HC1047-17-R-0001-_Amdendment_4.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

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er questions. Attachments 7 and 8 are revised. Sections G, L & M are revised. Revisions are highlighted. All other terms and conditions remaine the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 59

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-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 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

20-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 SET 4

Quest ion #

Questions / Comments Government Response RFP Sort Reference

This section indicates that HBCU/MI participation counts towards the overall SB goal. Since DoD previously ended their goal for HBCU/MI participation to count towards SB goals, will the government please confirm that large business primes can count HBCU/MI towards the overall SB goal? And does HBCU/MI participation count towards SDB goals?

The HBCU/MI requirements will be removed from the solicitation.

L.5.2.1 TAB

A e.

Please provide instructions for entry to Fort Meade for offerors who plan to hand deliver the 3 CDs to DISA.

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L.2.4

The 'Instructions' tab of Attachment 9 indicates that, "Any alteration to the workbook outside of the "FP Labor Rate Build" tabs may be considered tampering and may result in the Offeror's proposal not eligible for award."

We would like to add headers and footers to each tab, indicating that any information presented in this workbook is proprietary to our organization. Is this acceptable?

Offerors may insert this language in its cost narrative in TAB B of the proposal but may not alter the workbook outside of the "FP Labor Rate Build."

Attachment 9 - Gov't Provided

Excel Workbook

In the 3rd paragraph for Problem Statement #3, ".. The offeror may base their plan on the above example, or propose a different, yet quantifiable, capability shortfall in the DISA mission space…", please confirm we can create a different problem statement that is quantifiable or substitute another problem statement such as problem statement #1 from attachment 7.

The problem statements cannot be substituted. Offerors must respond to the problem statements, as written, that are assigned to their respective competition pool. The offeror can, however, propose a different, yet quantifiable capability shortfall in the DISA mission space that is based on an identifiable IT capability gap that may be solved by a technology, or technology area, that the offer is highly-skilled in.

Attachment 7 Problem

Statement 3

Our company is a Small Business but does not fit any of the SB subcategories. Do we need to submit a mitigation plan if we have inputted zero percentages on subcategories?

You should submit your proposal in accordance with Sections L & M for Factor

4. You need to address the elements in Section L for Factor 4 in relation to your plan for how you will utilize small businesses should you win a contract.

Attachment 8, Small Business

Participation and

Commitment Proposal

Plan, Section "c."

Reference the first bullet of the Intended Outcome: "To identify, capture, describe, and define stakeholder, user, mandate, and basic operational capability needs as they relate to the proposed technical capability need." Would the Government please clarify the meaning of the word 'mandate' in that context?

Requirements can come from a variety of sources and stakeholders; mandates (i.e.

FRAGOs, Communication Tasking Orders, etc..) being one of them.

Attach #7 Problem

Statement 3

"Offerors may be evaluated more favorably and achieve higher ratings for the following: …..An approach that articulates a logical and quantitative argument to the effect that the result will achieve the stated program metrics."

Would the Government please specify the program metrics that are applicable to problem statements #2 and #4?

The language in M.2.4.3 has been changed to remove "program metrics."

M.2.4.3

Is the DISA IT Acquisition Guide required to be complied with for this effort?

The DISA IT Guidebook is not mandatory for DISA efforts, nor this solicitation.

Problem Statement #1, general

Does current documentation of problem space systems and technologies along with staff retention allow for adequate staff to be brought up to a full systems understanding in less than 6 moths?

The Government does not believe this question to be necessary for formulating a successful response to the problem statements.

Problem Statement 3

General Question

In Question 71 of Amendment 1 to the solicitation, the Government stated that “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.” We believe there are circumstances where crediting the past performance of an affiliate of an offeror is appropriate even where the affiliate would not be a subcontractor. For example, an offeror’s affiliate may have committed to transfer to the offeror at the time of award the work force and/or provide other resources (e.g. subject matter experts, IP, domain expertise, work products and artifacts, processes, etc.) used in performing a certain contract. This would support crediting the offeror with past performance from that contract, even though the affiliate would not be a subcontractor.

This approach also is consistent with the general rule from bid protest cases endorsing an agency crediting the past performance of an affiliate of the offeror. GAO has held that, regardless of whether the affiliate was proposed as a subcontractor, an agency “may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect the performance of the offeror,” and that “[t]he relevant consideration is whether the resources of the parent or affiliated company–its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources–will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.”

