7_Feb_2017_Answers.pdf

Question

Questions / Comments RFP Reference Government Response

SETI Contractor Performance Requirements including, but not limited to, Verification (6.1.11), Validation (6.1.12), Product Integration (6.5), Decision Analysis (6.1.2), Risk Management (6.1.5), Training (6.3.15), Technical Solution (6.1.1, 6.1.3, 6.1.7, 6.2.1, 6.5.4) are all Process Areas covered under CMMI-DEV Level 3. Furthermore, all DoDI's must be obeyed when performing DOD business.

Therefore, M&S must be conducted according to DoDI 5000.61 (dated 9 Dec 2009), which states (in part) “Models, simulations, and associated data used to support DoD processes, products, and decisions shall undergo verification and validation (V&V) throughout their lifecycles." If DISA expects a minimum satisfactory performance level from its awardees, will DISA consider requiring that all offerors are certified at CMMI-DEV Level 3?

6.1.11, 6.1.12, 6.5, 6.1.2, 6.1.5,6.3.15, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, 6.1.7, 6.2.1, 6.5.4

No.

Regarding Section M.2.3.2 Relevancy Assessment states: "A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations in section L.4.2.5.3." Paragraph L.4.2.5.3, refers to "Key Personnel", not “Past Performance” which doesn't correlate to the relevancy determination. Would the government please verify that the paragraph reference cited in M.2.3.2 should be L.4.2.5.3 or correct this reference.

M.2.3.2 Reference in Section M.2.3.2 was incorrect. Correct reference is L.4.2.4.3.

L.4.2.5.3 Key Personnel – Would the government consider excluding resumes from the Problem Statement Page Count or provide unlimited page count for resumes? Currently the page limit for the Problem Statement response is limited to 15 pages. If 5 key people are proposed, each with a 2- page resume, the ability to address the additional requirements is severely constrained.

L.2.2.1 L.4.2.5.3

Yes. Removed resumes from page count. Resumes are excluded from 15 page count but are limited to three pages each.

May offerors provide a Table of Contents in each volume in addition to the Master Table of Contents required in Volume I, TAB B? If yes, will it be excluded from the page count?

L.2.2.1 Yes.

May offerors provide a Compliance Matrix with our offer to aid the evaluators? If so, we recommend this document have no page limit.

M.3.1 No.

Will the government provide references to DoD and DISA standards for Knowledge Management so we can verify our current processes and systems?

5B.12

The current DoD standard guidance for Knowledge Management is DoD Instruction 8220.AC

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) FOR THE

DOD

Throughout the solicitation, the DRAFT references the terms “offeror” and “your company”. As a small business, we intend to enter into contractor teaming arrangements to meet the broad requirements of the solicitation. Question:

regarding the term “offeror” or “your company” in the solicitation, will the government consider the combined capabilities of the offeror’s TEAM when evaluating statements regarding past performance innovation, capabilities, etc., or will only the offeror’s lone company be considered?

Multiple (example, L.4.2.3.5)

The "offeror" is the name of the entity that will be entered in Block 15A. Past Performance submission requirements are detailed in L.4.2.4 in regards to what should be submitted and by which entity. For the Innovation Factor, "offeror" and "company" refer to the entity listed in Block 15A.

Given the likelihood of a large number of niche contractors bidding on this contract, as well as the broad and deep technical nature of the requirements and the challenge this will place on small businesses, we recommend the government increase the small business pool to at least 30 awards. This will ensure a large enough pool of small business teams to bid all task orders and mitigate the risk of off-ramping a substantial portion of SBs after the base period as we’ve seen with the Air Force Netcents 2 App Services (Small business) vehicle. Question: Will the government increase the small business award pool from 20 awards to 30?

M.1.1.4 No.

The Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) site includes the following information:

"Anticipated award is second quarter FY18." For proposal pricing purposes, we ask that the Government provide an anticipated Start Date to align labor escalation and quotes for indirect costs.

N/A For pricing purposes use 1 March 2018 for start date.

10 Are there any costs the contractor will bear for background investigations? PWS, C, 12.3 Standard Customary Procedures will be applied

This is a 10-year period of performance contract (plus the potential 6-month extension). With the current language, small businesses who grow during contract performance, which indicates strong performance for the Government, are punished as the only contract holders ineligible for work during the option periods.

Small businesses which do not grow, which may mean limited value for the Government, will be eligible for the option periods. Existing large business aren't affected in the unrestricted pool. The only businesses affected are the small companies which grow. Will the Government reconsider moving a small business who graduates to a large business during the base period of this contract to the unrestricted pool?

G.11 No.

The DRFP incorporates by reference FAR Clause 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. A requirement for this FAR clause is the submission of a Total Compensation Plan (TCP). Does the Government intend for offerors to include a TCP with their proposal? If not, please remove this clause from Section L and include it on the specific task orders where it is required. If so, please provide direction which Volume offerors should include the TCP.

G29

TCPs may be required for individual task orders, but are not required at the Contract level. FAR 52.222-46 will be removed from the list of clauses incorporated by reference.

