17R0017_LRI__QnA_1of2__27Apr18.pdf

GSA Solicitation No. H9821017R0017 Requiring Activity: DLNSEO Program Name: Language Readiness Index (LRI)

Subject: Contractor Questions that Require Answers

Q1. On page 64, it states that we should complete attachments 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11 for the 4.0 Factor 1 - Technical. Attachment 1, 2, and 7 are aligned with pricing and attachment 7 is specifically called out as belonging in VOL 2, Section I, Price evaluation on p.67. Also, attachment 11 Subcontracting Plan is mentioned on p.3-4 as belonging under VOL 2, Section II, Business Information.

A1. Provide attachments as stated below in the answer section for Q4, A4 a-b.

Q2. Multiple Questions

1. On page 51, it is mentioned that FFP is contemplated for award. What is the alternative contract type, if not

FFP?

2. To confirm, the technical response, project management plan, staffing plan, and implementation transition should all be included within the 20-page limit? Would the Government consider increase page limit to 25 pages due to staffing plan requirements?

3. Are there attachments or template examples for project management plan?

4. Are there attachments or template examples for staffing plan? We see the addendums for role and category mapping but not clear if you require resumes for this proposal or just a summary of names, experience, and education.

5. Are there attachments or template examples for Implementation/Transition plan?

6. On p. 64, it states “Complete attachments 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11 for the technical portion.” We did not see attachment in the zip file. Is there an attachment missing? Or is it the DD254, which did not have a number associated with it?

A2. Multiple Answers

1. There is no alternative contract type.

2. a) Yes, include all specified elements in the 20-page limit.

b) No, page limit will not be increased.

3. No, there are none.

4. The proposal should address in detail the information required in Element C: Staffing Plan.

5. The proposal should address in detail the information required in Element D: Implementation/Transition.

6. All attachments can be downloaded from the GPE www.FBO.gov.

Q3. Multiple Questions

a. Page 3, Paragraph 1 states, “By submission of this package, you are stating that ALL terms and conditions of the entire solicitation are accepted and apply to your offer.”

b. Page 3, Paragraph 7 states, “The proposal shall not merely restate the PWS, but demonstrate and provide convincing detail of how the offeror will meet the requirement of the PWS and associated sections of the

PWS.

c. Page 4, Paragraph 8.A. states, “The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to comprehend and understand the Government’s requirements as set forth in the technical portion of the PWS and other associated sections. This will be expressed through the proposals presentation and understanding of the Language Readiness Index and the associated capabilities that require a web-based capability to gather, organize, distribute, identify, prioritize, and input requirements for analyzing language proficiency, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities in support of readiness and risk assessment in DRRS.”

d. Page 62, Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph 1. 0 states, “The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the factors and criteria established in the Request for Proposal (RFP).”

e. It is our understanding that the 20-page Technical Capability Volume must address the evaluation factors laid out on Pages 64 and 65 of the RFP and that by addressing these factors it will demonstrate that we understand the PWS requirements. Is this true, or in addition to addressing the technical evaluation factors, must offerors also ensure they have addressed each requirement of the PWS (i.e. Contractor Manpower Reporting, security, etc.)?

A3. Multiple Answers.

a. When an offeror submits a proposal it shall demonstrate what is stated in FAR 52.212-1.

b. When an offeror submits a proposal it shall demonstrate what is stated in FAR 52.212-1.

c. When an offeror submits a proposal it shall demonstrate what is stated in FAR 52.212-1.

d. When an offeror submits a proposal the Government will adhere to FAR 52.212-2.

e. All requirements of the solicitation must be addressed in accordance with the instructions in FAR 52.212- 1, addendum to 52.212-1, evaluation factors 52.212-2 and addendum to 52.212-2.

Q4. Multiple Questions

a. Is a cover page, table of contents, acronym list, and compliance matrix excluded from the technical page count?

b. Section 9(A), Page 5:

a. The solicitation says “Complete attachments 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11 for the technical portion.”

