DRAFT_RFP_Comment_Matrix_Master_22MAY2024.pdf

Document (select from drop-down)

Section or Page #

Comment Answer

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.3.1 & L.3.1.2

L.3.1 identifies full operational responsibility within 90 days from contract award… L.3.1.2 states 90 days from contract period of performance start date. Will the government please clarify if the 90 day transition starts on the base contract period performance and NOT on the contract award date?

This intends to be updated upon Final RFP to performance start.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.1

As discussed during the 1-on-1 session, we respectfully request a re-evaluation of the following re: the TM key personnel position. On page 3, Section 4.1 states, "The Transition Manager is a 0.5 FTE requirement during the base year only." Since the Transition must be completed in 90 days and will require complete focus on the transition execution in cooperation with the PM, DPM and Government, we believe a better approach would be to make the TM position a fully funded FTE for the period of the Transition. In order to appropriately plan and prepare, we recommend the Government make the TM position 1 FTE for 105 days.

This intends to be updated upon Final RFP for clarity. The TM will be a fully funded FTE for 126 working days from the contract award.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.1.a - Required

The Government is requiring the TM to have experience transitioning a 'large-scale' program of no less than 100 personnel. We respectfully suggest that a program of 100 personnel is not large-scale. Since the Transition Plan is the highest rated evaluation factor, we strongly believe the TM should have demonstrated experience greater than or equal to the size of the ISSJ-II contract. Furthermore, we believe the government should require the TM to have at managed at least 2 transitions of at least 250 people for USG customers. As a baseline required qualification, we believe this is much more in line with experience needed for the #1 evaluation criteria.

The requirement will stay as is.

H92402-24-R-0001 DRAFT RFP Comment Matrix

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.1.a - Required

Highly experienced Transition Managers often have managed a wide variety of contract transitions across a diverse USG customer base.

These TMs are highly specialized experts in every aspect of transition planning and execution - from unclassified to highly-classified, CONUS to OCONUS and often involving very large workforces. We recognize and agree with SP that the transition plan is the #1 evaluation criteria.

We respectfully request that SP reconsider making the following TM experience criteria 'required.' (U) Minimum three (3) years’ USSOCOM or JSOTF intelligence experience at the Operational Level of Warfare

(U) Project Management Professional (PMP) or Program Management Professional (PgMP) certification. Naturally, the PM and DPM qualifications should include operational experience, but we strongly believe the TM brings a different skill-set to the contract and should work closely with the PM, DPM and SP COR/PM/staff to execute the transition.

The USG will consider your recommendations.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

7.0

On pages 31 and 32, there is a discussion of the SV process. In fact, an "SV Board" is mentioned twice, but no specific information is provided about the composition, guidelines or specific process executed by the Board. Will the Government provide more information about the "SV Board" members, roles, responsibilities and organizational process(es) related to staff vetting and approval.

The Government will consider your suggestion for the Final RFP.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.6

During the Industry Day, Mr. Santoy spoke about the SV process and stated that, "customers change LCATS all the time based on operational need." Given the changing nature of LCAT requirements, we strongly recommend a T&M or Cost-type contract vs. a Fixed Price contract type.

The USG is considering a CPFF contract type.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

Sections 4.9.d & 4.9.e

OSINT/PAI Language Enabled Analysts. Which language capability technologies are currently utilized by the customer, if any?

Additionally, is the customer receptive to exploring the integration of technology for language-specific analysis purposes?

The customer does not want to hard code a billet to a particular Language. Generally speaking the languages are Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, Russian and varied African Dialect.

Depending on the Operational environment. Additionally the customer is not exploring the integration of technology for language-specific analysis purposes on this contract.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.20, page 26 Is the customer open to the possibility of utilizing specialized Mobile Training Teams to support positions in 4.20, and other training requirements?

No.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

15.6, page 38 Is the customer receptive to utilizing an online dashboard instead of an Excel format for fulfilling the Daily Manning Report requirement in section 15.6?

As long as the information can be exported from the dashboard for the customer to pull for various Leadership RFIs. Additionally locations would need to be either Unclass or the dash board would need to be located on our SECRET level Network.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work page 31-23 For the Government Skills Verification, will time spent waiting for government confirmation count against offerors transition timeline?

No.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

We recommend adding a signature reduction team (3-4 individuals) to the HQs element to protect mission and personnel. This is a hot button issue across DoD and the IC.

We will revisit this topic with the customer.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.1.7 Proposal Format: Would the government consider choosing Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for submission of the proposal?

No.

Attach 4b - Past and Presen FTE REQ

Would the government consider changing the 200+ FTE count to “contract personnel” instead? We currently execute large contracts that include recruiting, onboarding, processing security clearances, managing, paying, etc. almost 300 personnel who are not considered FTEs. We would argue that this level of work would be beneficial and worth considering if the government is looking for a company capable of effectively managing that many personnel.

No.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen Section 4 Would the government consider providing a dedicated security manager? This will allow Industry to more efficiently onboard personnel and mitigate any potential negative impact to mission.

