HC1047-17-R-0001-_Amdendment_1.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

This amendment answ ers the first set of questions that have been received. Additionally the follow ing are revised:

1. Section L is revised. Changes have been highlighted. 2. Attachment 4 is revised. Page size has been revised. May use original

Attachment. 3. Attachment 7 is revised. Change has been highlighted. 4. Attachment 8 is revised. Change has been highlighted. 5.

Duplicate Clause 252.239-7000 is removed. 6. Clause 252.207-7000 is changed to Full Text.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 33

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Mar-2017

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 HC1047-17-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Feb-2017

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

06-Mar-2017

CODE

DISA/CONTRACTS-NCR

6914 COOPER AVE

FORT MEADE MD 20755-7090

HC1047 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC1047-17-R-0001

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:

Q&A - PART 1

Question

Questions / Comments Government Response

RFP

Reference

Could you please clarify the page count for the two problem statements we must respond to? The original RFI listed the page limit as 15 pages “each”; the RFP removed the “each” designation, implying 15 pages total for both responses. Should we now assume that the lower page limit applies?

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

Table L.2.2

Can the Government please confirm that offeror's are to only include past performance consent letters for a subcontractor that completes a Past Performance Description template as part of our bid?

Consent letters are only required if the prime contractor is using past performance from another entity.

Then that entity needs to sign a consent letter.

Attachment 6 and L.4.2.4.4

Consent Letters on

In the answer to question #311 regarding the draft RFP released on February 7, 2017, the Government stated, "The file structure should be so that the Government can easily find information. Each Volume should be in a separate folder. Each Volume folder should have subfolders for each tab" Based on that answer it seemed the Government wanted each Tab to be a standalone document. However, in the final RFP released on February 22, 2017 there is no distinct reference to this sort of file structure. Should offerors include all tabs for a Volume within one document or should offeror's have standalone documents for each tab within a volume?

L.2.3 is revised to add: "The file structure should be so that the Government can easily find information. Each Volume should be in a separate folder. Each Volume folder should have subfolders for each tab."

L.2.3

What is the page limit offerors are held to in responding to Attachment 4 Past Performance Information Sheets?

Multiple references are made to look at Table L.2.2 for page restrictions but there are no specific page restrictions mentioned for Attachment 4

The limitation for Attachment 4 is one per reference and up to three references. However, Attachment 4 is three pages. You may submit one Attachment 4 for up to three references.

Table L.2.2, L.4.2.4.3,Atta chment 4

The page limit reference to Vol II, TAB E, Factor 3, Problem Statements, is given as 15-pages. Would the Government please clarify if this is 15 pages per problem statement, or 15 pages total to address both problem statements.

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

Table L.2.2

The page limit reference to Vol I, TAB I, Management Information, is given as 15 pages excluding "company agreements." Section L.3.2.9. does not define or discuss these "company agreements." Further 'Section L3.2.9.2, specifies the inclusion of a resume. Would the Government please clarify the nature and kind of these "company agreements" that are to be included in the Management Information and would the Government please clarify if the resumes required are, or are not, included in page count for this TAB.

Company agreements are referenced in L.3.2.9.3 Recruitment/Retention/Benefits. The resume is included in the 15 page limitation.

Table L.2.2 L.3.2.9

Section L.4.2.4.3 Past Performance relevance. The requirement states small business contracts must have a minimum $3M value to be relevant. Unless the offeror provides justification. Please provide examples of sufficient justification for lower threshold contracts to be considered relevant.

The language in Section L.4.2.4.3 states "Similar projects may include the following:" when referencing the dollar values, not "must." If Offerors are submitting projects that are not of this dollar value they should describe why their reference is similar to the solicitation so the Government evaluators can consider this when determining the relevancy rating for Past Performance as defined in M.2.3.2.

L.4.2.4.3

After reviewing Attachment 7 - Problem Statements, it appears that Tasks 1 and 2 are more appropriate for small business than Tasks 3 and 4. Would the government consider allowing Small Business to respond to Problem Statements 1 and 2 in lieu of Problem Statements 3 and 4?

No.

Attachment 7

- Problem Statements

In the Draft RFP, 15 pages were allocated for each Problem Statement response. In the Final RFP, Table L.2.2 Proposal Organization shows a page limit of "15 pages" for the Problem Statements. Would the Government please clarify whether that is 15 pages each or 15 pages total for both problem statement responses?