Attachment 11 is also stated as number 6 under Business Information. Typically any cost type document is not included in the Technical Volume. Are these documents to go into the Technical Volume and if so, where and are they included in the page count? If they are to go into the Price Volume, where does the Government want to see them?

c. Attachment 1:

a. Is it intentional that the Labor Category titles/descriptions are blank and that it is therefore incumbent upon the Offeror to determine the appropriate labor category titles and descriptions?

b. For Sub-Contractor Labor Categories –should the Labor Rate entered represent the Sub- Contractor’s rate inclusive of or exclusive of the Prime’s burden/fee?

d. Attachment 2:

a. For each of the Subtotal ODC lines – should the $750 be interpreted as a “sample” number that the Contractor should substitute with his own cost estimate or should it be interpreted as a “plug” number that should not be altered. Or per Attachment 7 will ODC’s be provided at time of award and therefore the OFFEROR should propose $0.00 for ODC’s?

b. Contractor assumes that ODC, and Travel lines are of Cost Reimbursable type (to include burden with no profit) vs FFP. Is that assumption correct?

e. Attachment 7:

a. ODC’s on Attachment 7 direction appears to be “Do Not Fill-In NTE Provided at time of award at Cost.” The contractor assumes that Attachment 2 and Attachment 7 ODC’s should be proposed at $0.00, and that ODC’s will be provided at time of award. Is that a correct assumption?

b. The attachment seems to ask for Print costs to be proposed separately but there are no lines for Print costs on ATTACHMENT 2. Can the Government please clarify how/if Print costs are to be proposed on ATTACHMENT 2 and ATTACHMENT 7?

c. Does the Government wish to define an FTE year (i.e. – 1880 hours, 1920 hours, 1960 hours, etc.)

or leave determining the hours in an FTE-year to the discretion of the offeror?

f. Attachment XX:

a. SECTION 8.1 CONTRACTOR TRAVEL – For overseas travel (Stuttgart Germany) – should DBA insurance (normally considered an ODC) be included under the Travel estimate?

b. SECTION 6.1 states “The total price for the base year and Option Years (OYs) will be derived from the contractor provided “Pricing Model” pricing spreadsheet (Attachment 8). Did the Government intend to reference ATTACHMENT 7 vs ATTACHMENT 8

g. Section 4.0, 4.2 Provide Subject Matter Expertise

a. This sections states “The SME will hold a Master’s Degree in Information Systems from an accredited college”.

i. Will the government allow substituting years of experience in DOD Information Systems and DRRS in lieu of Master’s Degree? Please define the substitution requirements.

h. B. Volume 1, Section II, Past Performance

a. For each reference being submitted, complete and include a Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ) found at Attachment 10. Complete and submit one PPRQ per reference.

Offerors shall include no more than one contract for each reference. The Government will only review one contract. If the Offeror submits more than one contract for each reference; those contracts will not be reviewed.

i. Can the Government clarify the difference between “Reference” vs “Contract”

i. Attachment 4, Cover Letter

a. The cover letter states: “Our schedule is extremely tight and we desire your written response no later than April 6, 2018. This schedule will allow us sufficient time to analyze the data for our source selection.”

b. Will questionnaires submitted after the April 6th deadline be accepted? Given the RFP release on Saturday the 31st, it would be difficult for an offeror to develop their team, identify appropriate past performance references, send the questionnaires and then have them returned by the 6th

A4. Multiple Answers.

a. The cover page and table of contents are not included in the page count.

b. Complete the following attachments per section:

a. Factor 1 – Technical: 1, 3, and 8

b. Factor 2 – Past Performance: 4, 9 and 10

c. Factor 3 – Price: 1, 2, 7

d. Business Section: Volume 2, Section 2 – Attachment 11

c. Yes, it is intentional. Fully burdened rates should be provided.

d. Do not propose ODC / Print costs.

e. Do not propose ODC / Print costs.

f. a) If DBA is an allowable and allocable reimbursement cost through travel it should be rolled up into the cost of travel for reimbursement. When an invoice is submitted for travel (if applicable) it should be broke out in the supporting documentation for review by the contractor for review by the invoice accepter.

b) Reference attachment 7 (Price Model)

g. a) No. Education and experience in DoD Information Systems and DRRS are both stated requirements in

PWS 4.2.

h. A contract is considered a binding legal document. A “reference” is the Point of Contact (POC) for that contract.

i. The past performance information is now due when the solicitation is due.