See, e.g., IAP World Services, Inc.; EMCOR Government Services, Inc., B-407917.2 et al. (July 10, 2013).

This approach also is consistent with the answer to Question 369, where the government agreed that past performance citations from members of a joint venture, who are in the nature of affiliates to the joint venture, may be credited toward the past performance score of the joint venture.

QUESTION: Will the government clarify that it will credit the past performance of a parent or affiliate of the offeror so long as the offeror demonstrates in its proposal that the resources (e.g. workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) of the affiliate will meaningfully affect the performance of work under this contract?

No. The past performance information of an affiliate 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 affiliate is anticipated to be a subcontractor.

Solicitation Amendment 1 - Question

Can the Government please clarify what information they are looking for with county facility code and labor surplus area designation?

"County" is the county in which the entity is located. "Facility Code" is to identify any additional CAGE codes where work on the contract is to be performed if other than the facility corresponding to the primary CAGE code provided. See DFARS PGI 253.213 explanation for the purpose of the facility code. The requirement for the labor surplus area designation will be deleted.

L.3.2.4 Company/Di vision Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable

Designations

The Government states, "The Offeror shall submit a narrative discussing how they will handle and process changes and/or Task Order modifications. Include a discussion of timelines, competitive proposals from subcontractors and the submission of fair and reasonable pricing.” Given the technical nature of the Problem Statement 1 requirement we are confused about the value of discussing contract change management as part of our technical response. Can the Government please clarify that what is needed is indeed contract change management language and not language related to our approach to technical change management required during the development, deployment, and sustainment of the capability?

L.4.2.5.5 Change Management Process has been removed.

Section L.4.2.5.5 Change

Management Process

The proposal requests the "labor surplus area designation."

Please define with this is referring to.

The requirement for the labor surplus area designation will be deleted.

L.3.2.4

Problem Statement 4, Attachment 7, Intended Outcome - The problem statement says, in part, “The offeror shall frame their plan around the use of the All Viewpoint, Capability Viewpoint Models, or any other Viewpoint that the offeror deems applicable to create a coherent model of the enterprise to enable effective decision-making and analysis (ref: DoDAF v2.02).” Is it DISA’s intent that, for the purposes of proposal evaluation, offerors create actual DoDAF 2.02 –compliant viewpoint models given the typical offeror’s lack of familiarity with DISA’s current enterprise “capabilities” and IT infrastructure, and limited specific knowledge of the Agencies future state requirements, as opposed to providing a narrative describing the general steps we would follow to create an Enterprise Architecture roadmap?

The offeror is not expected to actually create the DoDAF views but instead explain which views they would use, and why, in creating the enterprise architecture. Offerors are reminded that the Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with Sections L & M, which details the requirement for a narrative response (ref: L.4.2.5).

Att 7

In L.2.2 the Government states that there is no limit to the Factor 4: Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan, yet in L.5.2.1 it is stated that a Small Business Participation Proposal Format is included in Attachment 8.

Is it the Government's intention that offerors submit ONLY Attachment 8 in response to Factor 4: Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan?

This is left to the discretion of the Offeror.

There is no page limit for this Factor and the Offeror may submit information in addition to the Template. Language has been added to the RFP that Attachment 8 is a suggested format but not a required format.

L.2.2. and

L.5.2.1 Att. 8

What response from industry does the Government intend with regard to the following statement in M.2.5: "Offerors will also be evaluated to assess the number and expected benefits of proposed new, Contract specific small business initiatives…"? Since there are no task orders available at this time, how can industry satisfy this evaluation factor and propose "new, Contract specific small business initiatives"? Is the Government referencing the small business goals proposed by the offeror in Attachment 8 as the "proposed, new Contract specific small business initiatives"?

"Contract" refers to the ID/IQ Contract, not task orders. The Government will evaluate your proposal and any small business initiatives that the submission proposes.

M.2.5 Att. 8

Is this one percent (1%) fee calculated on the total Task Order contract value? How will the fee be calculated for cost-type Task Orders?

The 1% fee is based upon the dollars obligated on the Task Order and all modifications. The 1% fee is paid by the Government and is not a fee to the Contractor.

Section G, Clause

52.216.9000

The answer to Question #673 regarding the draft SETI solicitation stated that "...and each member of the JV can use its approach to Innovation in responding to Factor 1."

