Amendment 0003_H98210-20-R-0008.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0003 is issued to provided answ ers to questions submitted in response to the Solicitation. Additionally, this Amendment includes the follow ing documents: editable Attachments 6 and 8, revised Addendums to FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2, revised Attachment 7, additional FAR and DFAR clauses, and the Q&As.

No other changes are included in this Amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

Y 1 37

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Apr-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X H9821020R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Mar-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Apr-2020

CODE

DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE,

SUITE 03E25

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-4000

H98210 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H9821020R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

52.219-14 DEVIATION 2020-O0008

52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 2020-O0008)

LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING (MAR 2020) (DEVIATION 2020-O0008)

(a) This clause does not apply to the unrestricted portion of a partial set-aside.

(b) Definition. “Similarly situated entity,” as used in this clause, means a first-tier subcontractor, including an independent contractor, that—

(1) Has the same small business program status as that which qualified the prime contractor for the award (e.g., for a small business set-aside contract, any small business concern, without regard to its socioeconomic status); and

(2) Is considered small for the size standard under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code the prime contractor assigned to the subcontract.

(c) Applicability. This clause applies only to—

(1) Contracts that have been set aside for small business concerns or 8(a) participants;

(2) Part or parts of a multiple-award contract that have been set aside for small business concerns or

8(a) participants;

(3) Contracts that have been awarded on a sole-source basis in accordance with subpart 19.8;

(4) Orders set aside for small business concerns under multiple-award contracts as described in

8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), if the order amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold;

(5) Orders competed among 8(a) participants in accordance with subpart 19.8 under multiple-award contracts, as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), regardless of dollar value;

(6) Contracts using the HUBZone price evaluation preference to award to a HUBZone small business concern unless the concern waived the evaluation preference; and

(7) Orders issued directly to small business concerns or 8(a) participants under multiple-award contracts as described in 19.504(c)(1)(ii).

(d) Independent contractors. An independent contractor shall be considered a subcontractor.

(e) Limitations on subcontracting. By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the

Contractor agrees that in performance of a contract assigned a NAICS code for—

(1) Services (except construction), it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the

Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both services and supplies, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the service portion of the contract. Other direct costs are excluded to the extent they are not the principal purpose of the contract and cannot be obtained from small business concerns;

(2) Supplies (other than procurement from a nonmanufacturer of such supplies), it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both supplies and services, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the supply portion of the contract;

(3) General construction, it will not pay more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 85 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded; or

(4) Construction by special trade contractors, it will not pay more than 75 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the prime contractor’s 75 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded.

(f) A joint venture agrees that, in the performance of the contract, the applicable percentage specified in paragraph (e) of this clause will be performed by the aggregate of the joint venture participants.

(g) The Contractor shall comply with the limitations on subcontracting as follows:

(1) For contracts, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this clause— [Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]

__ By the end of the base term of the contract and then by the end of each subsequent option period; or _x_ By the end of the performance period for each order issued under the contract.

(2) For orders, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this clause, by the end of the performance period for the order.

(End of clause)

EDITABLE ATTACHMENT 8 PPRQ

ATTACHMENT 8

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY QUESTIONNAIRE

(INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS) Offerors shall submit no more than 3 relevant, recent, past performance references with their offer. For each reference, the offeror shall complete and submit a Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ) using the form below.

1. Contractor (name, address, email and telephone number):

2. Name of Contract Awarding Activity / Agency and Project Title:

3. Contract Number and name, address, email, telephone number, of the awarding activity’s Procuring Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (and other references – e.g. Administrative Contracting Officer – if applicable):

*Submit only one contract/effort per Reference

4. Type of Contract: Fixed Price_____ Cost_______ IDIQ_______

5. Contract dollar value:

Base Period Total:

Option Periods Total:

Total Current Contract Value (base period and all exercised options):

6. Period of Performance:

Base period PoP:

Option periods PoP:

Total PoP of base and all exercised option periods:

6. Scope of work and complexity/diversity of tasks performed:

7. Skills/expertise required:

8. Relevancy of work:

9. Type and extent of subcontracting:

Q&As_FINAL Amendment 0003, H98210-20-R-0008, Questions & Answers

Q1. The RFP states that companies need a secret facility clearance at proposal submission. Can you please confirm that an Interim facility clearance can compliant with this requirement?

A1. No, an Interim Secret Facility Clearance will not be accepted. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 2.3 Active Facility Security Clearance at Proposal Submission (Phase I).

Q2. Will the Project Manager have flexibility to telework on contractor site?