The clause states "Note that unreasonably high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Price submissions should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness." However, in G.29, for task order pricing, the DRFP states "Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories proposed on individual task orders may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees or may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of task order requirements." We request the Government amend L.6.2.1 with the following "Note that unreasonably high or low proposed prices..." to allow the Government to eliminate unreasonably low proposals from the competition. Otherwise, the Government may award to companies who cannot perform on the subsequent contact.

L.6.2.1

FAR 52.222-46 will be removed from the list of clauses incorporated by reference, and the language in G.29 only pertains to future task orders which may include FAR 52.222-46. Section L.6.2.1 will not be amended.

DRFP states that the contractor shall provide SME and engineering support at DISA or contractor-designated facilities or other locations to assess, develop and mature technology solutions. Will the Government consider expanding the provision of SME and engineering support at identified DISA facilities, contractor-designated facilities or other locations to include the use of configurable networking, audio-visual (AV) and video teleconferencing (VTC) to support and validate Systems Engineering prototypes, simulations and emulations, elements of solutions and more?

Section C Number 9

No. If those conditions are necessary for a specific task order, it will be included in the task order solicitation requirements.

The USCYBERCOM Labor Categories (LCATs) include a separate skill level/qualification description for each LCAT on its Contract. For this and other contracts it includes minimum education, minimum years of experience and required certifications. There is little correlation between degrees and innovation as illustrated by successful companies that started in garages and dormitory rooms.

Will SETI LCATs similarly require appropriate education, years of experience and certifications and allow SETI Contractors to substitute years of experience for education degrees in a generic fashion across the LCATS.

Attachment 10

Yes. In Attachment 10, it states, "Contractors may deviate from the definitions above when responding to task order solicitations so long as the deviations are clearly identified in their task order proposal. For example, a Contractor might label an employee as “Junior” even though the employee has more than 3 years experience. Deviations shall be clearly identified in proposals submitted in response to task order solicitations."

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions. Would the Government please clarify the undefined parameter "unrealistic program commitments".

M.1.5.5 M.1.5.5 has been removed.

17 Would the Government please clarify the definition of a “balanced workforce”? L.3.2.9.3 That the offeror has sufficient personnel of varying skill levels and expertise to meet the requirements.

FAR 15.305.a.2.iii provides for evaluation of resumes and experience of key personnel with relevant expertise in lieu of past performance. If offeror’s have key personnel with SME-level expertise in several SETI domains, will the government allow us to 2) Use personal key person past performance in lieu of company past performance per FAR 15.305.a.2.iii? How has / will DISA evaluate key personnel who have relevant experience, in lieu of or in addition to cited past performance?

N/A No. The Government will evaluate Past Performance of the company per the solicitation.

Section M.4.2 tells how the problem statements will be evaluated. Although the language says that the offerors' proposals will be evaluated based on the extent that they propose risk mitigation, an organization chart, key personnel list, schedule, and change management process. Request that the words “extent that they propose” be replaced with “their proposed”. This would require that all offerors propose those items.

M.4.2 No changes will be made to this wording.

Respondents are asked to complete the response to Innovation: Describe in detail how this project was innovative. What technologies were invented, improved or updated? Later in the template, a section asks for Innovative aspect. Would the Government please provide clarification about the difference between these two and what specific information is required?

Attachment 4 Template has been corrected to remove the duplication.

6. Suggestions to maximize effectiveness in providing quality services, we recommend that the Government strongly consider selecting small businesses that:

a. Can use their Past Performance as a subcontractor as opposed to only considering Prime contractor past performance

b. Have Past Performance providing both CONUS and OCONUS support c.

Possess ISO 9001 and ISO 27001 Certifications c. Possess Facility clearance of Top Secret e. Have experience and past performance working simultaneously on multiple task orders or contracts exceeding $1 million each.

Offerors can use their past performance earned as a subcontractor as long as they clearly identify this and state what they did as a subcontractor and the dollar value of their subcontracted work. Regarding the rest, offerors may provide this information to demonstrate their experience, capabilities and what they bring to the table in relation to these items, but they are not requirements of this solicitation.

CLIN 1004, which is for contract option years 6-10, includes a reference to "five year base period (Contract Years 1 through 5)". Please update CLIN 1004 to reference "five year option period (Contract Years 6 through 10)".

Section B, CLIN 1004

Corrected.

"Warfighter" appears to be frequently misspelled in the RFP. Please correct "Warfigher" to read "Warfighter" throughout the RFP.

Section C3, Section C4, etc.

Corrected.

Please clarify why Section C5B.10 indicates that costs associated with attending post-award Task Order-related meetings and conferences would be at no direct charge to the contract. Such meetings would include Periodic Progress Meetings as referenced in Section C9.

Section C5B.10 Section C9

Removed sentence from 6.9.11 regarding direct cost of meetings.

This Offeror always strives to perform exceptionally on its federal contracts, but does not understand how Performance Standards for this contract can require satisfactory performance or better on all federal contracts performed by an awarded Contractor.

Section C7 Satisfactory is the minimum standard to meet all requirements of a federal contract.

Will there be an opportunity for an awarded Contractor to share in savings that result from a contractor-submitted recommendation?

Section C8 Yes. See FAR Clause 52.248-1

Please remove the "SECTION C" heading from page 33, move the content of C1 on page 33 to replace the text in Section C14.c, and then renumber Sections C2 through C5 on pages 33 through 36 to be Sections 16 through 19, as these are additional subsections under Section C (PWS), and Sections C1 through C15 already exist.

