DESS RFP AMD 0003 QA_FINAL_20120626.pdf

RFP #HC1047-12-R-4013

Amendment 0003 Questions & Answers

Question

Technical / Management

Questions / Comments

RFP

Reference Government Response

RFP

Change

Required

(Y/N)

Location of

Change

T-001

We just reviewed Amendment #4 to the DESS

RFP and noticed that Attachment #4 is dated 22

March 2012. Is the version dated 22 March the correct one we are to use ?

Amendment

0004, Attachment

The Government will post a revised Attachment

4. Also refer to T-007.

Yes Attachment 4

T-002

Can the government clarify whether the labor categories in Attachment 15 designated as "Key

Personnel" are required to be bid and with associated resumes submitted for each Task

Order at this time? We would assume that it is up to the offeror's discretion which Key

Personnel labor categories to bid for each Task

Order. We thought, for example "Executive

Operations Research Analyst (Key Personnel)" and "Subject Matter Expert Lead (Key)" might not be required for EACH task order. The answer to K-053 does not clearly address the government's expectation for which key labor categories they expect to see in each sample

Task Order.

Attachment

Resumes are not required at this time. It is at the Offeror’s discretion to propose the labor mix/skill sets that they deem most appropriate to fulfill the requirements as stated. The identification of Key Personnel in Attachment

15 does not mandate that the Offeror propose that labor category for each task order.

No N/A

T-003

Please clarify the answer to Question T-127 which asks about VTC 24x7 support, but points to T-037 which answers a question about incident management.

RFP Q&A

Document, Question T-

The response to T-127 as provided by the

Government is accurate. The staffing approach is at the Offeror’s discretion under

Performance-Based contracting.

No N/A

T-004

Per K-053 key personnel are listed in the labor tables. By placing the key personnel requirement in the labor tables will be required for all subsequent IDIQ task orders. We recommend the Government move the key personnel requirement to task order 0001 and

G.3.a. and

Attachment

Refer to the Government’s response to question K-140 in the RFP Q&A document posted to FedBizOpps on 21 Jun 12.

No N/A all subsequent task orders.

T-005

Technical / Management Risk. Address technical / management risks for each

Technical/Management subfactor by identifying those aspects of the proposal you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with Section M, Paragraph M.3.2 entitled

“Factor 1 – Technical / Management Risk” and subparagraphs thereto. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of the contract requirements. Propose a realistic "work around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

Could the Government identify how many pages are allocated for the rationale for each risk, its rating including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule and performance?

L.6.2.2.2

Page allocation within the

Technical/Management Volume is at the

Offeror’s discretion; however, the total pages for that Volume may not exceed the limitations established in L.5.1.

No N/A

T-006

The Government has also requested that offerors follow the risk approaches in section

M.3.2.

The Technical Risk Ratings and descriptions are provided in M.3.3.

Could the Government identify which risk matrix is to be followed? The risk matrix in M

3.2 and associated subsections do not address cost, schedule, technical and other risk issues.

Please advise.

T-007

Amendment 0004 provided a revised

Attachment 4 in which paragraph numbering in

Section 6 was changed to create 14 specific tasks as opposed to three specific tasks, the third of which had multiple subtasks. However, PWS Task Area references in Appendix A were not changed to reflect the newly defined tasks.

In addition, the “Estimated Number of FTEs

Required” specified on p. 1 of the PWS in

Amendment 0003 were not included in the

Amendment 0004 version. Will the

Government issue an updated version of

Attachment 4 to correct these anomalies?

Section J, Attachment

Attachment 4 as provided in RFP Amendment

0004 will be revised to update Appendix A, the date on the cover page, and the “Estimated

Number of FTEs Required”.

Yes Attachment 4

T-008

In reviewing the newly added education and experience requirements added to the labor category descriptions, we noted certain cases where the education or experience requirements did not appear consistent with the category descriptions. Specifically, the responsibilities defined for labor categories 49, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 72, 78, and 79 appear to require a BS/BA degree rather than only a High school or AA degree as specified in the

Amendment 3 revision. In order to ensure that we appropriately price and staff these positions, could the Government confirm that

Attachment

The educational requirements for the labor categories identified will not be changed.

the responsibilities enumerated under these labor categories could be reasonably performed by staff with the minimum education requirements specified?

Question

Past Performance Questions / Comments

RFP

Reference Government Response

RFP

Change

Required

(Y/N)

Location of

Change

PP-001

RFP Section L.6.3.5 requires submittal of Past

Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) by the client POCs. In several cases, we are finding that the POC is refusing to fill out and submit the PPQ given the availability of CPARS information. It is requested that the

Government provide guidance for these PPQ cases.

L.6.3.5 The Government has no guidance to issue on this matter.

No N/A

PP-002

The Government’s Answer to Question PP-003 conflicts with the instructions in the RFP, Section L.5, VOL III, Part A which allows for 5 pages for the Summary Page (L.6.3.2.a). Please clarify.