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

HC1047-17-

R-001

In order for Offerors to appropriately staff the program positions, will the government please consider providing educational requirements for each of the labor categories?

No.

Attachment

10 - SETI

Labor Category

Descriptions

Will there be any certification requirements for each/any of the labor categories (specifically with regard to DoD 8570 compliance)?

No. There are no required certifications at the IDIQ level for any labor category. DoD 8570 compliance will be addressed in individual task orders, if applicable."

Attachment

10 - SETI

Labor Category

Descriptions

Due to the Pre-Proposal Conference date change to March 10th, would the Government extend the due date for proposals from March 24th to April 7th to allow sufficient time to finalize our proposals after the conference?

The Government is not contemplating extending the due date at this time.

We have subcontractors on our team. Similar to including one example of a teaming partner’s past performance in Volume II, Tab D, may we include expertise of our teaming partners when completing Volume II, Tab A, Attachment 3?

No.

Volume II, Tab A, Att 3

We are a Parent company. Is our relationship with our wholly owned subsidiary considered a partnership?

No, a partnership is a single business where two or more partners share ownership and contribute to all aspects of the business

Volume II, Tab B

Offerors may provide up to three examples of past performance. May a Parent company include past performance from its wholly owned subsidiary?

The Offeror may submit Past Performance Information from a subcontractor. At least two of the references shall be from the Offeror.

The Offeror is the entity listed in Block 15A. You may use a wholly owned subsidiary's experience for the third reference, only if it is expected to perform work under the contract as a subcontractor.

Volume II, Tab D

Offerors must submit Past Performance Information on recent (active within the past three years from the date of this solicitation) contracts. Will the Government change three years to five years for the Small Business competitors?

No. L.4.2.4.3

The Government identifies an effort in excess of $3M for restricted category as a similar project. Many innovative research studies are well under $3M in value.

Will the Government lower the value for Small Business competitors for similar projects?

No. But the Offeror may provide justification on how a contract that is valued at less than this is similar/relevant.

L.4.2.4.3

As a bidder under the restricted pool, we aligned our proposal resources with the most recent draft SETI solicitation. With the realignment of the Problem Statements allocated to the restricted pool in the final SETI solicitation, teaming arrangements executed and proposal development resources previously identified and allocated are no longer applicable to the final bid.

As such, new/additional resources and relationships (SMEs and Teaming Arrangements), with the appropriate expertise, are being identified, established, and allocated. Given the magnitude and complexity of the final SETI solicitation, coupled with the current due date of 24 March 2017, there is not sufficient time for a small business to provide a competitive response within the restricted pool. As such, we respectfully request a minimum three-week extension to the current solicitation due date.

The Government is not contemplating extending the due date at this time.

NA

For task orders that are set-aside for competition only among the restricted pool, please confirm that at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel must be expended on the personnel of the small business prime or small business managing partner in the case of a small business team led by a Joint Venture.

FAR 52.219-14, Limitation of Subcontracting applies when Task Orders are issued for competition within the restricted pool. In the case of a joint venture, SBA regulations will govern requirements for complying with FAR 52.219-14, depending on the type of joint venture, for instance, 13 C.F.R.

124.513 for 8(a) joint ventures, 13 C.F.R. 125.8 for mentor-protégé joint ventures, or 13 C.F.R. 126.616 for HUBZone joint ventures.

HC1047-17-

R-001 -

G14.

Limitations on Subcontractin g

Page Limit Column of Past Performance Questionnaires read: "3 Contracts Max; 1 PP Description (Att 4), 1 CPARS, 1 PPQ, 1 eSRS, max 3 pages of performance recognition documents per reference". What is categorized as a Past Performance Recognition Statement? Which documents qualify as such?

L.4.2.4.3 states "Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last three years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition."

RFP - Section L.2.2, Table

L.2.2 - Proposal

Organization

Factor 3: Problem Statements page limit. Please clarify if 15 pages for overall response, or 15 pages per Problem Statement response.

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

RFP - Section L.2.2, Table

L.2.2 - Proposal

Organization

Please confirm offeror must include an individual table of content per volume, in addition to a Table of Content on Vol I, for each of the volumes.

Confirmed.

RFP - Section L.2.2.6 - Indexing and L.3.3.2 Tab B - Table of Contents

The page limit for Volume II / Tab E (Factor 3: Problem Statements) in the table is 15 pages, whereas in the Draft RFP it was 15 pages each. May we assume that the page limit is still 15 pages each, i.e., 15 pages for each of the two problem statements to which we are responding?

