYE stand for?

A: Man-Year Entitlement

RFP Section Pg./Para. Questions/Comments 5 C – SOW Pg 16, Table 6.1 Q: The Required Qualifications for the IDIQ Program Manager include a security clearance at the Top Secret level. Will the Government accept a candidate who is TS-eligible at the time of proposal submission?

A: No. Top Secret clearance is required.

6 L.3.2.1.2 Page 50;

Management Approach

Discussion: Describe the organization structure that will ensure corporate support to this effort, which includes a summary of the total portfolio for which this organization is responsible.

Q: Can the Government clarify what it means by “a summary of the total portfolio for which this organization is responsible”?

What is Government’s definition of “total portfolio”? Is reference to “this organization” to the prime or the team?

A: See revised Section L, para L3.2.1.2. Verbiage removed.

7 IDIQ Table 6.1 Personnel Qualifications pg 16 Q: Will the government consider reducing the IDIQ PM requirement in SOW Table 6.1 from 10 years of SOCOM experience to 7 years’ SOCOM experience? We believe someone with 7+ years of SOCOM experience fully understands the organization, missions, and components to be successful in this role and by requiring 10 years, the government limits industry’s ability to select highly qualified individuals who have 7-9 years of SOCOM experience.

A: Non-concur. The Government requirement will remain unchanged.

8 IDIQ Table 6.1 Personnel Qualifications pg 16 Q: Will the government consider reducing the IDIQ PM requirement from DAWIA Level III to DAWIA Level II?

Obtaining Level III is in part based on government billets and can therefore be outside the individual’s control. We believe an individual who is Level II certified fully understands contracting, acquisition, and program management and fully meets the intent of this requirement.

A: Non-concur. The Government requirement will remain unchanged.

9 Table L.1 Pg 47 / Table L.1

Q: RFP Draft 1 Q&A (#76) states, “The PM is intended to be an indirect employee.” RFP Draft 1 Q&A (#113) and the asterisk in Table L.1 indicates more than one Key Personnel resume may be submitted. Since the IDIQ Program Manager is at the expense of the contractor’s overhead, will the Government consider a combination of two IDIQ Program Managers as co-leads (or a primary and secondary) whose combined resumes meets all the personnel qualifications for the IDIQ PM position be sufficient to satisfy all the requirements of the IDIQ PM?

A: No. The Government’s expectation is to have a single point of contact that meets all the personal qualifications of the IDIQ PM.

10 SOW Pg. 16, Table 6.1 Q: Most field grade officers in SOCOM assignments have master’s degrees but most of them have master’s degrees from accredited DoD Schools like Command and General Staff Colleges and War Colleges. Those degrees are in subjects like Military Art and science and National Security Strategy.

Would the Government consider accepting an alternative master’s degree from a DOD professional military education degree in place of a business related master’s degree?

A: See revised SOW, Table 6.1. The following is added:

“– OR – Graduate of a US Military War College that issues a Master’s Certificate and an additional 5 years’ (10 years’ total) experience in Program Management”

11 C - SOW Pg. 16 Table 6.1.

Personnel Qualifications

Q: Per Table 6.1 (Personnel Qualifications), the IDIQ Program Manager is required to have: “Project Management Professional (PMP) or DAWIA Level III PM certification – OR – an additional 5 years’ (total of 10 years’) Program Management experience on a DoD Contract”

Will the Government accept a MBA in Project Management as equivalent to PMP certification?

A: See revised SOW, Table 6.1.

12 C 6.0 Table 6.1 Q: The IDIQ Program Manager requires “5 years’ Program Management experience on a DoD Contract, ending not longer than 12 months prior to proposal submission.” Would the Government consider extending the 12 month period to 24 months to allow for highly qualified personnel meeting all other requirements to be bid? 12 month recency is restrictive to high performing Program Managers who may have moved into new roles within the last 12-24 months and can provide SOCOM with greater expertise in this role.

A: No. The Government requires recent DoD performance in this position based on the multitude of recent changes within the Government Program Management field.

13 Table L.1 Pg 47 / Table L.1

Q: Is it acceptable for a subcontractor to fill the role of the IDIQ PM position if the Management Approach/Organization can describe how the prime-subcontractor arrangement can make that work?

A: No. The Prime is expected to fill the IDIQ PM position.

14 L- Instructions to Offerors

Pg. 51, Para.

L3.2.1.5

Q: - Will the contractor need SIPR and JWICS connectivity within their SCIF?

A: Contractors are not required to have a SCIF.

15 L – General

Information N/A Q: Would the government consider allowing an executive summary to be included in either Volume I or in Volume II outside of page count?

A: No. Executive summaries are not required or desired.

16 L – Instructions to Offerors

Pg. 50 of 57, Para. L3.2.1.2

Q: Please clarify the Government’s understanding of the phrase Full Operational Capability (FOC) in the context of the statement below.

“These plans shall discuss the proposed team’s ability to obtain and continuously retain suitably qualified personnel in order to maintain program stability. Provide timelines at both the contract and task order levels that support the transition narrative and highlight key milestones to reaching full operational capability (FOC) in not more than 30 days from award.”