A2. See IDIQ PWS paragraph 3.1, 4.1, 10.0 and 17.2 Telework.

Q3. Will this contract consolidate these 2 contracts into one?

A3. See RFP, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, para. 2.10, Historical/Additional Information. This solicitation is a new requirement that will include a consolidation of the work in two existing DHRA contracts (H98210-17-C-0007 and H98210-18-C-0011). To clarify, the requirement for DHRA Enterprise-wide admin support services, not only combines two current 8(a) contracts but it also substantially increases the magnitude and scope of the work by including additional effort for multiple, geographically dispersed, DHRA components.

Q4. Will the Government please rescind the requirement for hard copy submission and permit electronic submission of Phase I and II volumes? In view of COVID-19 movement restrictions and closures, the requirement for hard copy submission represents safety risk to both sender and receiver, obtaining and handling hard copy supplies pursuant to meeting the 4.0 requirement.

A4. Please see RFP, Amendment 0001, issued on March 31, 2020, which changed the method of submission for Phase I documents. In response to any changes resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic restrictions, any change in the method of delivery/submission for Phase II proposals will be communicated, via email, to those offerors invited to Phase II.

Q5. A vendor asked a question about whether its current work for DTMO implicates the conflict of interest provisions in paragraph 2.5, Organization Conflict of Interest, in the Solicitation.

A5. Paragraph 2.5 is prospective and, depending on the contract and the vendor’s individual circumstances, may limit the eventual awardee’s ability to compete for contracts that DHRA subsequently advertises. Paragraph

2.5 does not replace, supercede, or take precedence over any conflict of interest rules or regulations that may affect current DHRA or DHRA Component contractors’ ability to compete for this effort (e.g., FAR 9.5).

Q6. Can the government explain why the industry was not made aware of the clearance requirements during draft RFP stage?

A6. The Government included the clearance requirements in the draft RFP. See DRAFT H98210-20-R- 0008_Enterprise Operational Admin Support_17 Jan 2020, PWS, Section 8, para. 8.7 and RFP, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Subfactor 4 and RFP, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation of Commercial Items, 2.4.4 Subfactor 4.

Q7. In light of the impact of COVID-19 to businesses and further the declarations of State of Emergencies requiring businesses to close operations; would the government consider extending the due date of the above referenced solicitation for two weeks to 4/27/20 to ensure a fair and equitable opportunity for all offerors to present a high-quality response.

A7. No. However, the Government issued Amendment 0002 to extend the deadline for submission of Phase I proposals.

Q8. Due to the COVID-19 effect on business and statewide declaration of state of emergency. Would you consider the option of pushing the deadline until the end of April?

A8. See A7

Q9. Will an offeror that has been issued a secret level Facility Clearance, but has received an Administrative Termination of the FCL for no fault of the contractor within the past two years proceeding Phase 1 solicitation response submission be deemed to have met the active Facility Clearance requirement? For such an offeror, specifically what action, information, or documentation pertaining to Facility Clearance is required for submission on Phase 1 response?

A9. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 2.3 Active Facility Security Clearance at Proposal Submission (Phase I) and paragraph 4.2(B)(8) Active Facility Clearance Letter.

Q10. The only due date present in RFP is in SF 1449 10:00AM 13 Apr 2020. Please confirm is this the due date for Phase I? And what is the due date for Phase II?

A10. See A7. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offers, para 4.2 Phase II (Technical and Price), “The offerors eligible for Phase II will be notified of the Phase II proposal due date upon completion of the Phase I evaluation by the Government.”

Q11. Would the government consider electronic submissions for Phase II?

A11. See A4

Q12. Would the government consider providing a Past Performance Questionnaire for references to complete and submit directly to DHRA, or consider CPARs to be submitted with Volume II, in order to evaluate performance rating/quality of each Past Performance reference provided by offerors. This would be in addition to the PPRQ that offerors must complete and submit in Phase I.

A12. No, the contractor shall follow the instructions provided in the Solicitation. See ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO) para. 4.2. (ii), FACTOR 1- Past Performance.

Additionally, paragraph (4) indicates the Government may consider data obtained from other sources including CPARs. The Government will obtain the CPAR through the CPAR system.

Q13. Would the government please consider requiring a minimum timeframe of performance for Past Performance references? (i.e., contractor must have executed at least 12 months of the period of performance on the contract)

A13. See Amendment 0003, for revised ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS… and revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items, paragraph 3.12.

Q14. Paragraph states “a plan for the transition-in services compliance to FAR clause 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting)”. Should clause reference be 52.219-14 (Dev) in accordance with page 6 of 80?