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

Section L.2.2, Table L.2.2

L.4.2.4.3 states, "In accordance with the page limitations set forth in Table L.2.2, Offerors shall provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 4, for each Contract reference." However, there are no associated page limitations indicated for the Past Performance Description/Attachment 4 within Table L.2.2. What are the page limitations for the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 4?

The limitation for Attachment 4 is one per reference and up to three references. However, Attachment 4 is three pages. You may submit one Attachment 4 for up to three references.

Section L.2.2, Table L.2.2;

and Section

L.4.2.4.3

Problem Statement (PS) 1 states "As part of the proposed plan, it is expected that the offeror includes relevant decision making information typical of an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD); …". However, in all of the other PS-1 text, for example, "Assume that the Government has reached the Material Design Decision (MDD) and has confirmed the necessity of a material solution." This suggests that, rather than an ICD, the information should be typical of a Capabilities Description Document (CDD). Is that correct and should ICD be changed to CDD?

The information in the proposed plan is expected to contain relevant decision making information that is typically found in an ICD. Data elements in an ICD can have overlap with data elements in a Draft Capabilities Description Document.

The relevant decision making information is provided to provide context to those elements typically utilized, not as a finite list of what must be and what should not be included. REF: "...may contain, but is not limited to:"

Attachment 7, Problem Statement 1

The Section L.4.2.3.2 requirement states "What does the company’s 'architecture' look like and what types of resources are available in the company architecture?". By "architecture", do you mean the system architecture of the Knowledge Management Repository and how our various data resources are connected to that? If this is not correct, please clarify what the Government intends "architecture" to consist of in this context.

Architecture is referenced in L.4.2.3.2 in the context of the Innovation Factor, Investment in Innovation part of that Factor. As such, the architecture should be correlated to the company's knowledge management methodology and it's connected resources.

Section L.4.2.3.2

Does the Corporate Contract Manager/Point of Contact resume count against the 15 page limit in Volume I, Tab I Management?

Yes. L.3.2.9.2

Are offerors permitted to include additional information beyond the Government provided Attachment 8 template for Volume III, Tab A Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan?

Yes.

L.5.2.1 Small Business

Participation and

Commitment Plan

The header for L.3.2.9.2 states Corporate Program Manager Point of Contact. However, the description states "identify one Corporate Contract Manager." Does the Government want us to provide the resume of a Program Manager or a Contract Manager?

Program Manager. L.3.2.9.2 has been corrected.

L.3.2.9.2

In Attachment 1 DD254, block 6a, can the "To be Determined (TBD) at Contract Award" language be removed and replaced with the Contractor's Name, Address and Zip Code?"

Yes. The Offeror should fill this in.

Attachment 1

DD254

Do "categories" mean the Restricted / Unrestricted pools?

Yes. RFP / L.2.0.1

In the RFI, Volume II / Tab E / Factor 3: Problem Statements, and in Table L.2.2, the page limit for the two Problem responses is given as "15 pages each". In the RFP of 2/22, the word "each" was removed, implying a 15-page combined limit. Q&A #476 and #710 stated that Table L.2.2 would be updated in the 2/22 RFP, but it appears that a 15 page total is inconsistent with other Q&A discussions (e.g. size of Key resumes). Please clarify the Page Limits for the two Problem Statement responses.

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

RFP / L.2.2

Table

Does each subcontractor need to sign a consent letter, or only those for which we are directly referencing their past performance in L.4.2.4.2?

Consent letters are only required if the prime contractor is using past performance from another entity.

Then that entity needs to sign a consent letter.

RFP /

L.4.2.4.4

For Teaming Agreements, does this include all those with standard subcontractors? Or does it only apply to participation in Joint Ventures or Partnerships?

Teaming, partnership, or joint venture agreements are required if the entity listed in Block 15A is a partnership or joint venture. They are not required for anticipated subcontractors, but are highly encouraged if the entity in Block 15A is using a subcontractor's information in its proposal. See L.2.0.2.

RFP / L.4.2.2

In a Subcontractor Teaming Arrangement, must Recruitment / Retention / Benefit policies be described for Subcontractors, or only for the Prime?

Just the entity listed in Block 15A. RFP L.3.2.9.3

Could you elaborate a bit on Page Number formatting?

For example, do page numbers require a prefix showing the Volume Number and/or Tab Letter?