A: See revised Section L, para L3.2.1.2

17 Atch 12 – SCS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline

Page 2; Column 2 (Very Relevant); Row

Q: The government states that an IDIQ with Performance required in 5 or more locations with a minimum of 1 which require ITAR compliance is one of the factors for determining a past performance as Very Relevant. What validation would the government prefer to validate it has ITAR compliance? Will the government accept a company’s ITAR registration letter as validation of the company’s compliance with this rating factor?

A: Yes.

18 M 2.3.1 Pg 56, M 2.3.1 The RFP states: past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by information sheets, interviews, and assessments available through the Past Performance Retrieval System. The Government is not limited to these resources.

Q: For instances where offeror/teammate past performance is on a classified contract that does not produce/publish CPARs, will the Government consider use of a Past Performance Questionnaire to be completed by the respective Government contracting office?

A: Yes. The Offeror/teammate shall complete the PPI sheet, ensuring that the POC listed is in agreement with receiving a phone call and a PPQ from the Government PP Evaluation Team.

19 L4.5.1 Atch_07 Relevancy Baseline – Row 10 (Performance Locations)

Q: Performance Locations and Geographical Requirements: The relevance assessment does not indicate what relevancy rating would apply for contracts with operations at 2 locations or 3 locations. Will the Government please clarify the Relevancy of a program with 2 or 3 operating locations in Atch_07?

A: See Atch 07 SCS PPRB r1 (20190726)

20 L4.5.1 Atch_07

Relevancy Baseline – Row

Q: Performance Locations and Geographical Requirements: The relevance assessment leaves a large gap between “Relevant” and “Somewhat Relevant” due to the inclusion of the ITAR compliance requirement to be considered Relevant. This may unnecessarily downgrade the relevancy rating of a contract that did not require ITAR (e.g., for a classified program, ITAR is not applicable due to the NOFORN nature of the work, regardless of location). Will the Government revise criteria in Atch_07 to allow for a qualification of non-ITAR locations to be considered Relevant?

A: See Atch 07 SCS PPRB r1 (20190726)

21 Atch 07 Attachment 7 – Past Performance Relevancy Baseline

Q: Performance Locations and Geographical Requirements: The matrix does not take into account contracts performed at multiple locations but without ITAR compliance requirements.

Could the Government please clarify how such a contract would be assessed within the parameters of the Relevancy Baseline?

A: See Atch 07 SCS PPRB r1 (20190726)

22 L- Instructions to Offerors

Pg. 51, Para.

L3.2.1.5

With regards to OCI Mitigation, L3.2.1.5 states that “The offeror shall also address firewalls… and similar measures used to ensure proprietary and nonpublic information is properly used and safeguarded consistent with Section H.6.” This statement conflicts with L1.2.3 and H.6 which state that 100% subcontracting and firewalls are not an acceptable mitigation plan.

Q: Which of these should offerors consider correct?

A: The Government’s intent is that a mitigation plan stating only the use 100% subcontracting and firewalls is not an adequate plan. Offerors shall employ other mitigation tactics as well as these in order to provide adequate mitigation.

23 Attachment 7 – SCS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline

N/A Q: Would the government consider changing the Contract Type under the Very Relevant column from “Multiple Award IDIQ” to “Single/Multiple Award IDIQ”?

A: No. Based on the description of “Very Relevant” as provided in Sect L, Table L.4, a single award IDIQ would not be deemed Very Relevant.

24 IDIQ L1.9 Cross Reference pg 48 The solicitation states individual glossaries, compliance matrices, acronym lists, and Lists of Tables and Drawings are not to be included. Please confirm a Table of Contents is still allowed within each Volume.

A: A Table of Contents is not required, but may be included within each Volume. If included, it will not count against the overall page count.

25 L – Proposal

Instructions Pg 51, Para.

L.4.4.

Q: Are subcontract consent letters required for ALL teaming partners, or only for those subcontract partners who are submitting past performance citations/past performance information sheets as a part of the prime contractor bid?

A: Only for subcontract partners who are submitting past performance information.

26 L- Instructions to Offerors

Atch_04_Past_P erformance_Info rmation_Sheet

Question 5 instructs offerors to identify how “company past performance on this program applies to Factor 1 and clearly link the past performance information to the SCS Statement of Work.”

Q: Please confirm that offerors are to link past performance to only the task areas identified in the SOW (5.1-5.6).

A: Correct. Offerors are to link past performance to the task areas identified in SOW Sections 5.1-5.6.

27 M- Evaluation Factors for Award

Pg. 56, M.2.2.1.4 In 11.0 of statement of work it states that government officials will handle transmission of classified data. Will the contractors be required to transmit classified information from their facility, or will the transmission of classified data be handled in accordance with "army regulations" as referred to in section 11.0 of this SOW.

Q: Please clarify "transmission", is SOCOM requiring contractor personnel to transmit classified information from their facility?