Q5. Multiple Questions:

1. Attachment 11 (Subcontracting Plan) requires offerors who are large businesses to submit a subcontracting plan with target goals for small business participation. However the subcontracting plan is not an evaluation factor. Would the government consider adding the subcontract plan as an evaluation factor in accordance with FAR 15.304 (C) (4)?

2. The government has restricted past performance to that completed as a prime contractor (PWS para 2.2.1).

Many subcontracts are more complex and much larger than the LRI effort in this RFP and including subcontract past performance would give the government valuable data on the offerors performance and inform the confidence assessment. Offerors may have past performance as a subcontractor that clearly passes the relevancy requirement. Would the government consider allowing offerors to include past performance as a subcontractor in their proposal?

3. Para 4.2, pg 7, of the PWS (Provide Subject Matter Expertise) goes into detail on the LRI SME required for this effort. In three places this para uses the term “LRI SMEs”.

a. The LRI SMEs do not appear in the Staffing Plan Evaluation factors (Para 4, element C), although five other job positions are called out. The LRI SME is also not one of the labor categories found in Attachment 5, Historical Labor Categories. Since the offeror is required to develop a technical approach that explains in detail how they will perform the requirements in the PWS, would the government consider providing further explanation on the role and qualifications of the LRI SME? What is the number of LRI SMEs envisioned?

b. The LRI SME is required to hold a Master’s degree in Information Systems from an accredited college. Other than describing the incumbent LRI contractor’s project manager’s qualifications, what is the relevance / vital importance of a Master’s degree in Information Technology to performing the duties of the LRI SME? It would seem that a degree in software development, systems engineering, computer science, linguistics, or even language and culture, might be as valuable. Would the government consider revising this requirement?

c. LRI SMEs shall have demonstrated experience working with DLNSEO, the Joint Staff, the DRRS Integration Office, the National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), and the CCMDs related to LREC programs. This seems to be written to describe the incumbent LRI project manager, or an extremely small number of individuals. Would the government consider revising this requirement?

4. Para 2.2.2 of the PWS (Pg 63) states “Information regarding contract performance that is recent and has a logical connection with the matter under consideration indicates relevancy.”

a. This explanation does not align with para 2.2.3 (Relevancy) or the definition of relevancy in para

7.0 (Pg 68). Neither mentions “Logical Connection” as an example.

b. Para 5.0, Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Pg 67) is different still, talking only to Scope, Magnitude and Complexities.

c. Can the government confirm that the Adjectival ratings in Table 2 are what will be used to rate the relevancy of past performance?

5. The Staffing Plan (Element C of Technical Approach) requires that “Proposals will demonstrate a program staffing plan that ensures the offeror is prepared to perform the task with qualified and/or experienced personnel capable of meeting the requirements of the LRI and LREC tasks.” Given the incorporation of FAR 52.222-17, Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers, offerors are required to offer employment and the right of first refusal to incumbent employees on the current LRI contract. Will the government consider a statement of intent in the staffing plan to recruit and hire incumbent employees (in accordance with the FAR) as meeting the staffing plan requirement? If names are desired would the government consider providing the names and contact information for employees of the current LRI contractor?

6. The PWS does not provide required staffing, proposed team composition, or position titles (other than LRI SMEs, see question 3 above) so structuring the team would be the offerors responsibility. But the Staffing Plan Evaluation factors (Pg 65, Para 4, element C) calls out the education and experience requirements of specific positions (Scientist, technical expert, data analyst, etc) not found in the PWS. Request the government consider removing references to specific positions in the staffing plan evaluation factors.

7. Given the caution to offerors against “parroting” the PWS (Pg 63 para 1.3), the offeror requires additional information from the government in order to demonstrate full understanding of the requirement and capability to perform.

a. Pg 9, Para 4.3.8. Ensure all deliverables involving coding (i.e. software) are coded in accordance with DIO and DRRS standards so as to be fully compatible with LRI on the DRRS platform and to be fully compliant with the overall DRRS software design and coding policies and practice.

b. Pg 9, Para 4.3.9. Product Installation onto DRRS. The contractor shall conform to the DRRS program’s configuration control, testing, and release management processes and procedures.

c. Pg 64, Para 4.0 Evaluation factors: Proposals shall describe the process and approach to certify that all deliverables involving coding are in accordance with DIO (DRRS Integration Office) and DRRS software design, coding policies, and practices.

d. A standard industry offeror response would state that during the transition period the contractor would become very familiar with the client’s software design, coding policies and practices (to include style manual), and ensure they complied with same. However in this case that could be considered “parroting” the PWS.

e. Currently, only the very small number of companies supporting DRRS has this information.

