Consolidated QA's 1 14 Feb 11.doc

Consolidated Q&A’s Number 1 (Post Pre-solicitation Conference)

1. The NAICS code for this procurement (Section I, Clause 252.204-7007), 541330 Engineering Services, has several subcategories with differing size standards. Given the mission of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and the nature of the test and evaluation support services to be provided, wouldn’t the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons (MAE&MW) subcategory of this NAICS code ($27M size standard) be a more accurate descriptor of the work to be performed rather than the more general commercial Engineering Services ($4.5M size standard)?

Review of the Small Business Administration (SBA), Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decisions on NAICS Appeals provides a concrete basis upon which judgment can be made. In NAICS Appeal of Davis-Paige Management Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5055 (2009), the SBA stated:

“The special size standard for the MAE&MW segment first appeared in 1984, 44 Fed.Reg. 5024, 5037 (Feb. 9, 1984). The Federal Register articles contain no special discussion of this segment. In OHA’s case law, we have held that for this designation to be appropriate, the procurement must involve professional engineering services with a military application. SIC Appeal of R.M. Vrendenburg & Co., SBA No. SIC-4220 (1996); SIC Appeal of Giordano Associates, Inc., SBA No. SIC-2502 (1986)” (Page 5).

In other words, there is no guidance regarding the MAE&MW subcategory of 541330 other than OHA’s case law which provides the precedent to be used. Case law has defined the two key elements for this subcategory: “professional engineering services” with a “military application”, both of which apply to the Statement of Work in support of DISA. There are many different engineering services the U.S. Government can procure, but only those with military application should be considered for the 541330 MAE&MW subcategory.

In disputing the Government’s choice of NAICS code, the Appellant in Davis-Paige argued unsuccessfully that the work was similar to another procurement and should therefore have the same NAICS designation. The argument was rejected by SBA, stating that “NAICS code designations for other procurements are not of great probative weight”. It is OHA’s responsibility to review contracting officer decisions, therefore “to give too great a weight to designations by contracting officers would be to abdicate its regulatory role as a reviewer of contracting officer decisions.” (Page 5).

Other cases of NAICS Appeals (or SIC Appeals, the prior classification code system) provide evidence of similar procurements found by SBA to merit the designation of 541330 Engineering Services (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons). For example:

· A Missile Defense Agency solicitation for Advisory and Assistance Services was found to have been correctly designated as 541330 Engineering Services (MAE&MW). (NAICS Appeal of Inklings Media Company, SBA No. NAICS-5054 (2009)) (Page 14).

· “A solicitation for test engineer services to provide the government with technical information to evaluate characteristics of aircraft and missile systems is properly classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 8711, ‘Engineering Services: Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons’” (SIC Appeal of Dynamic Science, Inc., SBA No. 3187 (1989)) (Page 1).

· “A solicitation calling for systems engineering support and technical assistance for a satellite communications system is more accurately classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 8711, Engineering Services: Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons” (SIC Appeal of Femme Comp Incorporated, SBA No. 3211 (1989)) (Page 1).

We believe the decisions rendered by the Small Business Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, with regard to 541330 Engineering Services (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons) provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the DISA solicitation is correctly designated by NAICS Code 541330 Engineering Services (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons).

Accordingly, we respectfully request the Government to reconsider the NAICS designation for this effort. In four recent procurements for similar services, this information prompted the Contracting Officer to change the designation from Engineering Services to Engineering Services (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons).

ANSWER: The NAICS code will be changed to Engineering Services (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons) with a $27M size standard.

2. QUESTION: Is the Compensation Plan required in Section 4.4 to be included in the page count?

ANSWER: The Compensation Plan does not count towards the page count.

3. QUESTION: Some Compensation Plans contain salary ranges. Would the Government consider realigning the Compensation Plan submission into the Cost Volume?

ANSWER: Although the Compensations Plans may contain salary ranges, the overall assessment is to review the contractor’s Plans IAW FAR 52.222-46. As such, they will remain in Volume II, Technical/Management.

4. QUESTION: Is the Small Business contracting goal of 31% an aggregate total for all SB categories i.e. SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, VOSB?

ANSWER: The 31% SB goal includes SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, and VOSB. Small Businesses may qualify and be counted in more than one small business category.

5. QUESTION: Is a Relevancy Summary with the required Organizational Change History requirement of L.6.2.2 to be included in Vol. IV?

ANSWER: Yes, it is to be included in Volume IV, Past Performance.

6. QUESTION: The testing exercise stated in the Background Information for the Sample Task #3 states the exercise a duration of three weeks, however, in the “Conference/TDY Section it states 5 days. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The Government has changed the background information in Sample Task 3 to clarify the intent of the task.