A: No, offerors will not be required to electronically transmit classified information from their facility. Hand-carried or secure mail transmission may be required during task order proposal submission based on specific TO requirements.

Section 11.0 of the SOW is in reference to contractor personnel who are performing on location at Government sites.

28 RFP Sec L Pg. 50, Para.

L3.2.1.3. Last sentence.

Q: Section L makes reference to hiring non-US citizens, but the requirement doesn't appear elsewhere in the PWS. Can the government clarify if the hiring of non-US citizens is anticipated, and if so, under what general circumstances and locations?

A: Yes, the hiring of non-US citizens is anticipated for multiple actions (JSOU and LREC specifically). These will be specific requirements that can only be defined at the task order level.

29 L- Instructions to

Offerors Atch_04_Past_P erformance_Info rmation_Sheet

The PPI sheet provided in Attachment X is restrictive to offerors in providing relevant material in a 3-page limit with the goal of providing SOCOM with enough information to adequately evaluate the past performance of potential contractors.

Q: Are offerors to assume that they can adjust, modify, or edit the format of the PPI sheet as long we adhere to the formatting instructions in Section L and provide all of the requested data, such as those requested in the tables?

A: See Revised Section L Table L.1, and Atch 04 PPI Sheet r1 (20190726).

PPI Sheet length has been increased to a limit of 5-pages total per submission. As such, offerors may not adjust, modify, or edit the format of the PPI Sheet, nor may they remove instructional language.

30 Attachment 04 Past and Present Performance Information Sheet, Section L, L1.3.2.

Attachment 04.

Paragraph L1.3.2, page 47.

Q: Will the Government please confirm offerors can use the attachments as-provided by the Government? For example, Attachment 04 contains margins and font sizes non-compliant with Section L. Please confirm we may use the attachments as provided.

A: Offerors who utilize the Government provided attachments need not adjust them to conform to the requirements of Section L. Attachments may be used as provided.

31 L.2.6 Page 49; Current Adequate Accounting System

Discussion: Our company’s accounting system was audited by DCAA (Nov 6, 2015).

Q: Will we need to be audited again?

A: IAW Sect L, para. L2.6, “If an offeror does not currently have valid documentation (within the last 3 years)...the Offeror shall complete Attachment 3...” Based on this, yes, you would need to be audited.

32 RFP Sec L Pg. 50, Para.

L3.2.1.3. Last sentence.

Q: Reference: “Demonstrate an understanding of the processes required to hire non-US Citizens, perform OCONUS travel, and place employees at OCONUS performance locations.”

Can the government clarify if the OCONUS travel and employee placement refers to the non-US citizens or all employees in general?

A: OCONUS travel refers to both US and non-US citizens.

33 IDIQ Table 6.1

Personnel Qualifications pg 16 The table states 10 years’ total experience in USSOCOM assigned organizations, as military, Government civilian, or contractor is acceptable. However, SCS_Draft_RFP_QnA_Consolidated_2 states:

“Q: Reference Table 6.1. Personnel Qualifications, specifically the second bullet of IDIQ Program Manager (PM) required skills / qualifications. Please clarify the requirement for 10 years’ total experience in USSOCOM assigned organizations.

Does the IDIQ PM candidate require 10 years of total experience as an actual employee of the USSOCOM assigned organizations?

Would 10 years of total experience as a contractor supporting USSOCOM assigned organizations qualify the IDIQ PM candidate?

A: See revised SOW. Experience required as military or Gov’t civilian.”

Q: Will the government please clarify that experience as a contractor qualifies as SOCOM experience?

A: Contractor experience qualifies as SOCOM experience.

NOTE: Offerors should focus on the requirements as listed in the Final RFP. The Draft RFP QnA files have been provided for information purposes only, and may not reflect the outcome of the Final RFP documents.

34 L -4 Pg. 51, Para.

L.4.3.1

Q: This section states that a minimum of two PPI sheets shall be submitted by the prime offeror or JV managing partner. It also states that if proposing as a JV, at least one of the remaining PPI sheets shall come from the Mentor. Q&A Set 2 Question 4 included in the Final RFP states that there is emphasis on the protégé.

For offerors proposing as a Mentor-Protégé joint venture, it is not clear what citations are required from the protégé. Must the protégé submit two contracts that are determined relevant to qualify?

A: For a Mentor-Protégé joint venture, the Protégé shall submit a minimum of two PPI sheets both of which must be determined either “very relevant”, “relevant”, or “somewhat relevant” to qualify. The Mentor shall submit a minimum of one PPI sheet.

35 General Question

N/A Q: If there are current Task Orders/positions within the UK, are these positions currently covered under the "componency stamp?" If yes, will the government share how long each current incumbent employee has been in place in order to anticipate and price any required relocations if close to reaching the five year 'rule?"

A: There are not currently any task orders being performed in the UK.