A14. See RFP Amendment 0003, which includes the revised deviation, 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 2020-O0008). The offeror shall consider the revised deviation and ensure their proposals adhere to the requirements for limitations on subcontracting.

Q15. Would the Government provide the total estimated labor hours by labor category to support the first Task Order – specifically, what is needed to support DMDC operations in Alexandria, VA; Seaside, CA; and Fort Knox, KY? Specific workload data will level the playing field allowing all offerors to price the same number of hours required to support the DMDC mission

A15. See RFP, Attachment 7 Historical/Additional Information that provides historical information.

Additionally, the information provided below is for informational purposes only, and represents the most current and best available data at the time of Solicitation issuance. However, offerors are cautioned that the historical requirements may not be a reliable predictor of future, actual requirements. Therefore, offerors shall reflect the risk of fluctuations in contract requirements in their Firm-Fixed price proposal. The labor descriptions are provided in Attachment 1 IDIQ Pricing table and below. Additionally, the estimated hours for the first task order are estimated as follows: Alexandria VA; Admin Support V 5760, Admin Support VII 3840, Admin Support VI 1920, Project Manager II 1920, Project Manager 1 1920, Seaside CA; Project Manager 1 1920, Admin Support IV 1920, Admin support VII 1920, Admin Support V 3840, Ft Knox, KY; Admin Support V 1920.

Q16. Since both Task Orders 01 and 02 will start in September, would the Government consider adding Task Order 02 to this solicitation so that all current work is considered? The incumbent contractor performing Task Order 1 would appear to have an unfair competitive advantage over all other offerors.

A16. Task order 02 will not be added to the Solicitation. All Task Order work issued under the proposed IDIQ contract will be within the scope of the IDIQ PWS.

Q17. Page 26 of the RFP references 52.216.19 Order Limitations which sites maximum single order is $3M.

Request the government consider amending the past performance requirement for a Very Relevant rating to $2.0M to be consistent with that anticipated threshold. Capable small 8(a) firms managing similar $2M+ contracts in multiple states are otherwise unfairly excluded.

A17. The Government’s rationale when deciding the dollar values referenced, are not related. The maximum order value referenced in FAR 52.216-19(b)(1) refers to “a single item” and the resulting dollar value for a “single item” which may be issued under the proposed IDIQ contract. The dollar value in the FAR clause does not represent an estimated annual contract amount of the Government’s requirement nor does it represent an overall estimated contract value or have anything to do with relevancy.

The Government’s requirement for Enterprise-wide admin support services, not only combines two current 8(a) contracts but also substantially increases the magnitude and scope of the work by including additional effort for multiple, geographically dispersed, DHRA components.

Q18. The past performance requirements exclude capable firms, for example a firm performing successfully in 5 states under 2 contracts. The Past performance rating of Very Relevant requires offerors to have 3 Past Performances of essentially the same scope and magnitude and meet all three criteria (9 of 11 tasks; greater than $6M on the same contract; AND performance in 3 states). Would the government consider revising the Very Relevant requirements to essentially the same scope and magnitude and the following criteria: 9 of 11 tasks; total contract value greater than $2.0M; AND proof of performance in 3 or more states not limited to a single contract?

A18. No. The suggested revisions are not consistent with the scope and magnitude of the Government’s requirement as stated in the RFP. See the table at paragraph 5.2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings wherein the description for Very Relevant is “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

Q19. Would the government please provide the projected labor category composition and performance locations of the 14 FTEs noted in Attachment 7 Historical Data (i.e., 2 – admin IV, 1 admin V, etc.) to ensure the competitive landscape is even when evaluating the price volume for the Task Order submission?

A19. See A15.

Q20. Would the Government provide the number of FTEs by location for the activities listed in the Scope of Task Order 1? Workload data by task area would allow offerors to provide a more accurate cost estimate. The current information places all but the incumbent at a disadvantage

A20. See A15.

Q21. Information Management Support is not shown as a labor category in the pricing model. In what category should offerors price this support?

A21. See RFP, Attachment 1, Basic IDIQ Pricing Table for Labor Category Description. Services are administrative support in nature and may be representative by services provided by an Admin Support V.

Q22. In what category should offerors price Training Support?

A22. See A21

Q23. SharePoint and Portal Webpage Content Management Support is not shown as a labor category in the pricing model. In what category should offerors price this support?

A23. See RFP, Attachment 1, Basic IDIQ Pricing Table for Labor Category Description. Services are administrative support in nature and may be representative of an Admin Support VI.

Q24. Would the government please confirm the allocation of FTEs by location for the Task Order?