However, the answers to Questions #60, 61, and 63 regarding the final solicitation (provided with Amendment 0001), seem to contradict the answer to Question #673, as follows: Question #60: "For Factor 1, the information provided by the Offeror shall be in relation to the entity listed in Block 15A of this solicitation" Question #61: "For the remainder of Factor 1, the information presented should be limited to the entity in Block 15A." Question #63:

"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." Question: Can the Government please clarify these inconsistencies, and confirm that each member of the JV can use its approach to Innovation in responding to Factor 1?

If the JV is the entity in Block 15A, each member of the JV can use their information to respond to Factor 1.

L.4.2.3.1 through

L.4.2.3.5

Regarding the first bullet (Company Investment) and second bullet (Human Capital Investment), offerors are required to provide their direct investments in IR&D and the their investments (time and money) in training regarding innovation. Question: Will the Government please clarify how they would like this information presented for Joint Venture offerors? Specifically, should the information be presented for each company comprising the JV, or as a total across the companies comprising the

JV?

The information should be presented for each company.

L.4.2.3.2

The subject section includes the following requirement:

"Similar projects should demonstrate as many of the project types included in the PWS (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible."

Question: Are the "project areas" the same as the eight Task Areas defined in PWS Section 5, and described in PWS 6.1 through PWS 6.8?

Yes. L.4.2.4.3

The evaluation criteria for the Innovation Factor includes the following criterion that may be evaluated more favorably: "Demonstrated continuous investment in Innovation through evidence of sustained, year-after-year investment in technologies and innovative ways to develop new capability, improve service, reduce costs and create efficiencies." Question: Can the Government please define how many years are considered adequate for showing "year-after-year investment"?

More than two. M.2.2.2

For TAB D - Company Information, the RFP states that the Offeror must provide following information for all the other locations where work will be performed: Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code;

CAGE code; DUNS code; Taxpayer Identification Number; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. Question #1) Since locations where work may be performed is dependent on the Task Order level, How does the Offeror make the determination and provide locations where the work will be performed?

Question #2) The Government is also asking for the information above (For TAB D - Company Information) for subcontractors. Is the Government looking for the Offeror to provide all of the information for our Subcontractors as well?

The level of detail provided to answer this question is up to the offeror and is only required to be submitted for the prime contractor. 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.3.2.4

Section L.4.2.4.3, paragraph 4, states "Individual Task Orders under an ID/IQ Contract are each considered to be one past/present performance effort." We understand it may be the government's intent to prevent the use of large, multiple-award ID/IQ contracts, where a prime contractor may support only a small portion of awarded ID/IQ tasks/delivery orders. However, will the government consider allowing an offeror who is the only prime on a single award ID/IQ to use the ID/IQ contract rather than individual task/delivery orders? Customers often choose single award ID/IQ vehicles for contract and administrative reasons, even though all of the work is consolidated under a single prime contractor. We believe single award ID/IQs where the prime contractor owns all of the work are significantly different than multi-award contracts and should be considered a single contract for past performance purposes.

No. L.4.2.4.3

Would DISA be willing to supply a bidder's library with technical documentation related to the JIE to assist offerors in their technical responses to the problem statements? This would be particularly helpful to innovative smalls that currently do not have a large DISA footprint but that have innovative products and services that can benefit the warfighter.

A 'Bidder's Library' is provided in the form of relevant reference information in the Problem Statements. The references are intended to provide, at a minimum, the bare necessities for offerors that are not currently familiar with DoD.

Consider: Include options for participation from consortia/public private partners who have existing innovation labs.

No changes will be made.

In reference to the small business participation plan we have no relationships yet with HBCU/MI. We are in the process of developing the relationship. How can we account for it on the SB Participation plan.

This requirement is being removed from the solicitation.

Based on the listed DISA innovation areas of interest what are the top 3 DISA Mission Gap Areas?

DISA's Primary Areas of Innovation Interest are not currently ranked. DoD-CIO's Top Priorities can be found on the DoD-CIO website for any offeror to reference at any time.

What does DISA SETI provide the client that ENCORE III does not? What is the selling point to chose DISA SETI over ENCORE III?

SETI will provide new and innovative engineering solutions for DISA’s new and current IT needs, whereas ENCORE III provides secure, efficient and reliable established IT services.

Since EDWOSB is not a separate socio-economic category listed in the SETI RFP, naturally we roll it up to WOSB, but can we also roll EDWOSB into SDB? Can we put SDVOSB under SDB too?