The USG will consider. The intent is to dedicate USG time to the onboarding process.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MGeneral

Would the government consider adding rates and progression through the LCATs (journeyman, mid, expert, etc.), and should industry use Expert instead of Senior for Pricing? We recommend ensuring LCAT-level terminology mirrors industry standard (SME vs Expert vs Journeyman – Senior not even listed)

The requirement will stay as is.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen Section 3

How much time can industry expect between shifting from different global mission priorities? This will allow industry to better prepare and negate possible negative impact to mission requirements when flexing between dynamic global mission priorities (CENTCOM AOR vs.

AFRICOM vs. INDOPACOM)

Vendors will get ample of time to prepare and execute.

Attach 4c- Letter of Comm General

Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel. How is the Government going to enforce these given “Right to work Labor Laws” and the length of time from signing these letters and Award to include the likelihood of Protest could exceed 6+ months. Unless these personnel are incumbents on the current contract, they may find other employment.

In accordance with SOFARS 5652.237-9001, should an offeror obtain actual knowledge of a change in material aspects of its key personnel, it must notify the agency. It may impact combined technical risk ratings.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen Section 4 Would the government consider moving the PMP and PgMP from PM/DPM "requirements" to "desired"?

No.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.1.7 C-F

A page is defined in C. as "one 8.5 x 11-inch paper…" then in F. it says …11x17 pages shall count as one page toward limit count" - Can the government please clarify if 11x17's count as one page in all volumes of the proposal?

This section will be updated upon Final RFP. This will read "A maximum of six (6) 11 x 17 pages for the Transition Plan/Management Volumes combined will be permitted. 11 x 17 pages shall count as one page towards the page limit count described in Section L.1.8. 11 x 17 pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for additional pages of text. For 11 x 17 pages, tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than equivalent to Microsoft Word 8 point, Times New Roman with single spacing permitted. Proposal volumes shall not be supplemented by a package or reference documents." .

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.1.7 F.

Can the government please clarify - section F. "A maximum of (10) 11x17 pages for the Transition Plan/Management Plan Volumes…" Is this 10 pages for EACH volume or total in Volumes 2 & Volume 3?

This section will be updated upon Final RFP. This will read "A maximum of six (6) 11 x 17 pages for the Transition Plan/Management Volumes combined will be permitted. 11 x 17 pages shall count as one page towards the page limit count described in Section L.1.8. 11 x 17 pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for additional pages of text. For 11 x 17 pages, tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than equivalent to Microsoft Word 8 point, Times New Roman with single spacing permitted. Proposal volumes shall not be supplemented by a package or reference documents." .

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.4.3 Would the government prefer the System Security Plan as an additional attachment? Or a summary of the plan in the written volume?

Further guidance will be provided upon Final RFP.

Attach 5 - DRAFT Section MM.3.1 Will the government please clarify that Full Contractual Responsibility starts after the Period of Performance start date and NOT 90 days after award?

The USG allows up to 90 days after the period of performance date for transition between incumbent and awardee. However, the USG will hold the awardee to the transition plan indicated in their proposal.

Attach 5 - DRAFT Section MM.4.1 Please clarify if the government is seeking an 80% fill rate or a 90% fill rate as stated in Section L. 4.1

Clarification will be provided upon Final RFP.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.1 and 4.2

We request the Government provide more clarity regarding how KP qualifications will be evaluated. Currently, the DRFP identifies 'Required' and 'Desired' qualifications. Section M.4.2.2, however, states that, "The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Transition Manager’s resume an underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment J-1, Statement of Work. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Transition Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications. What constitutes minimum qualifications? 'Required' quals? 'Desired' quals? Or, both? We recommend the Government clearly delineate 'Minimum' KP qualifications for the TM, PM and DPM so that bidders may know where a KP exceeds these minimum qualifications.

The intent is to update wording in M to reflect required qualifications in Final RFP.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.1.8 and L.3

The Government is requiring comprehensive and very detailed information in the Transition plan. Section L identifies 5 distinct parts of the Plan with multiple sub-elements that must be addressed in detail. We respectfully request a page limit increase from 12 to 15 pages in order to appropriately address all the transition plan elements/requirements.

The page limit will stay as 12 pages.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.2.5

L.2.5 Cybersecurity Compliance. The Prime Offeror shall have, for itself AND its subcontractors, a minimum Basic Confidence Level score of 110 in the Supply Risk Performance System (SPRS) NIST SP 800-171 Assessment at time of proposal submission. Any team composed of small SDVOSBs will, at best, be at a massive disadvantage and most likely will be completely non-viable based on the fact that many young SBs are not SPRS compliant. Will SP consider giving SBs with a minimum number of employees (Ex: <20) an extended period of time to become compliant with SPRS?

No.

L.2.5 Will SP require a print-out from the SPRS system to prove compliance?

If so, where do these printouts go? In the SSP as part of the Management Volume? Will they be page limited?