A24. See A15.

Q25. Would the government please confirm the allocation of labor categories by location for the Task Order?

A25. See A15.

Q26. 2.1 states that “the places of performance are geographically dispersed with locations in Alexandria, VA;

Seaside, CA; and Ft. Knox, KY.” However, the PWS mentions (Section 2.3; Paragraph 1) two additional locations;

Pensacola, FL and Patrick AFB, FL. Question: Will all five (5) of the locations listed above execute missions or only the first three (3)?

A26. Section 2.1 refers to the PWS for the first task order wherein the places of performance for this task order are in Alexandria, VA, Seaside, CA, and Fort Knox, KY. Section 2.3, paragraph 1, refers to the PWS for the IDIQ. See the PWS for the IDIQ, paragraph 2.3 which states, “This contract provides support services to a geographically dispersed organization. Organizational components are currently located in Alexandria, VA; Seaside, CA; Ft. Knox, KY; Pensacola and Patrick Air Force Base, FL. Organizations at these locations execute major programs and missions that affect active duty, reserve, and retired military members and their families and civilian employees of the DoD. Requirements at each location may include one, some or all of the requirements listed in paragraph 4.0 and will be specified in individual task orders awarded under this IDIQ contract. The Government will utilize this scope of work in the event additional locations are added for other DoD organizations aligned under DHRA in future years.”

Q27. Reference: RFP Section 2.3, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Page 36. 2.3 states that “offerors shall possess an Active Facility Clearance at the Secret level at (Phase I) proposal submission…” “Interim Secret Facility Clearance will not be accepted.” Question: Would the government consider a teaming arrangement where the subcontractor possesses an active Top-Secret Facility Clearance and could sponsor the Prime?

A27. No, the prime contractor shall possess an active Facility Clearance in accordance with paragraph 2.3.

See Amendment 0003, revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 2.3.

Q28. Reference: RFP Section 4.2(1), Paragraph 1, Page 40. “Offerors shall provide past performance information on no more than three (3) references of recent and relevant past contracts. Past performance of the Prime and one Subcontractor will be considered. At least two (2) references shall be from the offeror’s performance as a Prime contractor.” Question: Will the government accept commercial past performance for evaluation?

A28. Yes, the Government will accept it.

Q29. Reference: RFP Section 4.2 PHASE II, Paragraph 1, Page 41. Phase II (Technical and Price) “Only those offerors that have been determined to have a minimum Performance Confidence assessment rating of “Satisfactory

Confidence” or higher as a result of the Past Performance assessment in Phase I will be invited to submit Phase II proposals…”. Question: Does the government have an anticipated time frame for evaluation of Phase I?

A29. No.

Q30. Volume I, Tab (A) consists of a “Cover Letter, Executive Summary, and Business Proposal.” QUESTION:

Do items 1 – 10 in the referenced list comprise the “Cover Letter?”

A30. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, para. 4.2 Proposal. The offeror shall consider the instructions provided within the Addendum including page limitations, and make a business decision regarding the organization of documents submitted for Volume I.

Q31. The Volume I, Tab (A) instructions include a requirement for an Executive Summary, but there are no instructions for the requested content of that unscored component. Note that the instructions include this component within the 3-page limit of Tab (A). QUESTION: Will the Government please provide instructions for that content?

A31. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, para. 4.2 Proposal. The offeror shall consider the instructions provided within the Addendum including page limitations, and make a business decision regarding the organization of documents submitted for Volume I.

Q32. The Volume I instructions include a requirement for a page-unlimited Tab B, Business Proposal, but there are no explicit instructions for that Tab. QUESTION: Since only Volume II is evaluated, would the Government please clarify the intent of Volume I Tab B, Business Proposal?

A32. The Government will review the documents submitted in Volume I, Tab B, for responsiveness to the requirements outlined in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, and the RFP requirements in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 provides the following, “NOTE: Failure to meet any of the criteria outlined above may result in the proposal being rejected as being non-conforming and determined non-responsive.” Additionally, Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items provides the following note, “Note: Offerors who are determined non-responsive for failing to meet the Secret Facility Clearance requirements in accordance with Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 2.3 will not be evaluated.”

Q33. The referenced ITO allows 15 pages for up to three Volume II past performance references. QUESTION:

Would the Government please provide content and format instructions for those Volume II Past Performance references?

A33. The offerors shall record the past performance references on the RFP, Attachment 8, PPRQ and submit with their proposal in Phase I for Volume II. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, para. 4.2(B)(ii)(2), “Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) relevant and recent past performance references using the Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ), RFP Attachment 8.”