Sections C1- C5, p.33-36

Removed conflict from PWS paragraph 14.c. No other changes made.

Please change "G.16" to read "G16" on page 49, for consistency with the numbering of other portions of Section G.

Section G.16 Corrected. Numbering now G15.

Please change "has not pre-approved" to "will not pre-approve" in the first sentence of Section G17.

Section G17 Changed to "will not pre-approve." Numbering now G16.

32 Please choose one version of FAR Clause 52.232-16 and remove the other two. FAR 52.232-16

The original FAR 52.232-16 clause with Alt III applies to all SETI contracts, while the original FAR 52.232- 16 clause with Alt I and Alt III applies to SETI small business set-aside contracts.

CLINs x001 and x002 address FFP and Cost Reimbursable task orders. Under what CLIN(s) will Incentive Contracts (FAR 16.4) and Time-and-materials (FAR 16.601) type task orders be billed?

CLINs x001-x002, Section B3

T&M will use CLIN 0003. Incentives, if used at the Task Order level, will utilize the CLIN for the type of contract used (FFP, CR, T&M).

Please modify the reference to TAB J under Volume I in Table L.2.2 to read "TAB I".

Table L.2.2, Management Information

Corrected.

Please confirm that commitment letters for proposed non-employees should be submitted in the "Management Information" tab of Volume I along with the required resumes.

Table L.2.2, Management Information

There is no requirement in the solicitation to provide commitment letters for proposed non-employees. If you meant Consent Letters, those should be included at Tab D, Vol. II

Section L.2.2.1 states that OCCI Mitigation Plans will be excluded from page count. Please identify where, in the proposal, Offerors should place an applicable OCCI Mitigation Plan. The specified location in Section H of TAB F (as stated in L.3.2.6) is confusing, as plans are not typically submitted inline with solicitation contract requirements.

L.2.2.1, Page Limitations, L.3.2.6

OCCI Plan, if applicable, shall be submitted in Tab F of Vol. I

Please bold "Solicitation/Contract Form" in L.3.2.3 for consistency with other headers in that section, to enhance readability.

Section L.3.2.3 Bolded.

Please change the heading for Section L.5.2.1 to read "TAB A: FACTOR 4 : Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan".

Section L.5.2.1 Corrected.

Please change the heading for Section L.6.0 to read "Volume IV: FACTOR 5:

Cost/Price Proposal".

Section L.6.0 Corrected.

Please change the VOLUME/TAB TITLE for Volume III TAB A to read "FACTOR 4: Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan".

Table L.2.2 Corrected.

Please change the VOLUME/TAB TITLE for Volume III TAB B to read "Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if required".

Table L.2.2 Corrected.

Please change the RFP PARAGRAPH NUMBER for Volume IV TAB A to read "6.2".

Table L.2.2 Corrected

Please change the RFP PARAGRAPH NUMBER for Volume IV TAB B to read "6.3".

Table L.2.2 Corrected

In the heading for Section L.4.2.1 please change the reference to "Task Area Charts" to read "Task Area Chart" (singular) for consistency with other occurrences in the RFP.

Section L.4.2.1 Corrected

45 Please change reference to "CSs" to read "CDs".

Section L.2.3, 3rd paragraph Corrected

For consistency with Section L.3.2.3, Proposal Acceptance Period, please change the Section L.2.0 reference to "Section A of the proposal documentation volume" to read "TAB C of the Contract Documentation volume".

Section L.3.2.3, L.2.0

Changed.

Please state that it is the Government's intention that each Offeror place its Transmittal Letter in TAB C of Volume I.

Section L.3.2.3, 3rd paragraph

L.3.2.3 has been, in part, changed to say, "Proposal Acceptance Period. The Offeror shall fill in block 12 of the SF 33 that its proposal is valid for no less than 180 days from the date of submission of its’ proposal response to the RFP." No transmittal letter is required.

48 Please clarify whether Section C (PWS) must be submitted in TAB F of Volume I. Section L.3.2.6 The PWS does not need to be included in the offeror's submission.

Please clarify whether Section J (List of Attachments) must be submitted in TAB F of Volume I.

Section L.3.2.6

Section J does not need to be submitted in TAB F. If attachments need to be utilized in submission of proposal, they should be submitted in the appropriate tabs.

Please change "Past Performance Information" to "Past Performance Questionnaires" for consistency with Table L.2.2.

Section L.4.2, TAB D

Changed to match Table L.2.2

The placement of the sentence "Organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs to facilitate evaluation" at the front of TAB C is confusing. Assuming the "submitted material" refers to responses to L.4.2.3.x, please move the sentence right above L.4.2.3.1, and change "the submitted material" to "the following material".

Section L.4.2.3 No changes will be made to the placement of the sentence.

In the paragraph preceding L.4.2.3.1, please change "constant flux Primary Innovation Interests" to read "Primary Innovation Interests that are in constant flux".

Section L.4.2.3 No wording will be changed.

Please change "4.2.3.2" to "L.4.2.3.2" for consistency with numbering of other sections.

Section 4.2.3.2, page

Corrected.