36 H – Special

Instructions Pg. 25, Para. H.2 (c)

Q: With the large number of prime awards that will result in from the any qualified offeror evaluation approach, this restriction is unduly restrictive on small businesses. SOCOM will miss out on access to qualified small businesses who may provide some capabilities but would be better to team with another prime on an individual task order rather than prime themselves. Because of the off-ramping procedures, SOCOM will receive many more task order proposals than they may want as primes will be afraid of being off-ramped. Cross-teaming would reduce the number of task order proposals and allow more flexible and responsive proposals on complex task orders. Request SOCOM reconsider this restriction and allow businesses to utilize best business practices on teaming.

A: Non-concur. Based on the requirements of Sect L, para.

L3.2.1, each offeror is required to be able to execute all SCS requirements as delineated in the SOW through their own means, or the means of their teammates or subcontractors.

This restriction will remain.

37 H – Special Instructions

Pg. 25, Para. H.2 (c)

Q: What happens when a prime is off-ramped due to a size re-certification at the 5-year mark but still has period of performance on remaining task orders? Will that prime be restricted from teaming with remaining primes after this time period? This does not seem to be in SOCOM’s best interest, as graduated primes will not be able to support remaining SOF Core primes after off-ramping. Suggest revising this clause to allow off-ramping primes to serve as a subcontractor to other SCS Primes.

A: Primes who have been off-ramped for any reason will only be excluded from future on ramp actions, if held. They are not restricted from performing as subcontractors or teammates for other Primes after they have been off-ramped.

38 General Question

N/A Q: For compensation will the Govt evaluate proposed salaries based on FAR 52.222 46 (Professional Compensation) in order to prevent LPTA and the possibility of lost incumbency and knowledge.

A: Yes. Task order proposals will include the Evaluation of Professional Compensation.

NOTE: Use of FAR 52.222-46 does not prevent the use LPTA as a solicitation type.

39 Statement of

Work Pg 16 / 6.0 IDIQ Program Management

Q: Will an IDIQ Program Manager who does not meet 100% of required skills/qualifications be grounds for an unacceptable rating of the proposal, or will it be rated as a weakness but the proposal could still be acceptable when all other evidence in that section are considered in determining the overall rating of Volume II?

Example, 9 years’ experience in a Combatant Commander Organization and worked day in and day out “with” SOC personnel but did not work 10 years “in” the SOC organization.

Is this grounds for an automatic unacceptable rating in and of itself.

A: This will be grounds for an Unacceptable rating, as the resume will not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

40 Sec L, Atch 7, Past Performance Relevancy

Column 1;

“Contract Type”

Q: Could a non-traditional BPA (for complex services, with a BPA call ceiling of significantly higher than the SAT, competed under a GSA schedule (FAR Part 8)) potentially be considered similar to an IDIQ under the past performance relevancy criteria laid out in the RFP, if equivalence is demonstrated satisfactorily in the proposal?

Background: Traditionally, a BPA (usually under FAR Part

13) is different than an IDIQ (usually under FAR Part 16) in that it is an agreement to repetitively buy the same COTS-type products or services at a pre-negotiated price, with "BPA Call" ceilings that must fall under the simplified acquisition threshold. These BPAs are, therefore, not nearly as complex or difficult to manage as an IDIQ. However, BPAs can be structured with higher “Call” ceilings or for complex services under certain conditions, including under a GSA schedule under FAR Part 8.

A: Given the information provided, it is possible that a non-traditional BPA could be considered similar to an IDIQ for the purposes of past performance. However, this is only a preliminary statement based on limited information, and should not be taken as a guarantee. Submission of this type may be evaluated differently given all information provided at time of proposal.

41 Sec L L1.3.2 Q: Does the government have font size requirements for headers, footers, and cover page text?

A: Instructions in Sect L, para. L1.3.2 apply to all areas of the proposal except for Government provided attachments which may remain in the format provided.

42 Section L Pg. 49, Para.

L2.6 Q: This paragraph states “The Preaward Accounting System Checklist with supporting documentation shall be forwarded to the cognizant DCAA and to the Contracting Officer as soon as practicable but no later than the proposal due date. “

It is our understanding from DCAA Manual 7641.90 that the Contracting Officer forwards the checklist to DCAA.

Please clarify that you direct that offerors submit the checklist to both DCAA and the Contracting Officer.

A: See updated Sect L, para. L2.6.

Offerors need only submit to the Contracting Officer.

43 L-1 General Information

Page 48/Para L1.9 Cross Reference

Q: This section repeatedly makes separate references to a "Glossary" and an "Acronym List." Typically these are treated as the same thing -- a Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations.

May the offeror combine these two requirements into one Glossary?

If not, will the Government clarify what should be defined in the Glossary vs. the Acronym List?

A: A “Glossary” references a list of uncommon terms used in the proposal and their definitions. An “Acronym List” references a list of all acronyms used through the proposal “spelled out” for clarification.

44 L.1.2.1 Page 46 Q: Regarding the OCI Disclosure Form, should offeror's disclose only ongoing USSOCOM contracts? Or, should we disclose all USSOCOM-funded contracts within the past five years? If there are no USSOCOM funded contracts, should we receive documentation of this lack of OCI on official company letterhead attesting that no OCI exists?