If the EDWOSB qualifies as an SDB, you may. Same with the SDVOSB.

If most innovations are emanating out of the $4T Global IT Market, how will SETI reach outside the confines of the Defense Industrial Base? DoD accounts for less than 1%.

Each vendor will need to make a business decision whether to submit a proposal for a SETI contract. DISA is attempting to attract vendors outside the traditional Defense Industrial Base especially in the restricted pool where many small, innovative businesses are not yet big players in the $4T global commercial IT market.

At the March 10, 2017 Pre-Proposal Conference (PPC) during the Q&A portion between the PM and K, it was stated that all Past Performances will be evaluated equally, whether a DoD or non-DoD submission is provided. Will the Government issue an Amendment to the RFP in the following two sections to address this change: (1) Section M.2.3.2 (3rd Paragraph) – “Contract references only developing or introducing a new product, service, device, or capability, does not fully demonstrate an Offeror’s ability to deploy new capabilities within the DOD environment. Therefore, these references may result in a lower relevance rating.” (2) Section M.2.4.2 - “Offerors may be evaluated more favorably and achieve higher ratings for the following: (Bullet 5) Proposing a solution that provides a significant contribution to the DoD information technology environment”.

No. Past Performance references from civilian agencies or the private sector are permissible and will be evaluated the same as past performance references from DoD.

The reference to "within the DOD environment" in M.2.3.2 relates to the level of confidence a past performance reference will give the Government in the offeror's ability to successfully perform under the SETI contract. M.2.4.2 relates to evaluation of the Problem Statements, not to Past Performance.

Section M.2.3.2 and

Section M2.4.2

RFP Reference: For Factor 1, the information provided by the Offeror shall be in relation to the entity listed in Block 15A of this solicitation. Question: Are we correct that the entire proposal response for Tab C, Factor 1 should only address the capabilities, experience, methods and other attributes of the entity listed in Block 15 A of this solicitation with no reference to attributes of proposed or potential subcontractors?

Yes. You should use only the information from the entity in Block 15A for the response to Factor 1.

L.4.2.3 TAB

C: FACTOR

1:

INNOVATI

ON

RFP Reference: L.2.3: Each Volume folder should have subfolders for each tab. Question 135 Answer: Each Volume folder should have subfolders for each tab.

Question: In the slides for the Pre-Proposal Conference, the Government presents a file and folder structure for the electronic submission consisting of a folder for each Volume and a file for each Tab. This proposed structure does not comply with the RFP requirement that each Tab be in a separate folder, an RFP requirement that the Government reinforced in the answer to question 135. Can the Government reconcile the discrepancy, either by modifying the RFP to match the Government's suggested file and folder structure, or by modifying the Government's suggested file and folder structure to comply with the RFP requirements?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L.2.3 Electronic

Offers

Answer to Question 135

Pre-Proposal Conference slides

RFP Reference: L.2.2.1: A Table of Contents shall be included in each Volume L.2.2.6: Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs/tabs within that volume. Question: The pre-proposal conference slides presented a folder and file name approach for the electronic submission. In that approach, should the table of contents for each volume be part of the first file in each volume (for example, part of the Tab A

Executive Summary file in Volume I) or should the volume table of contents be in a standalone file?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L.2.2.1 Page Limitations

L.2.2.6

Indexing

Pre=Proposa l Conference

Slides

RFP Reference: Each volume may contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Question: The pre-proposal conference slides presented a folder and file name approach for the electronic submission. In that approach, should the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for each volume be part of the last file in each volume (for example, part of the Tab I

Management Information file in Volume I), part of the first file, or should the Glossary be in a standalone file?

Each volume may contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each, therefore, glossaries should be submitted within the Volume that they define and acronym or term.

L.2.2.7 Glossary of

Abbreviation s and

Acronyms

RFP Reference: L.2.3: Each Volume folder should have subfolders for each tab. Question 159 Answer: Subfolder organization is left to the discretion of the offeror.

Question: The answer to question 159 contradicts the RFP requirement that offeror's electronic submission must have a subfolder for each tab. Can the Government please resolve the contradiction?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L.2.3 Electronic

Offers

Answer to Question 159

RFP Reference: For the purposes of this factor, small business Offerors shall use a value of $187.5M for the “Total Acquisition Value” (TAV) when calculating their goals and dollar values...Question: As an alternative to the $187.5M figure, can a small business offeror use their proposed TAV instead of the $187.5M?