Q34. (1) Past Performance References: Offerors shall provide past performance information on no more than three

(3) references of recent and relevant past contracts. Past performance of the Prime and one Subcontractor will be considered. At least two (2) references shall be from the offeror’s performance as a Prime contractor. To be recent, the past performance effort being submitted for evaluation must have occurred within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. QUESTION: Given that the PPQR is inclusive of all of the information requested for the Past Performance references, please clarify if there is additional information required to fulfill the “(1) Past Performance References” requirement listed on page 40 (text above)?

A34. No, however, offerors are free to submit additional information provided the page limitations are not exceeded for Volume II. See A33

Q35. Skills/expertise required. QUESTION: Please clarify the intent of the Past Performance requirement “Skills/expertise required” as listed in Attachment 8 under line item 7.

A35. This PPRQ section refers to the skills and expertise required in the performance of the contract referenced.

Q36. Eval 3.2, subfactor 1. The reference evaluation subfactor only calls out PWS 4.2.5, 4.2.4, 4.2.9, 4.3, and 4.5.

QUESTION: Absent specific instructions in the ITO, should we assume that our Technical Approach only needs to specifically address those 5 PWS elements?

A36. For Factor 2, sub factor 1 ONLY, that is correct however, this does not apply to the remaining three

(3) sub factors under Factor 2.

Q37. ITO for Subfactor 4, page 47. The evaluation criteria reference “Transition-in (TO PWS 4.7)” QUESTION:

Please confirm the reference should be “Transition (In and Out) of Contract Services (PWS 4.8)”

A37. Yes, the correct task order PWS reference is 4.8. See Amendment 0003 that revises Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Volume III, subfactor 4.

Q38. RFP Section SF 1449, Paragraph(s) Box 8, Page 1. Please confirm that the 4/13 due date is only for Phase 1.

What is the expected due date for Phase 2?

A38. See A10

Q39. RFP Section Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 2.3, Page 36. Is the Active Facility Security Clearance required to be in place at the time of submission of Phase 1 response date of 4/13?

A39. Yes, at the time of proposal submission for Phase I. Also please see RFP, Amendment 0002.

Q40. Section 4.0 Proposal Submission: Please confirm that the 4/13 submissions are accepted via email due to “Stay At Home” government directives?

A40. See A4

Q41. RFP Section Phase 1, Paragraph(s) (B) (i), Page 40. There is reference to providing a Business Proposal with no page limit. What type of information are you seeking within the Business Proposal? This seems redundant information that will be provided in Phase II’s Factor 2 Technical Proposal.

A41. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, para. 4.2(A) and (B). Also see A31 and A32.

Q42. RFP Section Phase 1, Paragraph(s) (B) (ii) (1), Page 40 and (2), Page 41. Can Offeror supply CPARS references in lieu of Past Performance references given that due to COVID-19 most Federal Clients are teleworking and this may delay responses?

A42. No, offerors shall follow the instructions for submission of Volume II documents.

Q43. (2) Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ): “Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) relevant and recent past performance references using the Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ), RFP Attachment 8.” (INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS) AT “… For each reference, the offeror shall complete and submit a Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ) using the form below.” Attachment 8 is currently in PDF format and is not editable. Is it the Government’s intention to release an editable version of Attachment 8 or, alternatively, will they permit the offeror to recreate the form in a Word document for ease of editing?

A43. See Amendment 2 that provides Attachment 8 PPRQ in MS Word format.

Q44. Reference: RFP Section ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 4.2 (A), Page 39. Question:

Please confirm that PDF files are acceptable for submission of Volumes I and II.

A44. PDF files are acceptable.

Q45. Reference: RFP Section ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 4.2 (B) i) (8), Page 40.

Question: Are subcontractors required to provide proof of facility clearance as well?

A45. See RFP, IDIQ PWS, Section 8.5 which states “The Prime Contractor shall ensure that any teaming partners or subcontractors have the appropriate Facility Clearance Letter and DD 254, prior to beginning performance, if applicable.”. Applicability refers to those subcontractors who will have access to classified information during contract performance.

Q46. Reference: RFP Section FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 4.2, (B) ii) (2), Page 41. Question: Please clarify submission instructions for each PPRQ.

A46. See A33. Additionally, (2) Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ): Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) relevant and recent past performance references using the Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ), RFP Attachment 8.

Q47. Is the completion of each PPRQ to be the format for each reference included in the Past Performance volume, and the PPRQs are submitted within the volume?

A47. Yes, that is correct. See A33.

Q48. If the format of the PPRQ is to be the format of how Offerors provide the project details, for space allocation purposes, is it permissible to remove the table format but keep all required information in the same setting?