A print-out from the SPRS system is acceptable. This will be required for the 110 NIST score in the Qualifying criteria Volume. No page limit in Qualifying criteria.

Attach 5 - DRAFT Section M

SECTION M-Table 3.

Technical Rating Evaluation Terms

We believe the definitions provided for "Significant Strength" and "Strength" are significantly lacking in objective specificity relative to the PWS (LCATS) and Section L (Volume/Plan elements and sub-elements). Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance. Will the Government provide definitions of merit? Will the Government provide more clarity in Section M narrative relative to requirements in each Volume that it views as specified performance and capability requirements (ordered or ranked elements and sub-elements).

The definitions for Significant Strength and Strength are the same as the DoD Source Selection Procedures (2022).

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.15 thru 4.25.a Notably, positions from 4.15 through 4.25.a lack location details. Will the Government provide these in the Final RFP?

General locations are listed in the SOW 3.0 Place of Performance and Pricing Matrix. Specific locations are classified and will be given at competitive range.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

There aren't many computers still around that will burn CDs. Would the government please consider an alternative secure electronic method for proposal submissions (Ex: DoD SAFE upload)?

CD proposal submission remains as the method for submission.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen General

Can the government let industry know what Task Orders will be exercised/awarded on Day 1? This will allow Industry to better prepare and mitigate any potential negative impact to mission, all but ensuring a seamless transition to be captured in our Transition Plan

The intent is to award four task orders for our four groups the same day that we award the

IDIQ.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MGeneral

Would the government provide an independent cost estimate with a range of where they want people to be at. We recommend this be added to the example Task Order and that the government consider this opportunity to be a FFP

The USG will not provide the IGCE.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MGeneral Even though this will be the third (3rd) iteration of this contract does the government plan to conduct an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) given the scope changes?

Yes.

Attach 2 - DRAFT DD254 N/A

DD 254: For SDVOSB’s bidding on ISSJ-III who currently have a TS FCL without SECRET safeguarding, would SOCOM consider releasing a draft DD 254 to industry so that all interested SDVOSB companies can request a DCSA inspection for safeguarding during the bid process?

Without the DD 254, SDVOSBs with relevant experience who desire to support the Command will not be able to receive DCSA certification and meet the SECRET safeguarding deadline by contract award.

The USG will consider releasing a DRAFT DD254 with redacted information. However, the Solicitation DD254 is classified and will only be released to those in the competitive range.

Attach 4b - Past and Presen Sheet 1, Column A

RE: Past Performance Relevancy Matrix; (This Contract or Task Order required 100 FTEs or Greater) a.

Are cumulative task Orders on an IDIQ MAC relevant?

b. Would the Government consider changing the 200+ FTE count to “personnel” instead?

a. No. b. No

Attach 4b - Past and Presen Sheet 1

For the PP relevancy matrix, will the Government consider developing an objective rubric, that is transparent to offerors, for the scoring of the relevance rating in Section L.5.5? For example, achieving VR on 6 of 8 criteria and R on 2 of 8 = VR overall; achieving VR on 3 of 8 criteria and R on 5 of 8 = R overall, etc? We believe this would help the Government reduce incidence of protest if it were clear that the ratings applied to PP references were applied objectively and consistently as the Government arrives at the overall Confidence Rating. This could always be modified for any information that the Government discovers as part of its own diligence research.

The Government will consider your suggestion for the Final RFP.

Attach 5 - DRAFT Section MPages 1-3

To ensure best value would the Government consider an evaluation process that: a. First Evaluates Transition/Management/PP

b. Then the vendors in the competitive range go to Orals

c. Then after selection of top three from Oral’s evaluation then the cost is evaluated This process of first evaluating the vendors technical and evaluating cost last would ensure Best Value and subsequently should improve contractor performance (i.e., lower risk, improve fill rate, and reduce turnover) during PoP.

The USG will consider this strategy.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

What is intent for the Transition Manager (TM) 100+ staffing contract transition, and (8) or more years’ USSOCOM or JSOTF experience requirement? The most important thing about the TM is where in the corporate hierarchy the TM resides, and the ability to leverage the totality of corporate resources toward the problem set of transition, without the delay of having to ask permission from corporate leadership. We recommend the 8 years' experience qualification be removed and that the individual’s qualifications and positioning/authority within the company be reviewed holistically as part of the transition plan writeup. A company that can commit a KMP to this task should be viewed more favorably than a company who hires externally to meet the qualification requirement but for which the individual has no real depth of understanding of the company’s capabilities nor ability to independently commit corporate resources without seeking approval from higher management.

The TM qualifications intends to be updated upon final RFP. The USG will consider your recommendation.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen Pages 4-5 Would the government consider an equivalency to the PMP requirement for the DPM and PC’s (i.e., 5 years managing SOF)?

The USG will consider your recommendations for the PC's only.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen Pages 4-5

For the PM/DPM/PC quals, the DAWIA certification is listed as a “desired” but the purpose of the DAWIA cert overlaps with the commercially-acquired PMP. Would the Government revise this so in the qualifications listing it is an either/or requirement, not one required and one desired?