There is no required page number formatting. The requirement is that pages shall be numbered per volume and/or tab within the volume.

RFP L.2.2.1

In the Problem Statement response(s), should Key Personnel resumes be provided in the Organization Chart response to RFP section L.4.2.5.2? If not, where?

There is no requirement for resumes of Key Personnel in the Problem Statements in the final RFP.

RFP L.4.2.5.2

Considering that the DISA office at Ft. Meade is a high-security zone, how much lead time should we allow for the delivery of the CD package to reach the Contracting Officer, from the time a courier arrives at the Ft. Meade facility? Are there any special delivery procedures we should be aware of?

The Government has no recommendation on time.

RFP L.2.4

FACTOR 3: Are responses to BOTH problem statements limited to 15 pages, or is it 15 pages for EACH problem statement response, for a total of 30 pages?

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

Table L.2.2 - Proposal

Organization

FACTOR 3: Can offerors include artifacts and supporting material as addendums to the Problem Statements that will be outside the page count?

No.

Table L.2.2 -

Proposal Organization

In Section L.3.2.6 TAB F: Solicitation, it is stated that "Section G: Contract Administrative Data. No submission required." However, Clause Section G- Contract Administration Data Clause: 52.237-9000 KEY PERSONNEL (AUG 2011) has a blank in it for Offerors to identify their Contractor Program Manager by name. Should we fill this in and submit it with TAB F?

The resume for the Key Personnel should be included in Tab I, Management Information per L.3.2.9.

Section G- Contract

Administratio n Data Clause : 52.237-9000

KEY

PERSONNE

L (AUG

2011)

It is requested that FAR 52.215-22 be removed from Section L since offerors are not providing any prices for subcontractors for the IDIQ contract. This provision would be applicable to specific Task Order proposals but not the IDIQ proposal.

No.

Section L, Page 102, Clauses

Incorporated by Reference

Within Company/Division Address, Identify Codes, and Applicable Designations offerors are to list locations where work may be performed and provide certain information on those locations. Because the performance location could be global, it is requested that the last sentence of this paragraph be deleted and performance location be addressed at the Task Order level.

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.

Section L.3.2.4

It is requested that the requirement to provide teaming agreements be deleted from this section. Because of the IDIQ nature of the vehicle, offerors are unlikely to provide firm commitments in their Teaming Agreements since specific requirements are unknown. Any stated commitments would be misleading. Additionally, since the resultant ordering period is 10 years there can be many changes in team composition based on acquisitions or companies growth putting them in the large business category. Teaming Agreements inclusive of all their exhibits are generally at least 16 pages each;

therefore removing this requirement would reduce the administrative burden for both contractors and the Government.

No.

Section L.4.2.2

It is requested that the requirements to provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments be deleted. Because of the IDIQ nature of the vehicle, offerors are unlikely to provide firm commitments in their Teaming Agreements since specific requirements are unknown. Any stated commitments would be misleading. Additionally, since the resultant ordering period is 10 years there can be many changes in team composition based on acquisitions or companies growth putting them in the large business category. Teaming Agreements inclusive of all their exhibits are generally at least 16 pages each; therefore removing this requirement would reduce the administrative burden for both contractors and the Government. Removing this requirement places the emphasis on offeror's processes to identify and utilize small businesses throughout the life of the resultant contract.

No.

Section

L.5.2.1.b and Section M.2.5

Please clarify the page limitations for the two problem statements included in Factor 3 Problem Statements.

L.2.2 is not clear whether each problem statement is allocated 15 pages, or whether the entire Factor 3 response must be contained within 15 pages. The government's answers to Questions 95, 192 and 383 seem to concur with multiple offerors' interpretation that each problem statement is allocated 15 pages. We recommend that each problem statement be allocated 15 pages to enable offerors to provide a complete and detailed technical response.

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

Section L.2.2

Neither Section L.2.2 nor L.4.2.4.3 specify a page limit for the Past Performance Information Template. The structure of the Attachment 4 Past Performance Information Template, which includes the block "continuation space for blocks above," seems to indicate that the past performance information is 3 pages. The response to question #272 stated that the past performance information is limited to 2 pages per reference, which seems to contradict the 3-page structure of the template. Please clarify.

The limitation for Attachment 4 is one per reference and up to three references. However, Attachment 4 is three pages. You may submit one Attachment 4 for up to three references.