7. QUESTION: The relevancy criteria for past performance provided in the RFP precludes some small business from being assessed a favorable rating based only on size.

See Attachment. We recommend that the criteria state in the tables be revised to include a separate criteria for small business teammates/subcontractors. The recommended additions are shown in the attachment below.

The following relevancy rating definitions in Relevancy Table 1 apply to each past performance reference for the Prime. Past performance references for small businesses competing as partners/subcontractors in the opportunity shall meet the relevancy requirements specified in Relevancy Table 2.

RELEVANCY TABLE 1:

RATING

DEFINITION

RELEVANCY TABLE 2:

RATING

DEFINITION

ANSWER: Part of the relevancy determination is to review the threshold level of the contract submitted as part of the past performance evaluation whether it is from a prime or subcontractor. The relevancy definitions for this RFP are provided in Section M2.3.3. These definitions provide the threshold levels the Government considers relevant for this procurement.

8. QUESTION: Is the 80% percentage for Ft. Huachuca staffing inclusive of the Eagle Laboratory Testing Center (ELTC) staffing? If not, where are those assets assigned in the contractor personnel location breakout?

ANSWER: No. Those assets are part of the 5% figure for Ft. Meade.

9. QUESTION: Will the Decision Point Source Selection Software developed by Mantech, be operated solely by Government personnel under the control of the source selection board for this opportunity?

ANSWER: Decision Point is the source selection software utilized by all DISA contracting offices. Mantech has submitted an OCI mitigation plan that has been accepted by DISA for this requirement. Mantech will be training the source selection board on the usage of the software and be available as help desk when required. All documents will be under the control of the Government source selection personnel.

10. Comment: Section 834, Public Law 101-189 established the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan program to reduce administrative burdens across DoD.

QUESTION: Will the Government incorporate DFARS 252.219-7004 to allow those participating contractors in this program to submit the comprehensive plan for this proposal?

ANSWER: DFARS clause 252.219-7004 will be added to the RFP.

11. QUESTION:

Reference: RFP STO #1 page 216 Task Requirements 3rd paragraph; RFP STO #2 page 223 Task Requirements 3rd paragraph.

The US Government’s JSF Delegation Disclosure Letter (DDL) places export control restrictions on MADL information. The DISA RFP requires an unclassified proposal.

Will DISA accept a proposal that is unclassified but contains the export compliance caveat : “FOUO // Rel US” export controlled information restriction?

ANSWER: Yes. The proposal shall be unclassified IAW with the requirements of the RFP. The caveat is acceptable to the Government.

12. Reference: Attachment 2: Past Performance Information.

QUESTION: May the offeror provide a contractor-specific template for past performance contract citations, i.e., in tabular format?

ANSWER: Refer to answer posted in Amendment 3, DISA TE MSS Fort Huachuca QA’s 10 Feb 11, Question # 28.

13. QUESTION: Section M, Paragraph 2.3.4, 3rd Paragraph

This paragraph states in part that the total evaluated price will include the total anticipated task orders “to be awarded as Cost Plus Fixed Fee . . . “

Request confirmation that the 3 anticipated task orders similar to Sample Task Order Six (FFP) will not be included in the total evaluated cost.

ANSWER: All Task Orders (CPFF/FFP) along with transition costs will be included in the total evaluated cost.

14. QUESTION: Section L, Paragraph 7.4.4

This RFP paragraph states to, “Submit an electronically encoded cost/price model in support of the proposed price. Any cost/price model submitted must be consistent with your approved estimating system and must duplicate the logic and mathematical formulas reflected in the paper copy of your proposal.

Based on the instructions in Section L 2. General Instructions, ”The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted only in electronic format.“

Please confirm that no paper copy is required.

ANSWER: The only paper copy required is the signed signature page. Sec L, paragraph 7.4.4 will be corrected to remove the instructions for a paper copy.

15. QUESTION: Section L, Paragraph 7.2

According to Section 7.2, “The Cost/Price Volume shall consist of the following sections: SECTION A - Table of Contents; Summary Descriptions of estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems; Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA) for prime and major subcontractors; … “

Forward Pricing Rate Agreements are company sensitive proprietary information not disclosed by one company to another. Please confirm that the Government will accept FPRA data for a subcontractor in a separate sealed package included with the Prime Contractor proposal.

ANSWER: Yes, that is acceptable.

16. QUESTION: Section L, Paragraph 7.3.4.1

Regarding the Indirect Activity Rate (IAR):

Confirm the IAR is exclusively associated with labor that is required to accomplish the training activities in H.22 and the data call activities in H.33 and H.37 and nothing else.