No. L.2.5.1

RFP Reference: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition. Question: Is there a minimum requirement of total small business participation to be performed by small business offeror teams?

No. L.2.5.1

Please confirm that signed SF 30s, if applicable, should be included in Volume II, Tab C.

No. The signed SF30 should be in Vol I, Tab C.

Section L, L.3.2.3

The instructions for Volume I, Tab D state, "The Offeror shall specifically identify the Facility Site Clearance for the prime Contractor, either SECRET, TOP SECRET or none." Similarly, the instructions for Volume I, Tab H state, "if the Offeror possesses a Top Secret Facility Site Clearance, they shall state so in this tab." Does Tab H requires a statement about the FCL only if the offeror holds a Top Secret FCL, in which case this same information will be stated in both Tab D and Tab H?

The same information should be included in both Tab D and Tab H. The difference is that the DD254 is at the SECRET Level, so if you are filling out the DD254, it is known that you have SECRET.\

Section L, L.3.2.4 and

L.3.2.8

Section H: Special Contract Requirements indicates "No submission required." However, Section H includes FAR

52.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL AND CONSULTANT

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCCI) (DEC 2014). Please confirm that this clause should be included in Volume I, Tab F, Section H.

No submission is required. The clause is included for the contract so that it will be applicable to all Task Orders.

Section L, L.3.2.6, Section H

What does "Organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs to facilitate evaluation." mean? Does Volume II, Tab C: Factor 1: Innovation need to be divided further into additional tabs? If so, what are those tabs relative to the instructions for Tab C in L.4.2.3?

It means to address the information in Section L in the order in which it's listed.

Section L, L.4.2.3

The instructions for the past performance Summary state, "The Offeror shall also describe the roles of the Offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners." Are the "subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners" those on each contract being referenced, regardless of their proposed involvement on SETI, or are they limited to subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners identified in the offeror's SETI proposal?

Offerors shall provide a summary of the past performance references they are providing and explain what aspects of those Contracts they deem relevant and to what specific task areas of the proposed effort they relate. The Offeror shall also describe the roles of the Offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Offerors shall describe quantifiable metrics used for efficiencies including cost, schedule and/or performance. This is in relation to the company's being utilized within the Past Performance Factor.

Section L, L.4.2.3

Consider this scenario: A small business with "relevant and beneficial" innovative technology wants to be a prime, but doesn't yet have past performance in it. It has past performance in some of the task areas, but at a lower dollar value than the threshold specified. What effect will it have in the evaluation of the past performance? The proposal will include one reference from another small business as a subcontractor with a higher dollar amount.

If an offeror has no record of past performance, in accordance with Section M.2.3.4, the offeror will received a Neutral Rating which is defined as "No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance." If past performance references have a lower dollar threshold than is specified in L.4.2.4.3, the offeror should explain why the references is nevertheless relevant. The Government will evaluate the submission in relation to Section L & M and will not speculate on ratings.

L.4.2.4.3

We want to make sure we understand this correctly. Are we required to propose prices for all labor categories? Though there is no direct relationship between the task areas and labor categories is specified, it is possible that only labor categories that may be relevant to the proposed task areas be included in the proposal?

Yes, the Offeror shall price all labor categories.

If the proposal is submitted as a JV, and since this IDIQ may last for 10 years, what happens to the contract if for whatever reason, one of the JV partners decides to close the business? Also, If it happens before the option year, will the option be awarded to the remaining partner provided they meet all other conditions?

If a joint venture is awarded a contract in either the unrestricted or the restricted pool, the departure or closure of any member will result in the joint venture being placed into dormant status because the contract will have been awarded on the basis of the combined attributes of all the joint venture members. The option will not be exercised if any joint venture partner can no longer continue to participate in the joint venture.

Does the summary only need to include the 3 past performances are being used for Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 in section 4.2.4.3? Can you use other project past performances in additional to the 3 past performance that you use in L.4.2.4.3?

Yes, the summary is regarding the past performance references used in Att 4 and 5.

No, you cannot use more than the three references.

4.2.4.2

Past Performance Description, the last line of the table references "Subcontractor Cost/Price". If the Offeror is describing a contract where work was performed as the Prime, is the requested values for the amount that was performed by a subcontractor to the Offeror? If the Offeror is describing a contract where work was performed as a subcontractor, is the requested value the amount performed by the Offeror? If as a sub, is the "project cost" the total value of the prime contract?