A: IAW the instructions for completing the OCI Disclosure Form at the top of Attachment 2, disclosure shall be for contracts or subcontracts “currently being performed.”

An Offeror’s written statement affirming a lack of OCI need not be submitted on official company letterhead.

Submission as part of the proposal Vol I is deemed sufficient to be compliant with this requirement.

45 L 2.4.2 Q: The Government requires that offerors submit an OCI mitigation plan that details the manner in which “…the prime contractor is in full compliance with this solicitation…” Does the Government require similar deliverables for proposed/potential subcontractor OCI?

A: Yes. IAW Sect L, para. L2.4.1 “Each offeror must submit, for itself AND its subcontractors, an OCI Disclosure Form...”

46 SOW 6.0 Page 16/SOW

6.0 Key

Personnel

The SOW states that Task Leads will be identified at the Task Order, not IDIQ, level. The only IDIQ-level Key Personnel would therefore be the Program Manager. However, repeated references are made in the RFP to providing Key Personnel Resumes (plural).

Please clarify—is the only required resume the Program Manager?

If not, what are the requirements for the other resume(s)?

A: The only resume required to be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal is the Program Manager resume.

47 L- ITO

C - SOW

Pg.48, Para.

L.1.9

Pg. 12- 17, Para.

5.1 through 6.3

Solicitation, Page 48, L.1.9-Cross-Reference paragraph states, “Offerors shall submit, as a standalone document marked “Cross-Reference”, a comprehensive glossary, compliance matrix and acronym list. This “Cross Reference” document shall not be included in any volume and has no page limit. Lists of Tables and Drawings are not needed or required. If included, lists shall be placed at the end of the volume.” When you look at the Solicitation Section C, Statement of Work, page 12 thru 17, paragraphs 5.1-6.3 contain 55 “bulletized” sub task paragraphs that lack numbering to facilitate cross referencing. Trying to cross reference these bulletized subtasks will be extremely cumbersome and difficult, if not impossible.

Q: Would the government consider numbering the SOW bulletized subtasks in paragraph 5.1 to 6.3 to aid and facilitate the required cross referencing?

A: No. The Government does not intend for the bulletized sub tasks in the SOW to be cross-referenced. Offerors should cross reference at the numbered paragraphs only.

48 L3.2.1.6 Pg. 51 Q: The Quality Control Plan (QCP), as required in the Volume II submission would take a significant amount of page count away from the IDIQ Management Volume. Will the Government consider allowing the QCP to be a page restricted annex instead?

A: No. There is sufficient page count to include the QCP within Vol 2.

49 Atch 03 Attachment 3 – Pre-award Accounting System Checklist

Q: Could the Government please provide a fillable-form PDF version of Attachment 3?

A: A fillable-form PDF is not available.

50 Section M -

Evaluation Factors for Award

Pg. 56, Para.

M.2.2.1.4

Security Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s … adequacy of processes for safeguarding classified materials and controlled unclassified information (to include handling, storage and transmission) …

Q1: In recent acquisitions, other Services have requested a copy of the offeror’s Cybersecurity System Security Plan (SSP) and Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) to review for compliance. The SCS RFP is vague on how compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, and all the aspects of NIST 800-171 directed within, will be evaluated. Will the government accept a Self-Attestation statement from an offeror to meet the requirement?

A: Yes. At this time, that is the only requirement to show compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012

Q2: Does the government anticipate adding the contracting language to the RFP suggested by the ASD(A) Memorandum, Strengthening Contract Requirements Language for Cybersecurity in the Defense Industrial Base (17DEC2018) concerning awardees providing a copy of their System Security Plan (SSP) and Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) upon request following award?

A: No. This language has not been accepted as standard practice, and is not required at this time.

51 L – Instructions Pg 50, Para L3.2.1.4

Q: How should a contractor describe their process for holding classified documents if they are not approved for classified storage? (Note that the DD 254 released with the solicitation does not require classified storage at contractor’s facility.)

A: It is up to each offeror to determine their proposed process.

NOTE: While the IDIQ DD254 does not require classified storage, it is known that upcoming requirements will require classified storage.

52 L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders

Pg. 48, L.2.2 Facility Security Clearance

Q: Do subcontractors have to possess Top Secret Facility Clearances?

A: Not for award of the IDIQ contract.

53 H – Special Contract Requirements

Pg. 25, Para H.2 (b)(3) & Pg. 27, Para H.2 (d)(1)(8)

Q: These sections state orders may be issued on a sole source basis. Given that there will be several contractors who will be able to provide these services, does the Government mean they will issue Task Orders on a single source basis, and not sole source basis?

A: Yes. See revised Section H.2

54 H – Special

Contract Requirements

Pg. 27, Para H.2 (d)(1)(8)

Q: The Government is referring to 16.505(b)(2)(i)(a). Upon review of Part 16, that exact section does not exist in the current version of 16.505. Did the Government intend to refer to 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A)?