Attachment 4

The Labor Categories in Attachment 9 specify a level (Junior, Mid, Senior), however there are three that do not include the level. Please provide the levels for the following categories: #77 Spectrum Management Engineer Consultant , #95 Web Designer, #96 Web Content Analyst.

The labor categories that do not specify a levels shall be presumed to be Mid-Level LCATs.

Attachment 9

The table states that Volume II, Tab E, Problem Statements, is limited to 15 pages. Please clarify that this means 15 pages for each Problem Statement.

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

L.2.2 Table with Proposal Organization

The requirement for Past Performance references states:

3 Contracts Max; 1 PP Description (Att 4), 1 CPARS, 1 PPQ, 1 eSRS, max 3 pages of performance recognition documents per reference. Please clarify that for each of the 3 references, the offeror may include 1) A PP description in the Att. 4 template 2) Up to 3 attachments of Performance Recognition Documents, e.g., CPARS, PPQ or eSRS 3) A completed PPQ may be substituted for one of the items in no. 2 Performance Recognition Documents

For the Past Performance references each offeror may submit up to three references. Each reference may include: 1 PP Description (Att 4 which is three pages), 1 CPARS, 1 PPQ, 1 eSRS, max 3 pages of performance recognition documents per reference.

L.2.2 Table with Proposal Organization

The past performance questionnaire provided as attachment 5 to this RFP requires specific information in regard to US government contracts. Are commercial references allowed, and if so, can the offeror skip data fields of the form that do not apply?

Commercial contracts are permitted.

Fields that are not applicable may be filled in with "not applicable."

L.4.2.4.3 Past Performance

Questionnaire s for Recent and Relevant

Contracts.

For problem statement 1, the instructions indicate that the offer provided plans will be evaluated based on a specific limited number of task and sub task areas. If additional task areas are addressed in the plan to provide a more complete response will they be evaluated as part of the overall rating for this section?

Yes. Inclusion of additional task areas are perfectly acceptable if deemed necessary by the offeror to propose a complete response. It's not intended that the cited PWS sections be "all-inclusive", but those sections must be addressed at a minimum.

Attachment 7

- Problem

Statement 1

Is there an incumbent on this effort? If so, please advise the incumbent contractor and contract number.

No. This is a new requirement. NA

The past performance template provided by the Government does not conform with the page size requirements stated in L.2.2.2. The current template has a custom size of 8.67" wide and 11.23" high. When you convert this to the standard 8.5"x11" the template is split and spreads across 4 pages. The current formatting of the template also makes inputting data into the boxes challenging as the input box sizes are all varied. There is a section for continuation space for the blocks above, is it the Government's intent that this space can be reallocated to the blocks above, or that text should be continued in this space and linked to the appropriate box above? In addition, the current template format does not maximize the full 3 pages allocated for completion.

Will the government permit contractor to adjust template to ensure maximum use of 3 pages allocated, compliance with page format in L.2.2.2; and reallocation of the continuation space to sections as needed instead of a dedicated section (keeping within a 3 page limit); or conversely will the Government provide an amended template that meets these requirements?

The Government will permit the Offerors to adjust the template but it shall remain at three pages max. The continuation block should be utilized as a continuation block and not to reallocate the space.

L.2.2.2;

L.4.2.4;

Attachment 4

In response to question 272; the government indicated that the limit for Past Performance Information is two pages per reference. In response to multiple questions the Government indicated that limitations for the Past Performance Information Template would be included in Table L.2.2 However, the template provided spans across 3 pages and there is no indication in Table L.2.2 on the maximum length of the PPI Template responses.

Can the Government please confirm that respondents are permitted 3 pages per Past Performance Information reference to respond?

The limitation for Attachment 4 is one per reference and up to three references. However, Attachment 4 is three pages. You may submit one Attachment 4 for up to three references.

L.2.2.

L.4.2.4;

Attachment 4

Can the government confirm the format required for the Technical Volume TAB D includes the Summary Document as its own separate section from the Past Performance Information Reference Write-ups?

Yes. The Summary is separate from the Past Performance Information.

L.2.2; L.4.2;

L.4.2.4.2

The current DD 254 shows "Secret" as the highest level.

Will the DD 254 be revised to show the Highest level since there may be work under this contract, through task orders which may require a higher level classification level than Secret?

No. If a higher level DD254 is required at a Task Order, the OCO will issue it to the winner of the Task Order.