Confirm that IAR is to be proposed by all offerors as part of each Sample Task Order cost proposal.

ANSWER: The IAR covers direct charges for contract labor to cover contract requirements under H.22, H.33, and H.37 that cannot be attributed to a specific task. The IAR is to be proposed as part of the contractor’s labor rate to recoup the costs for these contract requirements at H.22, H.33 and H.37.

17. QUESTION: Section L, Paragraph 7.3.4.1 and Section M, Paragraph 2.3.4.2

Under Subsection 7.3.4.1, the 4th paragraph references the “fully loaded direct labor category cost”. Also, in Section M2.3.4.2, the 3rd paragraph references the “fully loaded labor rates”.

Please address whether sample task order pricing tables are to include fully loaded rates by contractor defined labor categories similar to a typical T&M fully burdened labor rate per hour.

If the Government requires fully loaded rates, are contractors to provide one rate set for cost reimbursable task orders and a second rate set for fixed price task orders?

Alternatively, does the Government want bidders to use more traditional cost element breakdown formats for displaying total amounts for Cost Reimbursable and Fixed Priced task orders?

ANSWER: Task Order pricing tables should include fully burdened rates for each contractor-defined labor category. Those fully burdened rates should be detailed as defined in RFP pages 190 and 191, Section L, paragraph 7.1, paragraph 3.

18. QUESTION: RFP Pages 231 and 232

Background, 2nd Paragraph; Conferences/TDY, Paragraph e

The RFP provides the following contradicting information on the duration of the Aloha Bowl exercise:

· p. 231, Background, 2nd para: “a three week exercise in the month of September”

· p. 232, Conferences/TDY, para e – “5 days in September”

Please clarify the duration of the Aloha Bowl exercise.

ANSWER: Refer to question #6 above.

19. QUESTION: RFP Pages 231 and 233

Task Requirements, Paragraph e; Specific Personnel Requirements, Paragraph d

We request for clarification on requirement for Information Assurance testing:

· p. 231, Task Reqs, para e – “Testing includes Information Assurance.”

· p. 233, Specific Personnel reqs, para d – “Except for Information Assurance, the contractor will provide support for all functional areas outlined to the exercise.”

Information Assurance is not mentioned anywhere else in the STO 3 requirements section.

ANSWER: The intention of the task is to alert Offerors that Information Assurance testing must be planned for, but that the testing itself will be performed by another entity, the Government Information Assurance Subject Matter Expert. In order to clarify, task wording will be amended as follows:

On page 231, Task Requirements, paragraph e will be changed from “Testing includes Information Assurance.” to “Testing includes Information Assurance, which will be provided by a separate JITC Information Assurance team.”

20. QUESTION: H.5, Incorporation of Additional Labor Categories: Paragraph b. of this article states that “all labor categories and labor rates bid for the sample tasks will be incorporated into Section J of the contract upon award. Should additional labor categories be needed, the contractors will be required to propose labor categories and rates for consideration”. Does this mean that labor categories other than those bid in the sample tasks will only be added post-award, or should contractors include additional labor categories/rates with their proposal submission if they are expected to be used during contract execution, but may not be proposed in the sample tasks?

ANSWER: Contractors are required to submit a schedule of rates for all labor categories they intend to use under the contract. Section H.5 will be modified to remove wording that refers to incorporating labor rates into Section J. Labor rates will not be incorporated into Section J.

21. QUESTION: Section L7.4.3 – Schedule of Rates: This section requires submission of proposed direct and indirect rates by year. Does this mean that we are to submit a schedule of rates for all labor categories we intend to use on the contract, or only those labor categories proposed on the sample tasks?

ANSWER: Contractors are required to submit a schedule of rates for all labor categories they intend to use under the contract.

22. QUESTION: Section L.7.4.3, Schedule of Rates: It is assumed that the schedule of rates incorporated into the contract will be used for bidding future task orders only, and not for invoicing. Please confirm/clarify.

ANSWER: Correct. The schedule of rates will be used for bidding purposes only, as billing arrangements will be determined at the task order level based on contract type and other variables.

23. QUESTION: Section L,7.3.4.1, Indirect Activity Rate: Many contractors disclosed practices are for certain support functions, such as contracts and subcontracts administration, project financial management, etc., to be charged direct to the program they support. While these costs can be identified to a specific program, the nature of the support cannot be attributed to individual task orders on that program. If that is the case, would it be acceptable for these costs to be included in the proposed indirect activity rate? Also, since the RFP does not specify how to price the cost of the Program Manager, can those costs also be included? If not, how should these costs be proposed?

ANSWER: Refer to question #16 above.