A: Yes. See revised Section H.2(d)(8)

55 Attachment 07 Atch_07_SCS_P ast_Performance _Relevancy_Bas eline.pdf

Q: It is unclear as to how the Government arrived at the numbers for dollar amounts/Contracted Personnel on the Relevance Baseline chart. For example: A $5M total contract/Task Order value (either 3 years or 5 years period of performance) would mean either $1.6M or $1M annual revenue.

At a base salary of $50K average (this type work would demand this at a minimum) with a wrap rate of 1.7 the fully burdened rate would be $85K. $85K for 25 people = $2,125,000/year. At 3 years that’s $6,750,000 for labor alone notwithstanding plug numbers for Travel and Materials.

Similarly but even more unrealistic is the next higher category ay $7M (only $2M additional) the Government requires 50 People fort relevancy? Again, 50 people at a $50K salary with a

1.7 burden = $4,250,000 annual revenue (1 year). At 3 to 5 years the numbers are $12,750,000 and $21,250,000. Again without the plugs.

Additionally, at $5M or even $7M the requirement as stated for 3-5 or greater than 5 subs is extreme.

Please explain and clarify or please consider the above numbers as they appear unsupportable with respect to Small Businesses.

A: The PPRB is intended to be “read” by rows rather than columns. Criteria (rows) listed in the PPRB are independent of each other. As stated in Sect L, paragraph L.4.5.1.1, “No one relevancy criterion is more important than another when determining relevancy of a prime offeror effort, but rather all criterion are considered holistically in order to subjectively assess one overall relevancy rating...”.

56 M – Evaluation

Atch 07

Pg 56-57, Para M2.3.2

Attachment 7 – Past Performance Relevancy Baseline

Q: Section M includes a table that defines different levels of confidence based on an offeror’s Past Performance submissions.

Attachment 07 provides a matrix that defines different relevancy ratings of Past Performance. Could the Government please explain how the Relevancy ratings in Attachment 7 map to the Confidence levels in Section M?

A: IAW Section L4.1, an offerors’ past performance rating will be determined based on all PPI’s submitted and information obtained from other sources to determine the overall evaluation of past performance. This is ultimately a subjective evaluation which can only be based on each submission.

57 Sec L L2.4.1 Q: Because offeror must submit OCI disclosure forms for both itself and subcontractors for USSOCOM funded contracts or subcontracts at the TSOCs or COCOMs, can the government clarify whether each USSOCOM contract identified requires the completion of a disclosure form?

A: Yes. IAW the Instructions listed at the top of Atch 2 a disclosure form must be submitted for each USSOCOM contract or subcontract.

58 Sec L L1.9 Q: For the standalone document marked “Cross-Reference” can the government clarify whether a compliance matrix is required for all three Volumes (Administrative and Responsibility Material, IDIQ Management, and Past Performance volumes)?

A: The “Cross-Reference” document shall be comprehensive across all three volumes for the glossary, compliance matrix, and acronym list.

59 General General Q: At the Task Order (TO) level, will the Offeror be able to propose subcontractors not included in the base proposal? For example, if we determine that we need another subcontractor to fulfill TO requirements, can we onboard them onto our team?

A: Yes. Contract awardees will be able to include additional subcontractors at any time during the life of the

IDIQ.

60 L2 Administrative and responsibility Material

L2.3 Financial Capacity

Q: With regard to Section, would it be acceptable for the offeror to have a letter of commitment for the 1M LOC contingent on the award of the contract?

A: Yes, this is acceptable.

61 C - SOW Pg. 15, 6.0 IDIQ and Task Order Administration

Q: Is the IDIQ Program Manager (PM) required to be at Macdill?

A: No.

62 H – Special Contract Requirements

Pg. 25, Para H.2(a)

Q: Requiring that all contractors propose on a TO (in the event that three proposals are not received in response to a solicited requirement) can be prohibitive to Small Businesses with limited proposal resources. Can this requirement be removed?

A: No. This is a contingency measure only with the intent to ensure competition is received.

Note: This situation has not arisen under the current SWMS contracts. Adequate competition has been received. It is not expected to happen under SCS either, but the Government must be prepared for these contingencies.

63 L – Instructions

M – Evaluation

Pg 49, Para L2.6

Pg 55, Para M2.1.5

Q: Section L requires documentation (within 3 years) of the adequacy of a contractor’s accounting system to be submitted prior to contract award – or alternately, submission of the Pre-award Accounting System Checklist to DCAA prior to proposal due date, with an adequacy finding prior to contract award.

However, contractors cannot dictate to DCAA when to complete an audit or adequacy review. Can the Government either (a) remove the 3-year recency requirement for existing adequacy letters, or (b) remove the adequacy requirement prior to contract award if the Checklist is submitted in lieu of the DCAA letter?

A: No. The Government has confidence that there is sufficient time between the proposal submission date and the anticipated contract award date for DCAA to complete the pre-award audit, provided Offerors comply timely with DCAA requests.

NOTE: Offerors are encouraged to submit their checklist as early as possible in order to provide the greatest amount of time for DCAA to complete the audit. Offerors need not wait to submit the checklist with their proposals, but may submit at any time up to the proposal submission date.