The total value of the contract should be included as well as the value of the work actually performed by the Offeror, whether it acted as the prime or as a subcontractor.

Attachment

The "Task Areas" do you only want the PWS Section number such as 6.1 without the task name? Do you only one PWS section number at the task level or do you want each subtask number such as 6.1.1?

The offeror can list the subtask number to each task level.

Attachment

After the "Detail Description:" can we delete "General scope … Relevancy to this requirement."?

Yes Attachment

4 Page 1

After "Project Owner:" can we delete " Point of contact … and contract office):"?

Yes Attachment

4 Page 1

Schedule/Period of Performance: If Contract/TO ongoing then what do you put for the "Final Contract Completion"?

The currently scheduled completion date.

Attachment

4 Page 3

Past Performance Questionnaire, can the evaluator be someone who is knowledgeable of the project and the performance on the project? This may include Program Manager, Project Manager, and other applicable leadership positions in addition to the designated Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer's Representative, or a corporate contact (in the case of subcontracted references).

Yes Attachment

Request the government to switch Problem Statement #1 and #3 between competition pools to better align with Large and Small business respectively. Not many small businesses do not have the expertise in creating and managing communications links using additional, and more diverse, signal media including optical length wavelengths, electromagnetic spectrum frequencies, satellite communications, or emerging data transmission technologies.

Request noted. No change to the solicitation shall be made. As clearly stated in the Problem Statement, "The offeror may base their plan on the above example, or propose a different, yet quantifiable, capability shortfall in the DISA mission space."

Attachment 7- Problem

Statement #3

In the 3rd paragraph for Problem Statement #3, ".. The offeror may base their plan on the above example, or propose a different, yet quantifiable, capability shortfall in the DISA mission space…", please confirm we can create a different problem statement that is quantifiable or substitute another problem statement such as problem statement #1 from attachment 7.

The problem statements cannot be substituted. Offerors must respond to the problem statements, as written, that are assigned to their respective competition pool. The offeror can, however, propose a different, yet quantifiable capability shortfall in the DISA mission space that is based on an identifiable IT capability gap that may be solved by a technology, or technology area, that the offer is highly-skilled in.

Attachment 7 Problem

Statement 3

(d) List principal supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses: Do you include the prime (offeror) if they are a small business?

Yes Attachment

(d) List principal supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses: How much detail we specify the type of service/supply in the section on the form? Also, L.5.2.1 c.

states to identify complexity and variety of work performed by small firms. Do we need to include the complexity of the work too by the small firm? There is limited space on the attachment 8 form.

Yes to including the complexity. There is no page limitation for this factor. The RFP is being revised to state that the Attachment is a suggested format.

Attachment

"(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses …". We already include enforceable commitments in Volume 2 Tab B - with our subcontractor teaming agreements. Do we need include the teaming agreements in Volume 3 - Tab A - Factor Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan? Or do we just need to state we have TAs with our subcontractors?

Yes, you need to include them in this Factor to receive credit for it.

Attachment

8. L.5.2.1

What is the facility code? Where do you get that information?

"Facility Code" is to identify any additional CAGE codes where work on the contract is to be performed if other than the facility corresponding to the primary CAGE code provided. See DFARS PGI 253.213 explanation for the purpose of the facility code.

L.3.2.4

When looking up Labor Surplus Area Designation for Reston, VA there was identified. Is the response- None?

This is being removed from the RFP. L.3.2.4

As a small business prime, are we required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan? Therefore we do not submit Volume 3 Tab B - Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Is that correct? Or do we submit Volume 3 Tab B stating that this plan is not applicable to us as a small business prime?

You are not required to submit a Subcontracting Plan if you are a small business. You do not need to indicate this in the proposal.

Volume 3 Tab B - L.5.2.2

Section L.5.3.1 of Instruction for Offerors states "The Government must be able to verify that each percentage [of Small Business Participation] is based on the value of the total acquisition. For the purposes of this factor...unrestricted Offerors shall use $375M for the TAV.

The TAV amounts shall only be used for calculating small business participation goals for this factor..." Does this value apply to the base period or the base period plus option period?

Base period plus option period.

Section L.5.3.1

Section M.2.4.3 Evaluation For Problem Statements #2 and #4, states "Proposing a plan that identifies the analytic and simulation results that serve as a foundation for the plan. An approach that articulates a logical and quantitative argument to the effect that the result will achieve the stated program metrics." Program metrics for Problem Statement #4 are not clearly stated, please clarify the program metrics for this problem statement.