A48. No. Offerors shall use Attachment 8 PPRQ to provide past performance reference information.

Amendment 0003 provides Attachment 8 PPRQ in MS Word format to allow ease in completion of form and for additional space in each section as needed however, see page limitations for Volume II.

Q49. Is a PPRQ for each Past Performance Reference to be signed by our Government Points of Contact and returned to DHRA separately from the Past Performance volume?

A49. No, a signature is not required. The PPRQ is for past performance relevancy information.

Q50. Reference: RFP Section FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 4.2, (A), Page 39 Question: Please confirm the “Cover Letter and Executive Summary” relates only to the information provided in Volume II, Past Performance, and is not intended to be an Executive Summary of the yet unwritten responses to Volumes III and IV.

A50. The Government does not advise what goes into an executive summary however, in general an executive summary is a short summary which explains the main features of a business and should provide a general overview of the business and other aspects relevant to the audience.

Q51. Reference: RFP Section 5.2, Page 48, Past Performance Relevancy Table. Question: The definition of “Very Relevant” is a contract value of $6M or more per year. Similar contract solicitations have defined very relevant as greater than $6M total contract value (TCV). Would the government consider making the Total Contract Value (TCV) greater than $6M, rather than the annual amount?

A51. No, the suggested revision does not relate to the scope and magnitude of the Government’s requirement as stated in the RFP, and thus would make the Very Relevant description not related to the requirement.

See the table at paragraph 5.2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings wherein the description for Very Relevant is

“Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

Q52. Reference: RFP Section 5.2, Page 48, Past Performance Relevancy Table. Question: The projected descoped value of the combined contracts is approximately $4.6M per year. Would the government consider updating the relevancy threshold based on potential contract value?

A52. The dollar value referenced is not correct. This is a new requirement. The Government’s requirement for Enterprise-wide administrative support services, not only combines two current 8(a) contracts but it also substantially increases the magnitude and scope of the work by including additional effort for multiple, geographically dispersed, DHRA components. The Government established the thresholds in the relevancy table based on Government’s current requirement for Enterprise-wide administrative support services.

Q53. Reference: RFP Section 2.5, Page 36, Organizational Conflict of Interest Question: Can the government confirm that being a user of the Defense Transportation System (DTS) on other contracts would not be an OCI?

A53. RFP section 2.5 refers to Organizational Conflict of Interest. Being a user of a DoD system does not automatically constitute an OCI however, there is not enough information in this question to understand the context.

Offerors should review FAR Part 9.5

Q54. Reference: RFP Section 8, Paragraph(s) 8.1, Page 67. 8.1. Contractor shall maintain Personnel Security Program in accordance with current DODM 5200.2 and the National Industrial Security Program. Contractor must have an active Facility Clearance Letter to the Secret level at proposal submission. Question: Would the government accept a proposal from a Joint Venture where both of the participants of the Joint Venture have current Active TOP Secret Facility Clearance? The Joint Venture is an SBA sanctioned 8(a) JV consisting of an 8(a) Protege and 8(a) Graduated Mentor. The Joint Venture is unpopulated and it has never had a contract requiring clearance.

A54. The Joint Venture entity shall have the active Facility Clearance. See RFP, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offeror, paragraph 4.2(B)(10), “The Joint Venture, not the individual team members, must submit all proposal documents in the Joint Venture name including all Certifications and Clearances, as applicable, under this Solicitation.”.

Q55. RFP Section: Instruction to Offerors, Paragraph 2.3, Page 36: Regarding the Active Facility Security Clearance at Proposal Submission (Phase I), does the Government require a letter from the offeror simply confirming that it possesses an active Secret Facility Clearance or does the Government require a more official notice such as a printout from ISFD?

A55. The offeror shall provide the final determination letter received when the clearance was granted. It is recommended the offerors refer to their Facility Security Officer for further assistance.

Q56. RFP Section: PHASE I, Paragraph B(1) and B(2), Page 40 and 41: Is Paragraph B(1) Past Performance References and Paragraph B(2) Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ) referring to the same requirement? In other words, can the Government confirm that the submission of three (3) PPRQs (Paragraph B(2)) would satisfy the requirement under Paragraph B(1)?

A56. See A33 and A34.

Q57. RFP Section: PHASE II, Paragraph Price Notes (2), Page 43: Regarding the statement “The extended amounts must equal a whole dollar amount” does the Government require that the extended amount in the Basic IDIQ Pricing Table not contain any cents and must be rounded to the nearest whole dollar? This seems like this would likely cause imprecise pricing based on offerors pricing burdens as well as SCA requirements.