Recommend introducing an underlined header on the fourth bullet of Section

4.2.3.2 to read "Knowledge Management", for consistency with other bullets in that section.

Section 4.2.3.2, page 1.3.4

Added Knowledge Management.

Recommend putting the "Note" at the top of L.4.2.3.3 as the first bullet under Section L.4.2.3.3, because it requires a response from the Offeror. Also recommend using "The offeror shall" as the introduction to the bullet list.

Section L.4.2.3.3 No changes made.

In the fourth bullet of Section L.4.2.3.3, please change "company's innovative processes models and/or approaches" to read "company's innovative process models and/or approaches".

Section L.4.2.3.3, 4th bullet

Corrected.

Recommend putting "Describe" as the first word of the last bullet of Section L.4.2.3.3.

Section L.4.2.3.3, last bullet

Corrected.

Please change "implementation actionable innovative changes" to "implement actionable innovative changes" in the last bullet of Section L.4.2.3.4.

Section L.4.2.3.4, last bullet

Revised wording

Feedback: Section L.4.2.3.4 and L.4.2.3.5 requirements will be difficult for small businesses to meet. Larger, well established, firms with the greater human and financial resources will more readily achieve such outreach, participation, certifications, accreditations, awards, achievements, and patents.

Section L.4.2.3.4 Section L.4.2.3.5

Feedback noted.

Please change "Offerors who can provide past performance of deployed technologies is desirable" to read "Offerors who can provide past performance of deployed technologies are desirable".

Section L.4.2.4.1, 2nd paragraph

Reworded sentence.

Please change "(if less than these threshold" to read "(if contract value is less than these thresholds".

Section L.4.2.4.3, 1st bullet

No change made.

Bullets 3 and 4 appear to be asking for the same thing, with bullet 4 providing more detail to define the attributes of an innovative technical solution. Please remove bullet 3.

Section L.4.2.4.2, bullets 2 and 3

VAE, Inc.

No changes made.

Recommend that the "If Innovative projects are provided that have not been deployed, describe the barriers that prevented deployment" requirement, which appears under L.4.2.4.1 (General) be moved under and described under L.4.2.4.2 (Summary).

Section L.4.2.4.1, 2nd paragraph

No changes made.

Table L.2.2 RFP PARAGRAPH NUMBER 4.2.4.3 under Volume II TAB D does not reflect the fact that an eSRS submission copy and performance recognition documents may be submitted for each contract.

Table L.2.2 Added limitations to tables

Recommend changing "performance of this acquisition" to "performance of the contract"

Section L.5.2.1, 1st paragraph

No changes made.

Recommend changing "acquisition value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal" to read "acquisition value for each SB type also counts towards the overall Small Business Goal" because it is expected that HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB values also count toward the overall Small Business Goal.

Section L.5.2.1, e Revised wording.

Please clarify whether HBCU/MI value is also counted toward the overall Small Business goal.

Section L.5.2.1, e Yes.

Please change reference to "total contract value (TAV)" to read "total acquisition value (TAV)".

Section M.2.5 Corrected

71 Please remove the italicized formatting from Section M.3.0, to enhance readability. Section M.3.0 This is a PD2 generation error. Will try to correct.

Please modify Attachment 8, Small Business Participation and Commitment Proposal Format, to provide consistent bolding for identified section introductions ((a), (b), etc.) and for the "Example:" identifiers, to enhance readability.

Attachment 8 The format has been updated to bold the section introductions

Paragraph 12.1 states that “Other than small businesses must have, at a minimum, a final Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at the time proposals are due.” New unpopulated Joint Ventures and some Large Businesses cannot meet this requirement, unfairly restricting competition for the SETI Unrestricted Pool solicitation. Any corporate entity without an existing FCL from DSS cannot obtain such without a final DD254, which cannot be produced until contract award. Will the Government please consider revising this requirement such that the Offeror must obtain at least a Secret FCL no later than 60 days after contract award?

Paragraph 12.1 (Facility Security

Clearance) on Page

No.

The instructions for page limitations say that cover pages, OCCI mitigation plans, consent letters, commitment letters, and glossaries will not be counted. Can the Government please confirm that cover letters, a Table of Contents, and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are also not subject to page count limitations?

Paragraph L.2.2.1 on Page 128

It's been added that TOC has no page count. PPQ are subject per Table L.2.2. There is no requirement for cover letters. An executive summary's page limitation is listed in the table. Cover pages are not counted in the page limitations.

The row with RFP Paragraph Number 4.2.4.3 in Table L.2-2 (Proposal Organization) specifies a requirement for one CPARS and one PPQ per reference.

However, Paragraph L.4.2.4.3 (PPQs for Recent and Relevant Contracts) says that if a CPARS is included, a PPQ is not required. These requirements seem to conflict. Can the Government please clarify the CPARS and PPQ requirements?

Table L.2-2 on

If CPARS is included, a PPQ is not required. But if the PPQ can provide more information than the standard CPARS, offerors may chose to include both.

This solicitation requires the offeror to solicit and collect the PPQs to include in the proposal. PPQ page limits are in accordance with the template.