The USG will consider your recommendations.

Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix

Sheet 1

Is it desirable to the Government for a competitive SDVOSB to have an “Anchor” known large business with extensive JIOC experience and / or SOF experience on their team in order to provide confidence of execution especially OCONUS?

For past performance, we intend to evaluate each past performance information sheet submitted first for recency (3 years or less) then second for relevancy. We intend to use the Relevancy Matrix Attach 4b (this Matrix will have updates on Final RFP) for the relevancy determination. After each past performance information sheet is evaluated, we will assign a confidence rating which is a holistic view of all past performance submitted

Attach 4b - Past and Presen Sheet 1

Will an offeror be prejudiced in confidence rating if it adds more than the required minimum number of citations, and includes programs that are less relevant to the ISSJ III requirement (but which show additional depth across the SOW areas)? Put another way, would offerors risk degrading their overall confidence rating by adding the additional references (beyond the minimum) that might be evaluated as less relevant?

Only submit Past Performance Information that is relevant to this requirement.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MTEP Sheet Given the scope changes to the ISSJ contract does the government plan to conduct an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and provide that information to offerors?

The government intends to conduct a IGCE but will not provide the information to offerors.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L Page 8

RE: Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel. How is the Government going to enforce these given “Right to work Labor Laws” and the length of time from signing these letters and Award to include the likelihood of Protest could exceed 6+ months. Unless these folks are incumbents on the current contract, they may find other employment.

In accordance with SOFARS 5652.237-9001, should an offeror obtain actual knowledge of a change in material aspects of its key personnel, it must notify the agency. It may impact combined technical risk ratings.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.2.2.

Can the government please confirm if it would be sufficient for one of the major subcontractors (who are expected to deliver at least 20% of the work) to have an FCL at the TOP SECRET level and safeguarding at the SECRET level, or if the requirement is for the SDVOSB prime to have the FCL and safeguarding in place upon submission of the proposal. Similarly, for a JV, do all JV partners have to have an FCL at the TOP SECRET level and safeguarding at the SECRET level, or is it sufficient if one of them does?

The requirement is for the PRIME contractor to have the TS FCL and approved Secret safeguarding. For proposal purposes, one member of the JV can have TS FCL and approved safeguarding. If selected as the awardee, SOCOM will sponsor the JV so that the JV itself will have the TS FSL and approved Safeguarding.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.2.5; L.4.3

L.2.5 States offeror and subs must have a minimum Basic Confidence Level score of 110 in SPRS NIST SP 800-171 Assessment at time of submission and L.4.3 states offeror shall submit a SSP and any associated Plans of Actions developed to satisfy the adequate security requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012. Additionally, the SSP and associated plans must align with NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171.

Comment: A 110 assessment score is not achievable if you have an assessment with Plan of Actions. Need clarification. Most companies will have an assessment score within SPRS of less than 110 if they are still working off POAM actions.

The USG will look at updated wording in L.4.3 to better clarify your concern for Final RFP.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen 4.2.1.a

It is expected that the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager requirements identified by the Government will provide a limited candidate pool where key personnel are largely shared across multiple bids. With the required years (10 plus) and specificity of experience (USSOCOM, JSOFT, DoD or equivalent), would the Government consider the following:

1) Removing the requirement for a PMP and/or PgMP in total.

2) Moving the requirement to Desired and identifying how Desired requirements are weighted for evaluation. Is a Master's degree equal to a PMP or PgmP?

The requirement will stay as is.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen 4.1.a

It is expected that the Transition Manager PMP and/pr PgMP requirement identified by the Government will limit its access to high quality candidates that have successfully executed large transitions and are skilled Program Manager but remain uncertified. We assume the Government would appreciate demonstrated experience vs. lessor experience and a certificate. Would the Government consider the following:

1) Removing the requirement for a PMP and/or PgMP in total.

2) Moving the requirement to Desired and identifying how Desired requirements are weighted for evaluation. Is a Transition of XXX+ staff program equal or of greater value to a PMP or PgmP?

The requirement will stay as is.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen 4.1.a

Will the Government consider moving the 3 years' USSOCOM or JSOTF intelligence experience at the Operational Level of Warfare to Desired to improve the candidate pool for the Transition and identify the weighting for the Desired requirements?

The USG will consider your recommendation.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MInstructions Tab

On the Indirect Rate Sheet Tab Instructions states “Offeror shall provide five years of historical indirect rates”, while Indirect Rates Tab request Four (4) years of historical actual pools and bases. Please clarify which is required.

Clarification will be provided upon final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MRate Card Tab OSINT/PAI Targeting Analyst (Language Enabled) – Journeyman is missing Location designation. Should there be a designation for this position? Please clarify

Clarification will be provided upon final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M4.2.1.a

Years of Experience for Program Manager shows 7 years as the requirement vice 10 years stated in SOW 4.2.1.a. Assume that it should be stated in SOW. Tab also shows "Five (10) or more years of managerial experience in the Requirement-assume it should be Ten.