A57. See Amendment 0003, revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors where in the following is revised, “The extended amounts must be carried two decimal places only, to the hundredths place”

Q58. Can the Government confirm that an awardee would be conflicted out of only the Defense Travel System Program and the Defense Travel Modernization Programs and no other DHRA programs?

A58. See A5 and A53.

Q59. Can we assume that the submission requirements will change due to COVID-19?

A59. See A4.

Q60. RFP states: “Note: The Government anticipates awarding the First Task Order immediately after the Basic IDIQ Contract is awarded.” Is our understanding correct that the BASIC IDIQ Contract will be awarded end of August, on or about, with the first Task Order awarded mid September 2020?

A60. The estimated timeframes for issuance of task orders are provided in RFP, Attachment 7 Historical/Additional Information.

Q61. Section 9.0 (Government Furnished Property/Equipment) states: “In addition, computer hardware and software that may allow access to unclassified Government networks, printers, and scanners shall be provided to employees having access authorization”. Will an employee that does not require “access authorization” be provided with Government Furnished Property/Equipment in the event that telework is required?

A61. The place of performance is onsite. All employees will be required to have some type of access to government systems or networks to perform onsite work.

Q62. Are we correct in our understanding that Clason Point Partners is the incumbent on Task Order 1?

A62. Clason Point Partners is the incumbent for contract H98210-18-C-0011. See RFP, Attachment 7 Historical/Additional Information.

Q63. Can the government provide the names and contract information for the incumbent contractors performing on Task Orders 1, 2 and 3?

A63. See RFP, Attachment 7, Historical/Additional Information for incumbent contractor information.

Additionally, the Government’s requirement for Enterprise-wide admin support services, not only combines two, current 8(a) contracts but it also substantially increases the magnitude and scope of the work by including additional effort for multiple, geographically dispersed, DHRA components

Q64. Historical/Additional Information. Task Order Schedule on page 77 of 80 states: “a. Task Order 01, for DMDC, will be issued on or about, early September 2020.” Is our understanding correct that the BASIC IDIQ Contract will be awarded end of August, on or about, early September 2020?

A64. No, the basic IDIQ contract is anticipated to be awarded early August 2020, see page 5 of the RFP for “Delivery Information”. See Amendment 3 which revises Attachment 7, Historical/Additional information.

Q65. Reference: RFP Section Volume II: FACTOR 1- Past Performance, Paragraph(s) ii, Page 40. The solicitation states, “Note: 8(a) Joint Ventures approved by the SBA may submit past performance information performed individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work performed by the joint venture itself.” Question: In the case of JVs that do not have prime contracts, does the Government require EACH member of the JV to submit one past performance or can one member of the JV submit two references, as long as they are prime contracts.

A65. Yes, one member of the JV may submit 2 references as long they are performed as a prime contractor.

See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 4.2(B)(ii)(1) which states, “Offerors shall provide past performance information on no more than three (3) references of recent and relevant past contracts Past performance of the Prime and one Subcontractor will be considered. At least two (2) references shall be from the offeror’s performance as a Prime contractor.”

Q66. Reference: RFP Section Volume II: FACTOR 1- Past Performance, Paragraph(s) ii, Page 40. The solicitation states, “To be recent, the past performance effort being submitted for evaluation must have occurred within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.” Question: Can the Government identify the minimum length of time required for the past performance?

A66. See A13.

Q67. Reference: RFP Section Volume II: FACTOR 1- Past Performance, Paragraph(s) ii, Pages 40 and 41. The solicitation states: “(1) Past Performance References: Offerors shall provide past performance information on no more than three (3) references of recent and relevant past contracts.” “(2) Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ): Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) relevant and recent past performance references using the Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPRQ), RFP Attachment 8.” Question: Can the Government please clarify if the past performance references described in Paragraph ii.(1) are the same as the Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaires (PPRQ) described in Paragraph ii.(2)? If not, can the Government please clarify in what format the offeror should provide past performance references to satisfy the requirement in Paragraph ii.(1)?

A67. See A33, A34, and A56.

Q68. Reference: RFP Section ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 2.3, Page 36.

Facility clearance – Since the Prime is expected to be an 8(a) small business, it is unlikely to have all potential offerors to have the Secret facility clearance. As an agency promoting small business actively, can the government re-consider this criteria so that even the small business get a fair chance to bid for this opportunity?

A68. See A27 and A45

Q69. Reference: RFP Section ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 2.3, Page 36.