Paragraph L.4.2.4.3 directs Offerors to provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template (Attachment 4) for each contract reference (up to 3 maximum). However, Table L.2-2 (Proposal Organization) does not include instructions for including Past Performance Descriptions for each reference under Factor 2. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the Offeror should package this information in Volume II of its proposal. Can the Government please state where the Attachment 4 information should be included in the Offeror’s proposal and state what the page limitations are, if any, for this information?

Paragraph L.4.2.4.3 on Page

Attachment 4 shall be included in Tab D of Vol. II.

Limitation requirements have been updated in Table L.2.2.

Paragraph L.3.2.9.1 (Management) requires the Offeror to include a description of how its company will support the geographic boundaries of the Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). However, Paragraph 9 (Place of Performance) states that “Work may be performed on-site, at all CONUS and OCONUS Government facilities, or at the Contractor’s facility.” This implies that SETI has no geographic boundaries and that the contractor’s team potentially will be geographically dispersed across the enterprise. Can the Government please clarify what “geographic boundaries of the MATOC” really means?

Paragraph L.3.2.9.1 on Page

Reworded to say, "The narrative shall include a description of how your company will support the CONUS and OCONUS locations of the MATOC."

Paragraph L.4.2.4.3 states that individual task orders under an IDIQ contract are each considered to be one past/present performance effort. Can the Government please confirm that an IDIQ contract at the aggregate level can be used as one reference?

Paragraph L.4.2.4.3 on Page

No. An individual task order is considered one past/present performance effort. The Government will not consider an IDIQ at an aggregate level as one reference.

Paragraph L.6.2 states that the total fully burdened rate for each labor category will be the capped ceiling for that labor category for Fixed Price (FP) and T&M type task orders. However, the Section B CLINs and Attachment 9 (Government-provided Excel Workbook) do not include any T&M costs. Does this imply that the Offeror’s FP and T&M rates are identical, or do the B Tables and Attachment 9 need to be updated to reflect T&M rates?

Paragraph L.6.2 on

Yes. T&M are considered fixed rates, not cost reimbursable. Therefore, the labor rates that make up any T&M prices will be identical to the FP rates.

These rates will be ceiling rates.

The Contractor shall provide a CONOPS document for the Government’s review and approval. The CONOPS will lay out the plan for the services to achieve the solution; which addresses all TO functional and administrative activities, roles, and responsibilities. Is the CONOPS an IDIQ level document similar to a Project Management Plan or is it to be provided with each TO and only addresses that specific TO?

DRFP Page 12, Section 5B.5

The CONOPs is a Task Order deliverable.

The DRFP states “Contractor shall have access to, generate, and handle classified material only at Government facilities”. This contradicts the DD254 which states “No” in Block 11 “HAVE ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ONLY

AT ANOTHER CONTRACTOR'S FACILITY OR A GOVERNMENT

ACTIVITY”. This indicates the contractor would require access to classified information at their contractor facility. Please clarify if the contractor is required to store and handle classified information at their facility?

DRFP Page 32, Section 12.7.6

DD254 is being revised. However, contractors may need to be able to access classified information at their facility. If this is the case at the Task Order a separate DD254 may be issued for the specific Task Order.

DISA intends for an awarded SETI contractor to develop and implement a Cyber Security Threat Plan at the Base Contract Level. Will this Cyber Threat Security Plan only address the Prime Contractors IT equipment, network, and infrastructure?

DRFP Page 35, Section C4

If the offeror intends to utilize subcontractors, then the bullet that states "Subcontractors: explain how your subcontractors will be required to implement this requirement within their processes in support of this task." would apply.

The DRFP states” Unless specified otherwise by the OCO, a contractor interested in participating in Cost-Reimbursement type TOs (as defined in FAR 16.301-1) will be required to demonstrate that they have an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract by the time the TO is awarded. This is an accounting system that the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any federal civilian audit agency has audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to this contract in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3).” Will DISA request an audit of awardees accounting systems upon award so they may be eligible to participate in CR type contracts?

DRFP Page 51, Section G22

Yes.

The DRFP states “Consent to subcontract means the CO's written consent for the Contractor to enter into a particular subcontract.” Will approvals be at the base contract level or must subcontractors be approved at the TO level?

DRFP Page 92, Section 52.244-

2(a) Task Order Level.

The DRFP states “Section H: Special Contract Requirements.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (if applicable).” The OCI is to be determined at the TO level per earlier DRFP guidance so should this be “No submission required”?

DRFP Page 131, Section L.3.2.6

The Government has determined that there are not OCCI at the IDIQ level. No OCCI plan is required to be submitted at the IDIQ level. OCCI may be determined at the Task Order level and will be addressed with the OCO.

The DRFP states “L.3.2.7. TAB G: EEO Pre-Award Information. All prime contractors shall include in the proposal any teaming partner to which they intend to award more than $10 million in accordance with FAR 52.222-24.” With an IDIQ TO contract, it is unknown how much a prime will be able to award any one teaming partner. Should Offeror’s simply guess (based on unknown future TO requirements) and assume that they will not be held to the accuracy of their estimate?

DRFP Page 131, Section L.3.2.7

Tab G revised to require EEO Pre-Award Information from the prospective Prime Contractor only.

TAB I: Management Information is limited to 6 pages but requires the Contract PM resume, a sample Employee Agreement, and an organizational chart. These items alone can easily exceed the 6-page allotment. Can these documents be not counted in the page count?