Similar issue with Deputy Program Manager (Five/Ten). Pleas clarify.

The USG will revisit and provide clarification in final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M Task Order 1, 2, 3, 4 and SAMPLE OCONUS TASK tabs

VLOOKUP is incorrect for columns Year 1 FBLR – Year 5 FBLR. It does not account for the hidden column A when pulling the rate from the Rate Card tab.

The USG will revisit formulas to ensure that it is correct for final RFP.

Pg. 6, L.2.3

Currently the NAICS code identified in the draft RFP is NAICS 541990 (Size Standard: $19.5M as of March 2023). Would the government consider changing the NAICS to a larger size standard such as 541611 (Size Standard: 24.5M) in order to allow a broader range of SDVOSB's to be eligible to compete?

The USG does not select a NAICS code based on its size standard. The KO determined 541990 to be most appropriate for this action and has documented rationale.

Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix

Size and Magnitude For the size of Task Order is this cumulative experience for the team or for the prime only? For example in row 4, should the 100 FTEs or greater be for the prime or cumulative experience within the team?

The 100 FTE is per individual past performance information sheet. The USG will give a relevancy rating to each past performance submitted that is considered to be recent.

However, the Confidence rating will be a holistic view of all past performance submitted.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.1.7.f, pg 4

This section states that "A maximum of ten (10) 11 x 17 pages for the Transition Plan/Management Plan Volumes will be permitted. 11 x 17 pages shall count as one page towards the page limit count described in Section L.1.7."

Please confirm that this means offerors get 10, 11x17 pages for the Transition volume, and 10, 11x17 pages for the Management volume.

This section will be updated upon Final RFP. This will read "A maximum of six (6) 11 x 17 pages for the Transition Plan/Management Volumes combined will be permitted. 11 x 17 pages shall count as one page towards the page limit count described in Section L.1.8. 11 x 17 pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for additional pages of text. For 11 x 17 pages, tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than equivalent to Microsoft Word 8 point, Times New Roman with single spacing permitted. Proposal volumes shall not be supplemented by a package or reference documents." .

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.5.4, pg 10

This section states that " Prime Offerors shall include a Letter of Intent, in the Offeror's format, for those subcontractor/teaming partners/joint ventures in which they are submitting past performance information sheets."

What intent should be communicated in these letters?

The intent that should be communicated in the letter of intent is that the subcontractor will join the prime as a subcontractor.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen Section 4.2.1.a

Recommendation: We recommend that the government consider increasing the minimum years of experience for the PM and DPM to 20 years. This aligns with the industry standard for senior level managers with the experience and expertise to manage a transregional program of this size and complexity.

The USG will consider your recommendations.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.1.8, pg 5

Recommendation: We recommend the Government increase the page limits for Key Personnel (KP) resumes from 2 pages per resume to 3 pages per resume. This will give offerors space to better describe their proposed KPs' depth and breadth of relevant experience.

No.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L General

Recommendation: We recommend the Government include Oral Presentations as part of the offeror selection and evaluation process.

Scenario-based Oral Presentations will give the Government an opportunity to perform a Skills Verification (SV) on offerors in the competitive range, similar to how SVs are required for contract support personnel. It also gives offerors an opportunity to prove their ability to support the contract, as they can exhibit their financial stability, their key personnel's individual expertise and experience, their ability to work together under pressure.

The USG will consider your recommendations.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L General

Recommendation: We recommend the Government include the requirement for offerors to show an ability to obtain adequate certified documentation that demonstrates a sufficient line of credit or reserved liquid capital of at least 25% of the base year.

This will act as objective proof of an offeror's financial maturity and creditworthiness, and help mitigate risk to the transition process.

The USG is considering adding a line of credit of 25% of the base year as a qualifying criteria.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L General

Recommendation: We recommend the Government require offerors to show proof of CMMI Level 3 certification in addition to the 110 SPRS score. The SPRS score is a self-assessment that any company can claim, but the CMMI is independently audited, so it is objective proof of a vendor's security processes.

The USG will consider your recommendation.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statement of Work

4.2.1a , page 4 of 47 and M.4.2.3 and M.4.2.4, page 6 of 9

Key personnel required qualification for the PM and DPM: Ten (10) or more years of managerial experience within USSOCOM, JSOTF, or other DoD or equivalent Government agencies. Would the Government consider military and civilian experience in intelligence leadership roles toward meeting this criteria?

The USG will revisit the PM and DPM qualifications for final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing Matrix

SAMPLE OCONUS TASK

In the instruction, the Government is asking for 6-month TDY to IRAQ.

However, the “SAMPLE OCONUS TASK” tab is populating cost for 6 months in year 1 and full year support in the out years. Will the Government adjust the “SAMPLE OCONUS TASK” tab to align with the instructions?