64 L - Instructions Pg. 51, Para.

L4.2

Q: Instructions specify “Provide a summary describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture.” Does the Government require a past performance summary inclusive of all the Offeror’s subcontractors and team partners or only those for which past performance is submitted?

A: Only those for which past performance is submitted.

65 Attachment 04 – PP Info Sheet

Pg. 2, Para. 6. Q: When completing the response to the requirement “Describe in detail how your company past performance on this contract applies to the Relevancy Criteria identified in Section L.”

should an Offeror ensure that clear information is provided for each of the ten criteria listed for relevancy in Solicitation Attachment 7?

A: Yes.

66 Attachment 04 – PP Info Sheet

Pg. 2, Para. 2. Q: “For Government contracts, points of contacts may include Program Manager, Project/Task Manger, Contracting Officer and Administrative Contracting Office.” May a Government Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) serve as a point of contact?

A: Yes.

67 Section L Solicitation Page

47 Paragraph L1.3.3, Table L.1, Page 50, Paragraph L 3.2.1.2.

Q: Will the government consider excluding the three pages required for the key personnel resume?

A: The resume is already excluded from the IDIQ Management page count.

68 L-Instructions & M-Instructions

Pg. 48, Para.

L2.3 and Pg. 54, Para. M2.1.2

Q: Through no fault of USSOCOM, several SWMS TOs have lapsed in payment for a period of time, up to 60 days. Will the government mitigate this risk of contractors being able to fulfill obligations to pay employees and subcontractors while awaiting payment from the government by increasing the Financial Capacity requirement (letter of evidence of a line of credit) to $2M to ensure mission continuity?

A: The Government determined the LOC amount based on communications with Industry and Financial Institutions, in relation to the Government’s intent for this requirement. It was determined that a $1M LOC would be appropriate and will not be adjusted.

69 L - Instructions Pg. 50, Para.

L3.2.1.2

Q: The Government uses the plural in reference to Key Personnel in both paragraph L3.1.1.2 (“explain how the individuals fit within the offeror’s management structure.”) and in Table L.1 (“Plus Key Personnel resumes*”) however the solicitation only identifies a requirement to propose/submit one Key Personnel. SOW paragraph 6.0 (page 15-16) specifies the IDIQ PM and a Task Lead as Key Personnel but specifies the Task Lead as “identified only at the task order level”. 1. Does the submission of one resume for the IDIQ PM meet the compliance requirements for Key Personnel resumes? 2. In Section L3.2.1.2 when the Government specifies “Describe proposed Key Personnel who will be tasked with managing the overall contract for the offeror and explain how the individuals fit within the offeror’s management structure.”, is the Government using the term “Key Personnel” to refer to the Offeror’s internal key persons beyond the IDIQ PM such as our corporate management staff, contracts manager, security manager, etc.?

A: For IDIQ Management, the Government has stipulated ONLY the IDIQ PM as Key Personnel.

In the event that an Offeror determines they require additional Key Personnel to meet their proposed management approach, then the requirements listed in L.3.2.1.2 shall be met, and the Offeror shall provide a resume for those additional Offeror determined positions.

70 M-3 Basis for

Award Paragraph M3.2

Q: Paragraph M3.2 on Page 57 of the RFP stipulates that “Based on the evaluation factors listed, prime contracts will be awarded to all qualifying offerors that receive…. a Substantial confidence rating in Factor 2 – Past Performance.” However, there are 3 levels of past performance below Substantial including Satisfactory. Does this paragraph mean that all offerors meeting the first 2 criteria (Pass & Acceptable) and rate as Substantial will get an award and others who receive Satisfactory or even Limited might get an award if the government deems it in their best interest to have additional providers? Or does it mean that Past Performance is essentially a Pass/Fail criteria? How would this work with a rating of Unknown?

A: Awards will be made to offerors with a “Pass” in Vol I, an “Acceptable” in Vol II/Factor 1, and a “Substantial” in Vol III/Factor 2. There no intent to award to any Offeror who does not meet those specific criteria.

See updated Section M, Table M2.3. Rating descriptions updated to align with DoD Source Selection Guide, March 31, 2016.

As stated in Section M, para. M2.3.2, “A ‘Neutral Confidence’ rating is considered equivalent to a ‘Satisfactory’ rating, and will not be considered for award.”

71 General Question

Section I;

Clauses

Q: DFARS 252.204-7012 is included in the SCS RFP; do we have to be in full compliance with the requirements of that clause to bid on/win a SCS IDIQ or is it ok to simply be working on complying (estimated completion date TBD)?

A: Offeror’s are required to be in compliance with DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 upon submission of their proposal.

Currently, the Government requires nothing further than an affirmative statement provided in the proposal to confirm compliance. However, a contractor that is found to be non-compliant for any reason after contract award may be considered in breach of contract, and the affirmative statement provided with the proposal may be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding.