DRFP Page 132, Section L.3.2.9.2 and L.3.2.9.3 Page limits increased to 15.

The Volume II, TAB A row on the Proposal Organization Table (Table L.2.2, page

128) states “1 page for chart; Max 8 pages for experience” In this Section the DRFP states “provide information on the first page in this attachment to identify which task areas they would consider themselves to be SMEs, etc.” and then “submit the information provided on page 2 in this attachment, for each task area that they identified as “Would expect to propose on Task Orders for this Task Area” and/or “Would you expect to propose on Task Orders for this Task Area if work was OCONUS.” For example, if the offeror identifies all areas that they would expect to propose on, they should submit 16 separate sheets, one for each task area for Task Areas 1-7 and one each of Task Area 8’s subtasks, 8.1-8.9.”

The table limits the response to 1 page for the chart and 8 pages for the experience yet this section example specifies 1 page for the chart and 16 pages for the experience. Please explain the page limitation for Charts/Experience.

DRFP Page 132, Section L.4.2.1

Corrected page limits to 16.

Small Businesses typically do not have the experience to cover all of the task areas of a large MATOC (functional coverage). DISA in-fact encourages niche providers to bid on SETI. Contractors therefore respond by building teams to supplement their own experience and thereby offer services that collectively address the full scope of the intended contract. Can Offerors reflect the assembled team’s experience (collective experience as a whole) in the Chart/Experience (Volume II, TAB A / Attachment 3)?

DRFP Page 132, Section L.4.2.1

Attachment 3, Task Area Chart/Experience should be filled out in relation to the entity in Block 15A's experience. The Government is not expecting small businesses to cover the full scope of work, nor is it looking for contract managers to buy or build a team to cover all of the work. On the "would likely propose" section, the Offeror may respond based on the task areas for which it would likely submit a task order proposal, whether or not the Offeror is a Subject Matter Expert or has experience in that area. In these cases, the Government will assume that a team member will be utilized when proposing.

Regarding Small Business offerors and the DRFP requirements/evaluation considerations surrounding Innovation: Does Factor 1 on innovation apply to the prime only or can the offeror leverage Innovations in technology, personnel, engineering, and outreach brought by the collective team? Respectfully suggest that Small Business primes are well-positioned to meet the stated Operating Principles of the SETI contract as a function of their ability to assemble niche providers and manage that team’s unique capability sets towards satisfying TO level requirements in an innovative and best-approach manner. Small business SETI primes can deliver innovative operational functionality at the TO level through their own expertise, but also as a function of their ability to assemble and manage the collective capability sets of business partners that have niche service offerings which are in-and-of themselves innovative. Will the government consider broadening the Innovation evaluation approach to allow Small Business primes to present the qualities of innovation at the Team level vs. prime level?

DRFP Page 133, Section L.4.2.3

The Innovation Factor applies to the offeror named in Block 15A of the solicitation.

Section L.4.2.4.1 of the DRFP states “This information is required for the Offeror only.” Yet later (in Section L.4.2.4.3) it states “The Offeror may submit Past Performance Information from a subcontractor but at least two of the references shall be from the Prime/Offeror.” Do all three past performances have to be from the prime or can a maximum of one be from a subcontractor (1 of 3 from a subcontractor)?

DRFP Page 136, Section L.4.2.4.3

Removed "This information is required from the Offeror only" from L.4.2.1. One reference can be from a subcontractor.

Are Consent Letters only for subcontractors and Joint Venture partners for which past performance is submitted? Example; If a prime doesn’t use a past performance from one of its subcontractors, does that subcontractor need to provide a Consent Letter?

DRFP Page 137, Section L.4.2.4.4

Consent Letters are only required if using past performance from an entity other than the offeror named in Block 15A.

The DRFP states “The resumes of these Key Project Personnel identified shall highlight specific experience and qualifications on projects of a similar type, size, and technical issues.” Only 15 pages are allowed per problem statement response.

Will the Government allow the resumes to not be counted against this 15-page limit?

DRFP Page 138, Section L.4.2.5.3

Resumes are excluded from 15 page count but are limited to three pages each.

The DRFP states “Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments i.e.

mentor protégés, joint ventures, subcontracting or partnership letters of commitment(s), etc. to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors.” Teaming Agreements are required in Volume II, TAB B.

Should the offeror also include those same Teaming Agreements for small businesses in this Volume (Volume III) to show commitment or can we use commitment letters identifying commitment? If so, can the government provide a template?

DRFP Page 140, Section L.5.2.1.b

No. The Teaming Agreements provided in Vol. II, Tab B are acceptable for the Small Business Factor and can be incorporated by reference in Vol. III.

Commitment Letters are also acceptable. If using a Commitment Letter, it should be signed by both parties. No template is available or will be provided.

Any form of commitment relevant to the Small Business Factor that is not provided in Vol. II, Tab B, should be submitted in Vol. III.

Should offerors plan to convert Attachment 5 of this DRFP to MS Word in order for it to be editable or will the Government instead provide this Attachment in Word format within the Final RFP so it can be completed more easily by the evaluators?

Attachment 5 Past Performance

Questionnaire Government will provide in Word.