12.1 - Facility Security

Clearance

Reference: L.3.2.9.2, “Corporate Program Manager/Point of Contact: Identify one Corporate Contract Manager/Point of Contact. Identify their clearance level. Provide resume.” Question: Is the Corporate Program Manager the same as the Corporate Contract Manager? Please clarify.

L.3.2.9.2 has been corrected to be consistent in the title as Program Manager.

L3.2.9.2

Reference: L.4.2.4.3, Past Performance Questionnaires for Recent and Relevant Contracts which states in part, “Total page count for this Past Performance volume is annotated above in Table L.2-2.” Question: Will the Government please confirm that past performance is to be included in Volume II, Technical Proposal under Tab D, and not in its own separate volume?

All requirements in L4.2.4 are included in Tab D of Vol II.

L.4.2.4.3

If an offeror is forming a CTA for strategic innovation reasons, can both members of the CTA be discussed in the Innovation Section?

For Factor 1, the information provided by the Offeror shall be in relation to the entity listed in Block 15A of this solicitation.

L.4.2.3

In the Government's response to Question 367, they stated "Information in the innovation factor should be presented by the offeror (the entity listed in Block 15A)". However, in Section L.4.2.3.1, the Government requests offerors to "describe the company's partnerships/relationships with SETI relevant innovators." Can an Offeror present a partnership with a subcontractor in this section? How is the Prime offeror supposed to answer the partnership/relationship question if offerors are not permitted to reference subcontractors or members of their CTAs?

The entity in Block 15A should discuss their partnerships and relationships that include subcontractors they currently have or have had in the past as one aspect of its own Innovation Culture under L.4.2.3.1. For the remainder of Factor 1, the information presented should be limited to the entity in Block 15A.

L.4.2.3.1

62 Is the Management Section in Vol I being evaluated? No. M.2.1

In the Government's response to Question 367, they stated "Information in the innovation factor should be presented by the offeror (the entity listed in Block 15A)". However, in Section L.4.2.3.2, the Government requests offerors to "describe other dedicated resources available to the company, their size, location, and uses of the resources." Will the Government permit Prime offerors to discuss the resources made available to them by their strategic partner and subcontractor on the DISA SETI effort in the response to this section? In other words, can an offeror reference "other dedicated resources" that are made available to a Prime offeror for innovation purposes through a strategic partnership/business relationship?

The response to L.4.2.3.2 must be limited to the entity in Block 15A.

Resources of partners or subcontractors may be described in response to L.4.2.3.2 to the extent they are "partnerships/relationships with SETI-relevant innovators that align with PWS task areas."

Section L.4.2.3.2

Does DISA expect any CTA to involve a joint venture?

Can a party to a CTA for the restricted pool (small business) be a large business?

To be awarded a contract in the restricted pool the entity in Block 15A must be a qualified small business in accordance with the NAICS Code size standards.

L.2.0.2

What is the External Agency Fee noted for CLINs 0006 and 1006? And what will it be applied to?

The External Fee is what non-DISA DOD Mission Partners have to pay DISA to use the SETI Contract vehicles. See 52.216-9000 for specific information.

Section B

Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan reads that goals are proposed at the discretion of the offeror. Are goals expected or required?

Goals are expected and required.

They are just proposed by the Offeror and not recommended by the Government.

L.5.2.1

Section L.6.2. reads “Offerors shall apply their indirect rates IAW its Cost Accounting Disclosure Statement.”

Is this just a declaration to be included in the Cost Narrative (Volume)?

No declaration is required or necessary.

Section L.6.2

What is considered the yearly hours for one (1) FTE, e.g. 1880, 1920, 2080? For the purposes of determining desired or required performance and accurately determining the appropriate DL rate.

The Government has provided the estimated hours so defining the yearly hourly rates for one FTE is not required by the Government.

Section L.6.2

Past Performance/Section L.4.2.4.3. If a Prime offeror in the small business/restricted track chooses to use innovative past performance which where the offeror performed as a subcontractor, is it acceptable for the offeror to have their Prime contractor fill out the Past Performance Questionnaire?

PPQs may be filled out by a responsible person that has knowledge of the work.

Section L.4.2.3.2

Is the 15-page limit in Table L.2.2 for Volume II, TAB E, FACTOR 3: Problem Statements a limit for all material in that tab, or is it a 15-page limit per problem statement?

Table L.2.2 has been revised to state 15 pages per Problem Statement.