The USG will revisit the populating totals to ensure that it is correct for final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing Matrix

SAMPLE OCONUS TASK

tab, Task order 1-4 tabs

Column F (Year 1 FBLR) is pulling the “Unburdened Direct Labor Rate” instead of FBLR rate from the “Rate Card” tab. Also, Year 2-5 (Columns G-J) are pulling the wrong FBLR rates from the “Rate Card” tab. Will the Government adjust the VLOOKUP formula in column F-J to bring in the correct rates from the “Rate Card” tab?

The USG will revisit the lookup formula to ensure that it is correct for final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing Matrix

Task order 1 tab Will the Government correct the formula in Column K "Year 1 Cost" to calculate the cost?

The USG will revisit formulas to ensure that it is correct for final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing Matrix

Task order 1 tab Will the Government correct the formula in row 56 "Group A Labor Total" to calculate the correct total cost? Current formula does not include costs from rows 3-13.

The USG will revisit formulas to ensure that it is correct for final RFP.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing Matrix

Rate Card Instruction Tab

Is it the Government’s intent to use the GS Equivalent provided as the minimum salary for realism test and to ensure qualified personnel can be hired/retained? Currently, the offeror has the option to substitute this minimum rate with other rates found in salary surveys, such as ERI or Salary.com.

The intent is to use the GS Equivalents as the floor. However, due to the considered change to CPFF our pricing strategy will also change.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.4.1 Element 1 / page 7 of 11

Management Plan: Will the Government consider adding a statement to allow or encourage any innovation that may allow for the contractor to enhance operational performance and assist in reducing turnover?

No.

Sec L 5.2 bottom pg 8 top of pg 9 0f 11

Security Classification of past performance: Some past performance is at Agencies that are very hesitant to release past performance or submit past performance at a CUI level.

Will the Government allow for a classified transmission of past performance from an Agency to USSOCOM?

We are only accepting Unclassified Past Performance.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.2.6, page 7 of 11 and L.6.3.1, pages 12 of 11

Defense Base Act Coverage and Defense Base Act Insurance - Request confirmation that only a Quote for this is required at time of proposal submission.

A quote is all that is required for the DBA Qualifying Criteria.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.5.3, page 9 of 11 Recency: Would the Government consider increasing the recency from 3 to 5 years?

No.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.5.3, page 9 of 11 What constitutes a key subcontractor? A sub who is expected to perform +20% of the work?

Yes. A key subcontractor is expected to perform +20% of work.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.5., Past Performance Information Sheets, pg.

This section states that a minimum of one Past and Present Information Sheet(s) shall be submitted for EACH subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture. However, this Section also states that Prime Offerors shall only submit past performance information sheets on subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture that are expected to perform +20% of the work.

Please clarify that past performance sheets are only required for subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture that are expected to perform +20% of the work.

Past performance will be updated. Each member of the JV needs to provide a past performance sheet. Only subcontractors expected for perform +20% of the work will need to submit a past performance sheet.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.5., Past Performance Information Sheets, pg.

Reference of sub and JV partners should not be considered the same;

all JVs should be considered prime references per the Federal Register Section 868 added a new section 15(e)(5) to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 644(e)(5)S "The small business must: (i) identify to the contracting officer the joint venture of which the small business was a member; (ii) specify the contract(s) of the joint venture the small business elects to use; and (iii) inform the contracting officer what duties and responsibilities the small business carried out as part of the joint venture. In turn, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance of the joint venture when evaluating the past performance of the small business concern, giving due consideration to the information submitted about the duties and responsibilities that the small business carried out."

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-15622/p-7 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section- 125.11

Will the Contracting officer consider the entirety of the JV's Past Performance as prime references given the Federal Register's direction and Codified in the Code of Federal Regulations?

Past performance will be updated. Each member of the JV needs to provide a past performance sheet and will be included as part of the prime offeror.

L.2.4 Acceptable Accounting System

This section states that the Prime Offeror and their subcontractors shall provide valid accounting system documentation at the time of initial proposal submission.

Would the Government consider revising this language to state "The Prime Offeror shall provide valid documentation at the time of initial proposal submission...." (removing "and their subcontractors")?

No, the subcontractors will need to have acceptable accounting systems.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

L.6.3 Total Evaluated Price, page 12 of 11

Question: Will the Government consider giving Industry a floor and ceiling for pricing?

The intent of the GS equivalencies is the floor. However, the USG is considering switching to a CPFF contract type so the pricing matrix will need to be updated to reflect the change and our pricing strategy may change.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

Section L 2.4 pg 6 of 11 Page #

Acceptable Accounting System: Our company has requested audits in the past and essential been told by DCAA, "we were in the queue."

We have been informed that DCAA is roughly 10 years behind in audits.

Will the Government consider removing the DCAA Acceptable Accounting system requirement for subcontractors for this RFP?

The DCAA audit is a pre-award audit. This should not take 10 years. If you get a response from DCAA that says this, please forward the email to the KO team.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

Section L.2.3 Will the Government require all SDVOSBs to produce a letter from the SBA as proof as a Certified SDVOSB at time of proposal submittal?