Facility clearance – If the above may not be feasible then we request the government to provide at a minimum a level-playing field for the small business to compete on this opportunity. With this in mind, can the government at least amend the criteria to include ‘either a Prime or a Sub’ to have the Secret facility clearance?

A69. See A27

Q70. Reference: RFP Section ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) 2.3, Page 36. Facility clearance – The Prime, being an 8(a) small business has applied for facility clearance and awaiting the outcome. Additionally, the Subcontractor can evidence the Secret facility clearance to further provide assurance to the government that the ‘offeror team’ has the necessary controls on this aspect. Will the government consider it acceptable if the Prime has applied for Secret clearance and awaiting the outcome?

A70. See A1, A27, and A45

Q71. Reference: RFP Section ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph(s) Past Performance , Page 40. Past Performance – Does the Prime contractor have to submit all three past performances, or can the Subcontractor submit one of the three past performances?

A71. See RFP Amendment 0003, revised Addendum TO FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 4.2(B)ii(1), Offerors shall provide past performance information on no more than three (3) references of recent and relevant past contracts. Past performance of the Prime and one Subcontractor will be considered. At least two (2) references shall be from the offeror’s performance as a Prime contractor. To be recent, the past performance effort being submitted for evaluation must have occurred within five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Also in accordance with this section of the RFP, “The offeror must indicate if it has no past performance.”

Q72. Reference: RFP Section PWS, Paragraph(s) 4.7, Page 62. SharePoint Web Content management is part of the PWS. However, all the labor categories are related to project management and administrative management tasks. Do we not need a SharePoint Developer for this contract?

A72. No, the tasks in the IDIQ PWS under Section 4.7 are administrative in nature and do not require development support.

Q73. Reference: RFP Section 4.2 Proposal, Paragraph(s) PHASE II (Technical and Price) (iii Volume III:

FACTOR 2 – Technical and (iv) Volume IV: FACTOR 3 – Price Proposal, Pages 41 & 42. Will the Government consider removing the requirement for hard copy submissions for Phase II (Technical and Price), Volumes III and IV, based on COVID-19 restrictions?

A73. See A4

Q74.The Contract numbers H98210-18-C-0011 & H98210-17-C-0007 were previously listed under NAICS 561110 with a size standard of $7.5M and has now been moved to NAICS 541611 with a size standard of $16.5M. (a.) Why was there a change in NAICS? Pages 1 and 77. (b.) Is the intent in increasing the size standard to make it more appealing for ALL 8(a) including ANC to bid?

A74. This is a new requirement. The Government’s requirement for Enterprise-wide administrative support services, not only combines two current 8(a) contracts but it also substantially increases the magnitude and scope of the work by including additional effort for multiple, geographically dispersed, DHRA components.

Q75.The Past Performance seems very restrictive for the “Administrative Support Services” that is being asked of the contractor; Why is there a dollar value of $6M in order for a company’s past performance to be “Very Relevant” in section 5.2? P48

A75. The Government considers the requirements of the PWS when establishing the criteria for past performance. The Government’s requirement for Enterprise-wide admin support services, not only combines two current 8(a) contracts but it also substantially increases the magnitude and scope of the work by including additional effort for multiple, geographically dispersed, DHRA components. Please see the table at paragraph 5.2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings wherein the description for Very Relevant is “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

Q76.We are an 8(a) and a small business currently working in support of DHRA; We would like to bid on the solicitation however, it reads as if it is not geared towards the smaller 8(a) which leaves us being “Somewhat Relevant” or “Not Relevant” before attempting to respond to the Solicitation: Why is there a “CONUS” requirement with additional dollar values, and multiple states for a company to be considered “Relevant”? P48

A76. The Government considers the requirements of the PWS when establishing the criteria for past performance. See the table at paragraph 5.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings wherein the description for Relevant is “Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” Additionally, Relevancy is only one aspect that goes into the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

Q77. Reference: RFP Section 4.2, Paragraph(s) Proposal Organization, Phase 1 Table Page 5 of Amendment 0001, Under Phase I – Volume I, the instructions are given to cover letter (Tab A) and not for the Business Proposal (Tab B). Please let us know what needs to be included in Tab B.

A77. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 4.2 (A) and (B)i).

Q78. Reference: RFP Section Volume II: FACTOR 1- Past Performance, Paragraph(s) ii, Page 40. The solicitation states, “Note: 8(a) Joint Ventures approved by the SBA may submit past performance information performed individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work performed by the joint venture itself.” Question: In the case of JVs that do not have prime contracts, does the Government require EACH member of the JV to submit one past performance or can one member of the JV…