24. QUESTION: Section M2.3.4, Factor 4 – Cost/Price Factor: Paragraph 3 indicates the offerors estimated total contract cost is the estimated total costs for all of the estimated number of task orders anticipated to be awarded as Cost Plus Fixed Fee under the contract for the total contract period, including the Base Period and all of the Option Periods and the transition costs awarded as Firm Fixed Price (CLINs 0001 and 4004). Did the government intend to exclude Task Order 6 that will be awarded as Firm Fixed Price?

ANSWER: Section M2.3.4 will be modified to include Firm Fixed Price tasks in the estimated total contract cost.

25. QUESTION: Sample Task #3: The “Background” section, last sentence of this sample task states the following: “In particular, AB participants conduct interoperability testing of military and civilian communications systems during a three-week exercise in the month of September.” Under the section, “Task Requirements, Conformance/TDY”, paragraph (e) states “AB Exercise: Hawaii, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), 5 days in September.” Which is correct” Three weeks or five days?

ANSWER: Refer to question #6 above.

26. Item 1. Reference: Final RFP, Section L, Attachment 2, Past Performance Information.

Since the template for Attachment 2, as provided in Section L, is already at two pages in length without any of the requested information, it seems unreasonable to expect that offerors will be able to provide all the information requested by the Government within the specified 3 page limit for each contract citation, especially with 1.5 line spacing.

Request that the page count for each contract citation be increased.

ANSWER: Refer to answer posted in Amendment 3, DISA TE MSS Fort Huachuca QA’s 10 Feb 11, Question # 28. The Government maintains that 3 pages are sufficient to provide the requested information in the provided form. The Offeror may provide responses without copying instructions and notes which are contained in the form.

27. QUESTION: Volume IV, Past Performance: Neither the Final RFP Section L; paragraph 6 and its subparagraphs; nor any attachment contains a requirement for a specific organization of the contents of Volume IV. Also the RFP contains no requirement for a “Summary Page” for Volume IV. The draft RFP contained the requirement for a “Summary Page describing the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the Offeror is required to provide

Was it the Government’s intent to eliminate the summary page, from the draft RFP?

ANSWER: There is no specific organization for the contents of Volume IV. However, each submitted form for contracts has a 3 page limit, and must have occurred within the 3 years immediately preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation. L 6.2.2 also allows submission of a “roadmap” if applicable, with no page limit, and submitted for informational purposes only as it will not be evaluated. No summary page is required as recency and relevancy of submitted references will be evaluated separately

28. QUESTION: Past Performance: Is it acceptable to submit a classified or FOUO past performance citation, and can you receive a classified or FOUO evaluation from the customer?

ANSWER: Classified or FOUO past performance citations will not be accepted.

29. QUESTION: RFP Article H.31, TRICARE (TMA) OCI Requirements: Paragraph 5 of this clause includes a statement that explains which OCI category this contract falls under, but no OCI category is listed. The statement reads: “OCI Category” <insert category?>. Please state what TMA OCI category this contract falls under, as defined in Article H.31.

ANSWER: This would be determined on a task by task basis depending on the requirement. Categories of OCI’s are listed in the clause at H.31 as either Category 1: TMA Internal Support, Category 2, Program Management Support, and Category 3, Product Support.

30. QUESTION: Section L.4.2.1.1, Technical/Management Risk: Is the requirement for risk information from L.4.2.1.1 the information that is to go into the risk matrix? There are no instructions for the Volume II, Section E, Risk Matrix within Section L and nothing indicates how it will be evaluated within Section M (although M.2.3.1 indirectly mentions that risks will be evaluated as part of the technical/management subfactors). Please clarify.

ANSWER: The requirement is for the risk information from L.4.2.1.1 to go into the risk matrix, which has a 4 page limitation. The risk matrix will not be evaluated separately, but will be considered in the Government’s evaluation of the Technical/Management Factor, as per M.2.3.1, where it is stated that “the evaluation will determine the ability of an Offeror and assess the risks associated with having the Offeror fully support DISA T&E throughout the contract performance period.” Each subfactor under the Technical/Management Factor and the Sample Task Orders Factor will receive a risk rating in accordance with Table 2 under M 2.3.2.

For clarification purposes, the Government will insert a copy of Table 1 and Table 2 (currently in M 2.3.2) at the end of M 2.3.1 also. The Table names will be modified, to show that the Government intends to use the two tables in the evaluation of both Factor 1 and Factor 2.

31. The Government NAICS for this requirement is 541330. Please clarify which small business size standard applies. Several of the past engineering services requirements solicited by PLD/DITCO have utilized the 541330 NAICS code with a $4.5M size standard.

ANSWER: Refer to question #1 above.