RFP Q&A,

Question PP-

003 and

Section L.5.1

The RFP reference in L.5.1 to a 5-page limitation for the Past Performance Summary

Page is correct.

No N/A

PP-003

Specify, by name, any key individuals who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant procurement. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both procurements. What is meant by “instant procurement”?

Attachment

10, Paragraph I

The term “instant procurement” is synonymous with the “DESS procurement”.

No N/A

PP-004

The Q&A (PP-003) states that the Government prefers a one-page PP summary total while section L lists the PP summary as 5 pages.

Please advise.

RFP Q&A,

Question PP-

003 and

Section L.5.1

Refer to PP-002. No N/A

PP-005

L.6.3.3 states “The Government considers a significant subcontractor and/or teaming partner to be a company who provides

20% or more of the support required, and/or a company who provides a critical portion of the effort required and/or influences the results of

L.6.3.3 No. No N/A performance.” The total number of past performance efforts that may be submitted by the prime and all teaming partners is 7.

Will the Government consider increasing the number of past performance efforts submitted by the prime and all teaming partners to 10?

The original RFP did not specify a limit to the PP to be used and our team will have to restructure our approach using 7 PP.

PP-006

Amendment 3 changed the font on Attachment

10 – Past Performance Volume Template from

10 pt to 12 pt. In order to minimize the impact of rework on already completed portions of our proposal, request the page limitation specified in Section L.5.1 for this portion of the response be changed from “3 Pages, for each reference” to “4 Pages, for each reference.

L.5.1 The Government will revise the page limitation from 3 pages to 4 pages for each reference.

Yes L.5.1

Question

Cost / Price

Questions / Comments

RFP

Reference Government Response

RFP

Change

Required

(Y/N)

Location of

Change

C-001

New Sample Task 4 in Amendment 0003 shows

11 Subtasks. In Attachment 14a Sample Task 4, starting on line 43, shows 14 Subtasks. Which is correct? Please clarify. Does Sample Task 4 have 11 Subtasks or 14 Subtasks. If the Sample

Task is correct then we can change the

Attachment 4 to reflect only 11 Subtasks

Task Order

0004 in

Amendment

0003 and

Attachment

14a in

Amendment

The corrected version of Task Order 0004 will be posted with RFP Amendment 0004.

Yes Attachment 4

C-002

Are Sample Task Orders required to be priced because they may eventually be awarded at said prices (contract prices)? If so, that would not enable the potential awardee(s) to discount, it appears.

Proposal responses to the

Sample Task Orders (including cost/price submissions) are required to gauge the

Offeror's ability to perform the full scope of work under the contract-level PWS. These

Sample Task Orders may be recompeted in the future amongst the DESS multiple award ID/IQ contract holders at which time discounting will be permitted.

No N/A

C-003 Are the Sample Task Orders are being evaluated for price?

Refer to Section M.5. No N/A

C-004

It appears in the Q&A that the Government is seeking detail pricing (DL + all applicable in directs and fee) be provided for both the Labor

Rate Table as well the Task Orders, more specifically the FFP Sub-Tasks. If the detail is provided in the Labor Rate table and no Sample

Task order is allowed discounting except for

Task 1, does the Government still need to review and evaluate the Detail for cost reasonableness on the Sample Tasks?

L.6.4.2.2.2.2

If offeror provides detail pricing to support its labor rate table, no detail is required to support proposed labor rates for Sample Task Orders

0002 – 0006 so long as labor rates are proposed from the labor rate table. Otherwise provide all detail supporting proposed rate(s) not found in the labor rate table.

C-005

On Sample Task order 0004, the rows labeled

Task 4 – Task 14 are actually sub tasks under

Task 3. Please modify the Attachment.

Attachment

14a Refer to C-001 and C-006. No N/A

C-006

The CLIN type in row 46 should not be “FFP” because some of the subtask CLINs contain

CPFF. Please remove “FFP” label so the row is blank for the summary Task 3.

Attachment

14a

The CLIN structure/type reflected in

Attachment 14a is accurate.

No N/A

C-007

For Task Order 0006 - Information Technology

Enterprise Architecture (EA) Support Services, the row for Task 7 is missing. Please modify the attachment to include Task 7 and include a

CLIN type.

Attachment

14a

Attachment 14a will be revised to include Task

7 for Task Order 0006.

Yes

Attachment

14a

C-008

Detail requested includes pricing for each subcontractor for each Sample Task Order.

Since (i) the prime and each subcontractor is capable of supporting the staffing for our solution; (ii) the Sample Task Order must be priced with the ceiling rates; (iii) the cost build up for each labor category will be provided by each subcontractor on the “rates” tab of attachment 14 (c); and (iv) each subcontractor may have differing rates (lower than the ceiling rate), we believe it would be cumbersome and confusing to price each sample task order at this level of detail. Would it be acceptable to price each task by labor category, hours and ceiling rate, without regard to which company may perform the efforts?