72 Attachment 07 SCS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline Table

Q: For Subcontract Past Performance, should “Diversity of Required Expertise/Volume of Subcontractors and teaming required” be Not Applicable? If not, how should this be rated for a Subcontract?

A: No. That criterion will be rated on the definitions provided, whether the cited past performance is for Prime or Subcontract performance.

73 Section L Solicitation Page

49, Section L 2.6 Q: Does the government require valid documentation of an adequate accounting system from each team member/subcontractor or just the prime contractor?

A: Documentation of an adequate accounting system is only required from the Prime.

74 C - SOW Pg. 16 Table 6.1.

Personnel Qualifications

Q: Per Table 6.1 (Personnel Qualifications), the IDIQ Program Manager is required to have: “Project Management Professional (PMP) or DAWIA Level III PM certification – OR – an additional 5 years’ (total of 10 years’) Program Management experience on a DoD Contract”.

If the additional 5 years’ Program Management experience on a DoD Contract was gained while in uniform (green-suit), does it satisfy this requirement?

A: Yes.

75 L – Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Bidders

Page 46, Para. L.1.2.1

OCI

Q: We understand “This includes all USSOCOM funded contracts or subcontracts, including those at the headquarters, components, and either the Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs) or the Geographic Combatant Commands (COCOMs)…..” means USSOCOM HQ funded contracts, not all contracts funded to the Components by MFP 11 funds through the POM process. Please confirm this understanding.

A: This statement in Section L1.2.1 covers ALL MFP 11 funded contracts, to include all TSOCs and Components.

76 L2.3 Page 48;

Financial Capacity

Q: Will the government accept a written statement from the offeror’s banking institution indicating that they have $1M or more in operating cash in lieu of a $1M line of credit?

Q: Will the government accept a copy of our term sheet from our bank as proof of meeting this requirement?

Q: Will the positive results of a DCAA Financial Capability Audit be acceptable in lieu of a Letter of evidence to a line of credit for at least $1M to establish financial capacity?

Q: Will a year end Income-Expense Statement that shows a “Net Income” of at least $1M be acceptable in lieu of a Letter of evidence to a line of credit for at least $1M to establish financial capacity?

Q: Will a bank statement that shows a balance of at least $1M be acceptable in lieu of a Letter of evidence to a line of credit for at least $1M to establish financial capacity?

Q: Will a Balance Sheet that shows a balance of at least $1M in company equity be acceptable in lieu of a Letter of evidence to a line of credit for at least $1M to establish financial capacity?

Q: Can an offeror submit a Line of Credit plus business savings account bank balance that equals or exceeds $1M?

Q: Would a Letter of evidence to having more than $1M in available cash or equivalent assets substitute for a Letter of evidence to a line of credit?

A: The overall objective of this requirement is to ensure that the contractor will have the financial capability to support certain contract circumstances, primarily delays in payment from DFAS which occur often, may be delayed for 2-3 months, and may put a strain on a small business.

An offeror who provides proof they have had a minimum of $1M in funding on hand for a full year, in any form, will have met the LOC requirement. Offerors who cannot show a full year of maintaining $1M in funds available, shall provide a $1M LOC.

77 General

Question N/A Q: Will the Government be including tax clauses in follow on

Task Order Requests, such as 52.229-6 Taxes—Foreign Fixed- Price Contracts?

Q: Please identify what SOFA status and any associated logistics privileges will be afforded Contractors working in Germany, Japan, and the U.K.?

Q: Will the Government advise what taxes the Contractor may be exempt from in performing this contract if the Contractor meets certain criteria (e.g., TCSA in GE)?

Q: Does the government anticipate including SOFA Japan and DOCPER Germany requirements for follow-on Task Orders?

Q: Does the Government consider HOLA, COLA, locality, hazardous duty pay, and DoDDS required elements of a total compensation plan?

Q: The SOW states that Contractor team individual(s) supporting this task shall be cleared at the SECRET level at the start of the task. Does Contract team individual(s) include independent contractor(s) such as language instructors and translators to provide Education and Training Services stated in

SOW 5.1?

Q: Television/Broad Band Network Support – For the production efforts, are these services required downrange/in-country with SOCOM personnel, or are the destined to be in U.S (CONUS) production facilities with SOCOM advisors?

Q: This section states that physical security services will be required. Please elaborate on what type(s) of physical security services will be required.

Q: The Government states that the contractor will “provide translation services via native speakers.”

Will there be an opportunity for technology insertion in this area to improve the efficiency of the operation?

Q: Are the data models based on the common object data model or are there other data models that need to be supported?

Q: Will this support be administrative or HQ support or will contractor employees be performing these functions (such as HUMINT) in the field?

A: These are examples of task order specific questions that can only be answered at the release of a TO RFP.

The IDIQ SOW is intentionally broad in order to allow for support of unknown future requirements which may fit into the wide-ranging areas in SOW Sections 5.1 – 5.6. The Government cannot anticipate whether any of the above circumstances maybe required, nor can it provide further detail into the types of future requirements that may arise.

Offerors are encouraged to propose capability based on the SOW numbered sections in order meet IDIQ contract requirements.