Reference the Volume/Tab Title: Management Information within this table.

Should this TAB be named Tab I v. Tab J?

DRFP Page 128, Table L.2.2

Yes. Corrected.

Many of the templates provided are marked FOUO (Questions, Task Area Chart, Past Performance Questionnaire, Problem Statements, etc.) The DRFP requires the proposal be Unclassified. If we incorporate FOUO documents in the proposal the whole CD will be classified FOUO and we will have to cite FOIA exemptions in front. Will these documents remain FOUO for the final RFP?

General FOUO will be removed from Attachments

Per SF 33 Line Item 12, the validity period for the Offerors proposal is defaulted to 60 days. Will the Government require at least a 180 day validity period for each proposal given the large number of expected proposal submissions to be evaluated and number of awards?

Page 1 Item 11 of

SF33

See paragraph L.3.2.3 for proposal acceptance period.

102 Please clarify if each 11x17 fold out page counts as a single page. Page 129 L.2.2.2.2 11 x 17 fold out pages count as one page.

Table L.2.2 titled Proposal Organization lists TAB J for RFP Section L.3.2.9 Management Information. RFP Section L.3.2.9 specifies TAB I for Management Information. Please clarify which TAB lettering is correct.

Page 128, L.2.2.2 and

Page 131, L.3.2.9 Corrected.

Table L.2.2 titled Proposal Organization specifies Tab F, RFP Section L.3.2.6 Solicitation as having no page limit. RFP Section L.3.2.6 specifies that "No submission required" for all items under TAB F. Should TAB F be removed as a requirement for delivery with each Offeror's proposal? Please clarify.

Table L.2.2 No. Tab F may require submissions for various sections within Tab F. Not all sections stated "No submission required."

Table L.2.2 titled Proposal Organization specifies Tab F, RFP Section L.3.2.6 Solicitation as having no page limit. RFP Section L.3.2.6 specifies that "No submission required" for all items under TAB F. Should TAB F be removed as a requirement for delivery with each Offeror's proposal? Please clarify.

L.2.2 and L.3.4.6 Per Section L.3.2.6 Submission is required under TAB F for sections H, I, K as required.

The RFP states that the offeror should identify the clearance TS or Secret on the DD254 with submission of the proposal. However, the DD254 already lists Top Secret which implies that TS Facility Clearance is what is required. Can the government confirm that the reference on the DD254 can be changed to Secret?

RFP and DD254 RFP Page 130

L.3.3.4 & DD254

DD254 is being revised.

Junior/and Mid-Level: Both the Junior level and the Mid-level descriptions list "up to" amounts. Will the government consider changing this requirement to minimum only? "Up-To" categories create difficulties in execution. For example, someone may have more than the "Up-To" 3 years experience on paper but doesn't perform to the standards of the higher category but must be mapped to the higher category because they no longer qualify for the lower category.

SETI Labor Category

Descriptions Knowledge/Skill

Level

Attachment 10, it states, "Contractors may deviate from the definitions above when responding to task order solicitations so long as the deviations are clearly identified in their task order proposal. For example, a Contractor might label an employee as “Junior” even though the employee has more than 3 years experience. Deviations shall be clearly identified in proposals submitted in response to task order solicitations."

Draft RFP states, “List all locations where work may be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.” Comment: Since many large companies have potentially hundreds of locations, globally, offeror recommends that this amount of detail be required just at the Task Order level in support of specific requirements.

Page 131, Section L.3.24

The level of detail provided to answer this question is up to the offeror. If a location is not provided in the proposal that would be required at the Task Order level, the OCO would need to approve and/or have the location added to the DD254.

L.4.2.1 Tab A states “Offerors with specific niche expertise are encouraged to submit proposals.”, however, it is unclear in Section M how this will be evaluated.

L.4.2.4.3 states, “Similar projects should demonstrate as many of the project types included in the PWS (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible.”

M.2.3.2 states, “The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the task areas of the PWS. Comment: Offeror recommends that DISA clarify the evaluation criteria to specify how “specific niche experience” will be assessed and weighted in order to support its goal of procuring niche expertise.

Pages 132 and 147 Sections L.4.2.1, L.4.2.4.3, M.2.3.2

Task Area Chart will not be used in evaluations. Per FAR 16.504, the Government needs to be careful to avoid situations in which awardees specialize exclusively in one or a few areas within the statement of work, to avoid the situation where one offeror will likely win all task order in a single task area. The information provided in the chart at Tab A will be used to for understanding the competitive make up of the pools, especially the small business pool.

“A Secret Facility Site Clearance is required for those competing in the unrestricted category… If the offeror is a joint venture, partnership or other entity, that joint-venture, partnership or entity must possess the clearance to be eligible.”

If the offeror is a joint venture, partnership or other entity that is proposing in the restricted category, please confirm a Secret FCL is not required.

L.1.1.5 Page 125

This is correct. Any offeror proposing in the restricted pool is not required to have any clearance to win an award. However, until the entity acquires a clearance they would be unable to propose on any Task Order that requires a clearance.

Table L.2.2 for Volume II, Tab A: “1 page for chart; Max 8 pages for experience” L.4.2.1: “For example, if the offeror identifies all areas that they would expect to propose on, they should submit 16 separate sheets, one for each task area for Task Areas 1-7 and one each for Task Area 8’s subtasks, 8.1-8.9.” Please confirm Tab A page limit.