The prime will need to provide proof of SDVOSB status via SAM at proposal submittal.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L

Section L.1.8 Will the Government considering updating the resume page limit from 2 to 3 pages per resume to properly address the number of required and desired qualifications?

No.

Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix

Size and Magnitude Will the Government consider eliminating the number of FTE count for relevancy for the SDVOSB participant?

No.

Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix

Size and Magnitude

Given that some Past and Present experience will only cover a couple of disciplines (e.g.; HUMINT, SIGINT, etc.) as they are for specific customers, would the Government consider all Performance references collectively to develop the relevancy score?

The past performance relevancy matrix plans to be updated. A relevancy rating will be established for each PPIS. However, the confidence rating will be a holistic view of all past performance provided.

Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix

Scope

In the Scope section, specifically "Contract in Support of specific customers," would the Government consider other non-attributable intelligence work for the US Government such as support of SOF, TSOCs, or Components, as Very Relevant? These mission sets have similar environments and constraints.

The in-support of column does state SOF, TSOCs or Components as Very Relevant.

Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix

Sub-Contracting

It appears that if a prime contractor has no subcontractors executing on the Past and Present Experience reference, they will receive a Not Relevant rating. If the Government is planning on some summation of relevancy factors, a prime should not be penalized for having a strong workforce to execute without subcontractors.

How will the Government evaluate a contract where the Prime is able to successfully execute without the use of subcontractors?

The government will revisit "Experience managing sub-contractors, (Prime evaluated)" on the past performance relevancy matrix.

Attach 5 - DRAFT Section M

M 2.5 page 5 or 9

Incorporation of security clearance tracking and monitoring. The draft RFP references NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171 alignment. The NIST guidelines (rev 2) are recommendations and do offer guidelines.

Section 3 of this publication addresses these requirements.

Given that the NIST are recommendations and not mandated compliance, how or what are the evaluating factors that will address this requirement?

DFARs 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DEVIATION 2024-O001) requires contractors handling CUI to be subject to the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171, Revision 2. The USG will consider adding further information in the final RFP for clarity.

DRAFT SF 33 - Solicitation

H92402.52.215-9Z03

LOW FILL RATE

DISINCENTIVE (MAR

2024)

Would the Government provide historical information on fill rates for the current program?

As the USG is considering switching to a CPFF model, this H clause would be deleted. If the contract stays as LH we will consider concerns.

DRAFT SF 33 - Solicitation 52.216-1 Type of Contract, page 15 of 30

To discourage the submission of unrealistically low price offers, would the Government consider utilizing a cost plus (CPFF or CPAF) type contract for labor with the inclusion of a required Compensation Plan, FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employes ?

This would encourage a true Best Value Evaluation.

The USG is considering changing contract type to CPFF. As for clause 52.222-46, the preponderance of the FTEs on this solicitation do not meet the definition of "professional employee" so that clause will not be entered into the solicitation. However, we are asking in the draft pricing matrix to provide the base compensation and the rate build up so that the USG can evaluate.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen 4.1.a; Page 4

The Government lists a PMP or PgMP as a requirement for the transition manager. Would the Government accept more than 20 years of USSOCOM and customer specific experience as well as experience transitioning large contracts in lieu of the certification?

While a certification can provide the Government some measure of comfort, specific customer experience transitioning similar contracts can be more applicable.

The requirement will stay as is.

Attach 1 - DRAFT Statemen 4.20.a and 4.20.b; Page

4.20.a and 4.20.b have the same LCAT title, Intelligence Standards and Training (IST) Specialist, but different qualifications. Can the Government please clarify the different name of these positions?

Final SOW will be updated to change 4.20.b to 4.20.a.1.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M "Rate Card" & "Task Order" 1-4

4.20b, Intelligence Standards and Training (IST) Specialist, is not listed in the Rate Card nor the Task Order "1-4" sheets.

Please review again. It is on line 40 under Task Order 1 and Line 43 under the rate card tab.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MTask Order 1 Tab

Column F is pulling the direct labor rate instead of the Fully Burdened Rate from the rate card. Additionally Columns "G", "H", "I" and "J" are also pulling from the incorrect cells on the rate card. Would the government consider correcting the formula within this sheet to ensure accurate calculations?

The USG will revisit and make sure that the formulas are correct for Final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MTask Order 1 Tab Column K formula for Year 1 cost is incorrect. Would the government consider revising this formula to ensure accurate calculation of Year 1 cost?

The USG will revisit and ensure that the formulas are correct for Final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M "Rate Card" & "Task Order" 1-4

In the "Rate Card" sheet for Captured Enemy Material Intelligence Analyst – Expert, the locations of North Carolina and Virgina-1 are listed. However, those positions and locations are not in the sheets for "Task Order 1 - 4."

Please review again. It is on Task Order 1, Line 17

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M"Task Order" 1-4 The Counterintelligence Analyst - Subject Matter Expert (CI-SME) for North Carolina was not listed in Task Order "1-4" sheets.