L.2.2

If Company A is proposing as a prime contractor on this effort and has recently acquired Company B--making Company B a wholly owned subsidiary of Company A--may Company A as a prime contractor use all of Company B's recent/relevant past performance within the proposal, including for the past performance questionnaires?

The past performance information of a wholly owned subsidiary cannot be substituted for the past performance information of the entity listed in Block 15A. It may be submitted as the third past performance reference if the subsidiary is anticipated to be a subcontractor.

L.4.2.4.3

Instructions in Attachment 8 (section c) are to provide detailed explanations "when the percentages fall short of the participation goal listed within the RFP." However, there do not seem to be any goals listed within the RFP;

L.5.2.1.2 says that "goals proposed are at the discretion of the offeror." Will the government please clarify?

That sentence has been removed from Att 8 and it is not necessary to respond to that sentence.

L.5.2.1.e

Section B.7 states that "for OCONUS Task Orders where costs are not specifically addressed in the DSSR, the government will reimburse the contractor for all reasonable, allowable, and allocable costs…" Is DBA insurance a reimbursable cost?

DBA is a reimbursable cost for OCONUS efforts as long as the costs have been determined to be reasonable, allowable, & allocable for the specific effort.

B.7

Section F.4 states that "the contractor shall submit a written transition plan unless designated otherwise by the OCO." Does the government anticipate that transition plans will be requested as part of the task order response submission?

Yes. F.4

Contractors are asked to include a completed Form DD254 in Tab H of Volume 1. The DD254 included in Attachment 1 is 8 pages long, with only page 1 having a spot for contractor information to be entered. Does the government wish all 8 pages of the DD254 to be inserted into the proposal, or will page 1 suffice?

The Offeror needs to submit the entire form.

L.3.2.8

If the prime contractor does not identify themselves as subject-matter experts or experienced in the Task Area Chart, but still intends to propose on task orders that utilize that task area, based on outstanding experience/expertise by a subcontractor, may they submit page 2 of Attachment 3 based on the subcontractor's experience/expertise?

No. L.4.2.1

Referring to Tab D of Volume 2, Section L.4.2.4.4 states that "the offeror shall provide subcontractors', teaming partners', and/or joint venture partners' consent or client authorization letters to be executed by each.

These letters authorize the release of past performance information." Since per L.4.2.4.3 there is a limit of one total past performance citation/questionnaire from a subcontractor, is this consent letter only required from the subcontractor whose past performance citation/questionnaire is included as part of the proposal, or is a consent letter required from every subcontractor on the team?

Consent letters are only required if the prime contractor is using past performance from another entity.

Then that entity needs to sign a consent letter.

L.4.2.4.4

Question: Given the realignment of problem statements 3 and 4 to small businesses and revision of these problem statements to require greater detail, this constitutes a material change from the draft RFP.

These changes require a significant proposal response which is particularly significant for small business offerors. Will the Government please extend the proposal submission date by two weeks in order to allow a greater number of first time, high quality, small business proposals to be submitted and therefore facilitate a more expedient source selection process?

The Government is not contemplating extending the due date at this time.

NA

Comment: DISA updated FBO on March 1 to reflect changes to Page Count for FACTOR 3. On this FBO notice DISA updated the Sources sought notice, versus the RFP notice. The Government may consider updating the FBO RFP notice for clear communication to Industry.

The Government will update the Q&A via an amendment to FBO..

NA

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

The following were previously included by reference and are now included by full text:

252.201-7000 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE (DEC 1991)

(a) "Definition. Contracting officer's representative" means an individual designated in accordance with subsection 201.602-2 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions.

(b) If the Contracting Officer designates a contracting officer's representative (COR), the Contractor will receive a copy of the written designation. It will specify the extent of the COR's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer. The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or changes that will affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or any other term or condition of the contract.

(End of clause)

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

252.239-7000

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS OF OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

L.1.0 Systems Engineering, Technology and Innovation (SETI)

L.1.1 Contract Information

For consideration in developing your proposal, the following information is provided.

L.1.1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) for Systems Engineering, Technology and Innovation projects in support of the Defense Information System Agency (DISA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). This solicitation is issued for full and open competition that will include two suites of Contracts: an unrestricted pool and a restricted pool (small business). A restricted Contractor (i.e. small business) is any Offeror who meets the definition of any federally designated small business in NAICS Code 541512. The restricted category is open only to small businesses under NAICS 541512. Any entity that does not meet this standard at the time of proposal submission will be removed from consideration without further evaluation if submitting in the restricted category.