Table L.2.2 and L.4.2.1 Pages 128 and 132 Corrected page limits to 16.

“The Government reserves the right to consider the information submitted in Tab A in making its best value determinations in order to promote adequate competition at the task order level for all contract task areas.” How will the Government use Tab A in its evaluation?

L.4.2.1 Page 132

Task Area Chart will not be used in evaluations. Per FAR 16.504, the Government needs to be careful to avoid situations in which awardees specialize exclusively in one or a few areas within the statement of work, to avoid the situation where one offeror will likely win all task order in a single task area. The information provided in the chart at Tab A will be used to for understanding the competitive make up of the pools, especially the small business pool.

L.3.2.9.2 “Provide resume(s)” L.3.2.9.3 “Describe if your company requires any kind of agreements to be signed as a condition of employment and provide samples.” May the resume and employment agreement samples be outside page count?

L.3.2.9.2 and L.3.2.9.3 Page 132

Increased page limitations to 15 pages.

“List and describe the company’s patents owned and applied for and how they relate to the SETI PWS” Weighting patents under an evaluation disadvantages focused Government contractors. Work performed for the Government, while potentially innovative and forward looking, ultimately becomes Government property and is unlikely to be submitted for a patent. Recommend eliminating this criterion.

L.4.2.3.5 page 135 No changes made.

“DISA realizes that there is value in failure, and as such, historical citations can be those that were successfully implemented, or those that were engineered and tested up to Milestone C, but were never actualized in an operating environment.” For non-DoD innovations to be considered, recommend rewording to “tested up to Milestone C or Milestone C equivalent for non-DoD innovations.”

L.4.2.3.3 page 135 Revised wording to include "Milestone C equivalent."

“Past Performance of the Utilization of Small Businesses will be evaluated in this factor, if applicable.” How will Utilization of Small Businesses be evaluated in the Past Performance factor

L.4.2.4.1 Page 136

The Utilization of Small Business is considered in past performance as to the achievement of past contracts.

This can be measured through both CPARS and eSRS and will be considered in the overall rating for this factor for other than small business offerors..

“The resumes of these Key Project Personnel identified shall highlight specific experience and qualifications on projects of a similar type, size, and technical issues” May Key Project Personnel resumes be excluded from the Problem Statement page limit?

L.4.2.5.3 Page 138 Resumes are excluded from 15 page count but are limited to three pages each.

“Demonstrated long term corporate philosophy regarding innovation. Mature definition of Innovation.” How does the Government define “long term” and “mature”?

M.2.2.2 Page 146 "Long term" and "mature" for this acquisition means that the corporate philosophy has been in existence since at least 1 Jan 2016.

“Plans Exceeding the minimum goals.” Request the Government provided the minimum participation/subcontracting goals required for the procurement.

M.2.5 Page 150 No minimums are being provided. "Exceeding goals" language has been removed.

“the company’s patents owned and applied for and how they relate to the SETI PWS” Evaluating government contractors by their patents appears to diminish their labors. The Government’s objectives are to promote the commoditization and public availability of inventions, which reduces their value over time. We recommend the government remove this scoring element.

L.4.2.3.5 Page 135 No changes have been made. Requirement remains.

Volume I, Tab I Management: The ability to successfully support a large, Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) such as SETI requires a significant corporate commitment and mature management infrastructure. Established corporate tools and processes are required to leverage best practices for efficiency and quality improvement, encourage and harness innovation, and develop valued-based partnerships. Further, effective proposal development lays the foundation for effective task order performance. We recommend that the prime bidder’s Management Approach, which is critical to the success of the SETI contract, be elevated to an Evaluated Factor. DISA may want to consider moving the Management Approach into Volume II, and increasing the page count for the Management Approach from the current 6 pages to 10 - 15 pages. DISA may also want to require prime bidders to address the following items part of the management approach: Corporate Oversight and Control, Use of Industry Standards and Best Practices, Partner Engagement, Geographic Coverage, Solution and Proposal Development, Contract Lifecycle Staffing Approach, Management Control Systems, Risk Management Methodology, and Quality Management.

These are critical components for any management approach, but are an increasing necessity for engineering and implementing complex information technology systems on a CONUS and OCONUS basis.

Volume I, Tab I Management

The feedback is noted but no changes to the solicitation will be made in regards to this feedback.

Volume II, TAB C, Innovation: As a company that invests heavily in innovation, we commend the emphasis DISA has placed on innovation as part of the SETI contract. Successful support of the Warfighter requires continued evolution of the Joint Information Environment (JIE) and highly effective Joint Command and Control (JC2). The inability to provide tested and innovative solutions and the failure to maintain the integrity of our systems and communications places our Warfighters at risk. The demonstrated ability to implement efficient and reliable new technology and processes is of paramount importance. We are encouraged that DISA considers Innovation as the most significant Evaluation Factor.

However, we feel that innovation can be adequately addressed in 10 - 15 pages instead of the current allocation of 20 pages. The page count saved by reducing the Innovation section could be reallocated to the Management section which we also feel is a critical success factor in the prime…