Requiring offerors to address the DRRS software design and coding policies, practices and standards and configuration control procedures in their proposal gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent and the other companies supporting DRRS.

f. Request the government provide offerors with the current DRRS software design and coding policies, practices and standards, and the DRRS program’s configuration control, testing, and release management processes and procedures so all offerors can adequately respond to the solicitation.

8. As written, the PWS contains DRRS experience requirements that restrict competition and gives an unfair advantage to the small number of companies currently supporting DRRS. Two examples:

a. Pg 64, para 4.0, Evaluation Factors, Technical Approach: Proposals shall present examples substantiating experience in problem analysis, identifying solutions, planning for improvement, implementation of changes into the DRRS framework, creation of applicable code, and testing of software as part of the DRRS operating system. Proposals shall identify specific experience in processing data from varying sources and in varying formats and configuring it for storage in the DRRS Data Warehouse for the LRI.

b. Pg 64, para 4.0, Evaluation Factors, Technical Approach: Proposals shall demonstrate thorough and extensive experience in tracking LREC assets and capabilities as well as documenting mission essential task- related LREC capability requirements.

c. Although every client and project is different, the basics of putting together a team of functional subject matter experts, developers, database managers, and analysts to support a government program/capability is a fairly common approach. The contractor becomes thoroughly familiar with the details, code, documentation, stakeholders etc of the system supported (DRRS) during the transition period, that is why transitions periods exist.

d. Would the government consider revising the PWS and evaluation factor language to remove the requirement for direct DRRS experience?

9. The Technical Approach and Evaluation Factors treat the DRRS program as so different than any other IT program, database, or development project that experience and skills gained on other projects of similar scope, size, complexity (mixture of SMEs, software developers, database managers etc.,) are irrelevant unless the offeror has worked on DRRS. The offeror has to demonstrate DRRS experience (See examples in question 8 above).

a. This is a disconnect with the Past Performance adjectival ratings found in Table 2 (Pg 67) which focus on Scope, Magnitude, and Complexities, but not direct DRRS experience. How can the PWS Technical Approach evaluation and the Past Performance evaluation be so different?

b. Request the government remove language stating the offeror must have direct DRRS experience, as this unfairly restricts competition.

A5. Multiple Answers

1. Would the government consider adding the subcontract plan as an evaluation factor in accordance with FAR 15.304 (C) (4)? No.

2. Would the government consider allowing offerors to include past performance as a subcontractor in their proposal? No.

3. Would the Government consider providing further explanation on the role and qualifications of the LRI SME? What is the number of LRI SMEs envisioned? The role and qualifications of the SME are already stated in PWS 4.2 through 4.2.5.

b) Would the government consider revising this requirement? No.

c) Would the government consider revising this requirement? No.

4. a) This is a statement not a question.

b) This is a statement not a question.

c) Yes, these are the ratings. Can the government confirm that the Adjectival ratings in Table 2 are what will be used to rate the relevancy of past performance?

5. Will the government consider a statement of intent in the staffing plan to recruit and hire incumbent employees (in accordance with the FAR) as meeting the staffing plan requirement? If names are desired would the government consider providing the names and contact information for employees of the current LRI contractor? No. That information will not be provided.

6. Request consider removing references to specific positions in the staffing plan evaluation factors. No.

7. a) Reference page 63, paragraph 1.3: “Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement or capability to perform…”

b) Reference page 63, paragraph 1.3: “Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement

c) Reference page 63, paragraph 1.3: “Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement

d) That is a statement not a question.

e) That is a statement not a question.

f) Request the government provide offerors with the current DRRS software design and coding policies, practices and standards, and the DRRS program’s configuration control, testing, and release management processes and procedures so all offerors can adequately respond to the solicitation. Will have to ask DIO if these are releasable? Part of the requirement is the knowledge and experience with DRRS.

8. Questions 8a – 8d: The familiarization with DRRS is part of the requirement.

9. a) Reference 52.212-2 paragraph 5.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance

b) The requirement to have DRRS experience will not be removed.