L.1.1.2 DISA intends to award approximately ten Contracts on an unrestricted basis and approximately 20 Contracts on a restricted basis. However, the Government reserves the right to award more, less, or no contracts at all. One award within the restricted pool will be reserved for HUBZone. The total Contract pooled capacity is $7,500,000,000. The minimum Task Order limitation is $2,500 and the maximum Task Order limitation is $500,000,000. The duration of each MATOC base Contract will be five years with one five year option available.

Each awardee will be guaranteed $500.00.

L.1.1.3 The unrestricted and restricted Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated separately. Each Offeror must designate which category (unrestricted or restricted) they are competing in. This shall be clearly stated on the discs submitted as well on the first page of every Volume.

L.1.1.4 Task Orders may be firm-fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, time and material (T&M) or a combination. Task Orders may include incentives. Task Orders will range in size and complexity from small to large and from non-complex to highly technical and complex. Funding may be either Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding or Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E). Other types of funding may be utilized if authorized.

L.1.1.5 A Secret Facility Site Clearance is required for those competing in the unrestricted category. A DD254 will be issued with the RFP. See Attachment 1. The Secret Facility Site Clearance is required at the time proposals are due. Any Offeror in the unrestricted pool without this requirement will be removed from consideration and not evaluated. Please note that the Offeror named and submitting the proposal is required to possess the clearance. If the Offeror is a joint venture, partnership or other entity, that joint-venture, partnership or entity must possess the clearance to be eligible. It is not acceptable for each company in the joint-venture, partnership or entity to possess the clearance individually.

A clearance is not required for those competing in the restricted category. However, if the Offeror possesses a Secret Facility Site Clearance, they will be issued a DD254 upon award. The Government reserves the right to issue DD254s throughout the life of the Contract to Contract holders in the restricted pool. The Government reserves the right to sponsor any restricted awardee should the Government desire to. The determination to sponsor a company is not guaranteed and solely at the discretion of the Government.

Contract awardees in the Restricted Pool that do not possess the Facility Site Clearance will not be permitted to propose on Task Orders that require a clearance. Awardees in the Restricted Pool who gain a Facility Site Clearance after award would be eligible to propose on Task Orders requiring a clearance.

Top Secret (TS) Facility Site Clearances may be necessary for specific Task Orders. Those Task Orders will be issued a specific DD254 with the TS requirement. Contract awardees that do not possess the TS Facility Site Clearance will not be permitted to propose on those Task Orders. Awardees who gain a TS Facility Site Clearance after award would be eligible to propose on TS level Task Orders. A TS Facility Site Clearance is not required at time of proposal submission for the ID/IQ awards.

L.1.1.6 The geographic area for this Contract will be worldwide. Work performed may be either in secure or non-secure sites. It is anticipated that the preponderance of the Task Orders will be located within the Baltimore- Washington Corridor. Small business Contract holders may propose on any Task Order, both those set aside and those that are not (i.e. unrestricted).

L.1.1.7 In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the resulting Contract, the proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the Contract.

L.2.0 General Instructions

This section of the Instruction to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements of the solicitation. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this Information to Offerors may result in removal of the proposal from further evaluation.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

Submissions that represent a mere restatement of the Government’s requirements will be deemed non-responsive and may be removed from further consideration. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and/or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Internet hyperlinks to information are not permitted.

The proposal acceptance period is specified in paragraph L.3.2.3 of this Section. The Offeror shall make a clear statement to be submitted in Vol I, TAB C of the Contract Documentation, that the proposal is valid through this date.

In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

L.2.0.1 Who May Propose. Individual firms, firms formally organized specifically for this MATOC, or any other responsible prospective Contractor may submit a proposal. The “entity” listed in Block 15A of Form SF33 is considered the prime contractor. The entity listed in Block 15A can only submit one proposal as a prime, but may be included in other proposals as joint venture partner or subcontractor. For associations that are not officially organized as a separate legal entity, the proposal must clearly identify which teaming or joint venture partner will act as the prime Contractor. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. No “entity” may be awarded a Contract in both categories. No “entity” may win more than one contract as a prime.

L.2.0.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime Contractor; or (2) a potential prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government Contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of Contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by each entity identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

If applicable, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, will not be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement.

L.2.1 General Information

L.2.1.1 Point of Contact The Contracting Officer is the…