Attachment

14c No No N/A

C-009

Attachment 14(c) states that we need to

“add additional tabs, as appropriate, to reflect

WBS for each Contract Year to level 3”, Attachment 14(a) has been modified to add

Tasks under each Task Order. Is it sufficient to

Attachment

14c No No N/A provide cost detail (by tab) in Attachment (c) at the Task level reflected on Attachment (a)?

Question

Contractual Questions / Comments

RFP

Reference Government Response

RFP

Change

Required

(Y/N)

Location of

Change

K-001

Due the volume and complexity of the

Questions and Answers and changes to the

RFP, we respectfully request a further extension of two (2) weeks.

N/A

RFP Amendment 0004 has been issued to extend the proposal due date to 23 July 2012 at

11:59AM EDT.

Yes

RFP

Amendment

0004, Block 14

K-002

Due to the scope and complexity of the Task

Areas, please consider moving the DESS

Proposal due date from June 12 to July 10, 2012.

Page 1, Section 9 Refer to K-001. No N/A

K-003

Due to the exceptionally large volume of controlled documents that were released and need to be analyzed and reviewed, please consider moving the DESS Proposal due date from June 12 to July 10, 2012.

Page 1, Section 9 Refer to K-001. No N/A

K-004

Given the extensive series of revisions to the initial RFP and the hundreds of questions, which will require bidders to extensively reorganize, reformat, and revise their existing proposals, we wish to request a one month extension to the bid submission due date, until

7 August 2012.

Section A Refer to K-001. No N/A

K-005

Given the large number of changes and additions to the basic RFP document, we would like to request a Word version copy of the entire document that includes “change bars” or has the “track changes” feature activated.

RFP

The Government’s contract writing software does not allow for the use of track changes.

The Q&A document posted on 21 June 2012 specifies if a change was made as a result of the

Government’s responses to questions, as well as the corresponding location of the change within the RFP and its’ attachments.

No N/A

K-006 Section L.5.2 on page 132 of 151 states that resumes are not included in the page count.

L.5.2

Resumes are not required. Section L.5.2 has been updated to remove the reference to Yes L.5.2

Please confirm that DISA does not require resumes to be submitted with the DESS proposals for any of the positions identified in

Attachment 15 (Labor Categories) or the contract-level personnel identified in Section

G.3.a (business development, quality control, proposal management contract management).

resumes.

K-007

Please clarify that the revised RFP page limitation for the Entire Technical/Management

Volume is 100 pages.

In the revised RFP HC1047-R-4013-0003, Table

5.1. Proposal Organization table, row II, Part B, C, & D state “Overall Page Limit for Entire

Technical/Management Volume is 100 pages. Allocation of Pages Per Subfactor is at the Offeror’s Discretion.” However answer

K-042 states overall page limit for states “85 pages total”, with “no” in the “RFP Change” on the proposal column.

L.5.1 The page limitations cited in Section L.5.1 are accurate.

No N/A

K-008

The text for T-90 through T-94 do not display properly in the PDF file; and we can’t assess their impact. Please publish a the full text for

T-90 through T-94 (DESS_Question-Answer_-

_FINAL_2012_06_19_1700(1))

RFP Q&A

Document

The Government previously addressed this issue via posting a revised Q&A document to

FedBizOpps on 21 Jun 12 at 12:12PM EDT.

No N/A

K-009

The revised incentive/remedy language has no ceiling on disincentives. The language is heavily imbalanced towards penalties without the ability to recover incentives in other areas.

There is no ceiling for the disincentives

(maximum monthly amount of fiscal remedy).

The contractor is dependent on the government provided tools to perform the

Attachment

1 -

Operations

Task Order

No. The Government intends to enforce the

SLAs, incentives and remedies as written.

duties. Some of these tools (e.g. Remedy v6) are not at the current level required to support the government goal of moving toward ITIL.

Therefore, the contractor will be limited by government provided tools to make necessary improvements to achieve SLAs.

Please modify the language so the contractor can earn back incentives during same fiscal period; and so the maximum disincentive does not exceed the maximum incentive.

K-010 Could the Government identify the volume where this risk matrix is to be placed?

Refer to L.6.2.2 for instructions regarding

Technical/Management Risk.

No N/A

K-011

The referenced section specifies that “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.”

Amendment 3 identified several portions of the response that are not subject to page limitations that were to be page-limited before.

Request that instructions be revised to state

“Pages shall be numbered sequentially by proposal part as defined in Section L.5.1.” This will enable offerors to more clearly delineate pages subject to the page limitations.

L.5.3.1 The Government will make the suggested revision.

Yes L.5.3.1

K-012

The Table in Section L.5.1 runs off the page.

Can the Government please provide the full table.

L.5.1 The Government will make the suggested revision.

Yes L.5.1