There is not a current NC requirement at this time.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M"Task Order" 1-4 4.9.c. OSINT/PAI Targeting Analyst - Journeyman for North Carolina is not listed in Task Order "1-4" sheets.

Please review again. Task Order 1, Line 46

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M"Task Order" 1-4 4.9.e OSINT/PAI Targeting Analyst (Language Enabled) - Journeyman for North Carolina is not listed in the Task Order "1-4" sheets.

There is not a current NC requirement at this time.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M"Task Order" 1-4 4.11.b Intelligence Targeting Analyst - Expert for North Carolina is not listed in the Task Order "1-4" sheets.

There is not a current NC requirement at this time.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M"Task Order" 1-4 4.16.a HUMINT Collection Management Officer - Subject Matter Expert (HCMO-SME) for North Carolina is not listed in the Task Order "1-4" sheets.

There is not a current NC requirement at this time.

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MTask Order 2 Tab

Column F is pulling the direct labor rate instead of the Fully Burdened Rate from the rate card. Additionally Columns "G", "H", "I" and "J" are also pulling from the incorrect cells on the rate card. Would the government consider correcting the formula within this sheet to ensure accurate calculations?

The USG will revisit and ensure that the formulas are correct for Final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MTask Order 3 Tab

Column F is pulling the direct labor rate instead of the Fully Burdened Rate from the rate card. Additionally Columns "G", "H", "I" and "J" are also pulling from the incorrect cells on the rate card. Would the government consider correcting the formula within this sheet to ensure accurate calculations?

The USG will revisit and ensure that the formulas are correct for Final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MTask Order 4 Tab

Column F is pulling the direct labor rate instead of the Fully Burdened Rate from the rate card. Additionally Columns "G", "H", "I" and "J" are also pulling from the incorrect cells on the rate card. Would the government consider correcting the formula within this sheet to ensure accurate calculations?

The USG will revisit and ensure that the formulas are correct for Final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing M Sample OCONUS Task Tab

Column F is pulling the direct labor rate instead of the Fully Burdened Rate from the rate card. Additionally Columns "G", "H", "I" and "J" are also pulling from the incorrect cells on the rate card. Would the government consider correcting the formula within this sheet to ensure accurate calculations?

The USG will revisit and ensure that the formulas are correct for Final RFP

Attach 3 - DRAFT Pricing MNA Would the government consider proscribing the provided GS equivalents as a minimum acceptable direct labor/salary, to ensure employee quality, enhance retention, and ensure mission success?

The intent is that the GS equivalency provided in the pricing matrix is the floor rate.

However, the USG is considering switching to a CPFF contract type, so our pricing strategy may change.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L NA

For Joint Ventures (JV), governed by the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and JVA addendums, please confirm that the Government's assessment of the Prime Offeror will be based on the their respective JVA and addendum's, to include the roles each member of the JV is providing to the Prime offering.

Offerors who are JVs will be considered the prime.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L NA

Would the Government be interested in splitting the solicitation up into a down select? For example, splitting up Volume 4 into Stage 1 of the submission and the others at Stage 2? Or by splitting out the Pass/Fail Volume 1: Qualifying Criteria as Stage 1 and the others at Stage 2?

As indicated in L.2 "If an Offeror does not meet any of the qualifying criteria, they will be deemed to have failed to qualify. As outlined in M.1.6, such Offerors will be removed from the competition."

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L Sections L.1.2 and L.5.2;

Page 1 & 8

To meet the requirements for the Past and Present Performance Volume and Information Sheets, the structure of our team would force us to exceed the 22-page limit for the Volume (e.g., a required total of 5 PPPIS for team members, JV Partners, and/or Subcontractors with a 5-page limit each is 25 pages). Would the government please consider revising the 22-page limit for this Volume?

The page limit will stay as is.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L Sections L.1.2 and L.5.2;

Page 1 & 8

Would the government please confirm that Consent Letters, Organizational Structure Change Histories, and Letters of Intent are not included in the 22-page limit for Volume 4: Past and Present Performance?

The intent is that the Table of contents and Summary Pages are included within the 22-page limit. Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Letters of Intent, Organizational Change History, and Consent Letters are not included in the 22-page limit. This intends to be updated upon final

RFP.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.1.7; Page 2, 4, 5 The Government is asking for One (1) digital Copy (CD) in PDF format.

Would the Government consider allowing submission via DoD SAFE in lieu of CDs?

No.

Attach 4 - DRAFT Section L L.1.7.a and g; Page 4

a. Submissions shall be on CD ROM/DVD only, no paper copies shall be accepted , and g. Electronic copies must be provided on CD- ROMs/DVDs, read-only memory. Microsoft Office 2007, presentation, and spreadsheet products are preferred. Changes, because of negotiations, will be conformed on CD-ROMs/DVDs and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin.

Would the government consider using DoD SAFE or similar as a means of sending/receiving…