The language in M.2.4.3 has been changed to remove "program metrics."

Section M.2.4.3

Would the Government consider allowing SB Primes to utilize a combination of Prime/Subcontractor input?

No.

L4.2.1 TAB

A: Task Area Chart/Experi ence

Would the Government consider allowing SB Primes to utilize a combination of Prime/Subcontractor input to satisfy this requirement?

No.

L4.2.3 TAB

C: Factor 1:

INNOVATI

ON

Volume I, Tab I: Management Information, Section L.3.2.9.2 calls for providing a resume of the identified Corporate Contract Manager/Point of Contact. Will this resume count against the 20 page limit for this requirement?

Yes, the resume is included with the page limitations. Also note that the page limitation for this tab is 15.

L.3.2.9.2, Corporate Program

Manager/Poi nt of Contact

RFP G.11 - Small Business Recertification indicates that qualified awardees in the small business pool are required to re-certify their small business status prior to the end of the five-year base period; however, in H.2 On/Off Ramping the wording indicates that small businesses may need to recertify more often, but does not specify exactly how or when this should occur. Can the Government please clarify when qualified awardees in the small business pool are required to re-certify their small business status?

See also G.17 with respect to mergers, acquisitions, or other changes in ownership which may affect the size status of a small business.

G.11 and H.2

In L.2.3 Electronic Submission of Offers, using recordable CDs is specified. Can the Government please indicate whether, read/write USB-ported memory sticks are also an acceptable means of electronic submission of Offers?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L.2.3

We are investing in the innovation and all, but it would really help if we can show a partner to support us in the innovation portion of the response. We have a partner that has a very unique (patented) technology for radio/spectrum /antenna communication that might have huge application in the battlefield but we have to show (reveal) the name of the partner when we submit the Innovation response.

Would you allow that and give us credit in this case?

No, but see L.4.2.3.1, "Describe the company’s partnerships/relationships with SETI-relevant innovators that align with PWS task areas? Partnerships can be formal or informal."

L.4.2.3

In RFP section L.1.12 it says “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.” Our question is if a firm bidding as HUBZone also can be considered for small business and or 8a as well, if the firm is simultaneously 8a, small business and HUBzone?

Yes. L.1.1.2

In section L1.1.2 it says, “One award within the restricted pool will be reserved for HUBZone.” Would you consider more awards for HUBzone. Only one award seems quite restrictive.

No, but additional HUBZone offerors may be awarded contracts in the restricted pool if they are deemed among the best value of the small business offerors.

L.1.1.2

In the document "HC1047-17-R-0001_-_Att_3_- _Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFP.doc" On page1, there are two columns, Titled as follow:

"Offeror considers themselves Subject Matter Expert", "Offeror considers themselves Experienced "Is it possible to modify these Titles as: "Offeror by itself or as a Team considers themselves Subject Matter Expert", "Offeror by itself or as a Team considers themselves Experienced.

No. L.4.2.1.

Also on page 2 (Detailed Explanation) of the Att 3 document (file name: "HC1047-17-R-0001_-_Att_3_- _Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFP.doc") Can you please change the verbiage from "why offeror considers themselves a Subject Matter Expert" to "why offeror by themselves or as a Team considers as Subject Matter Expert" ?

No. L.4.2.1.

In answer to Question 23, DISA answered “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”. In this case can we assume the PPQ will come from the Prime contractor to whom the Offeror was subcontracting to?

It can come from any responsible party with knowledge of the work.

L.4.2.4.3

In section M.2.3.2, it says: “Contract references only developing or introducing a new product, service, device, or capability, does not fully demonstrate an Offeror’s ability to deploy new capabilities within the DOD environment. Therefore, these references may result in a lower relevance rating.” This past performance specificity to DOD environment is very restrictive. Can you please expand this to Civilian Agencies and Commercial

Past Performance references from civilian agencies or the private sector are permissible and will be evaluated the same as past performance references from DoD. The reference to "within the DOD environment" in M.2.3.2 relates to the level of confidence a past performance reference will give the Government in the offeror's ability to successfully perform under the SETI contract.

M.2.3.2

In the case of Offeror’s projects under SBA approved mentor-protégé JV, where Offeror is managing Partner, can these projects under the JV be utilized as part of Offeror’s Corp experience?

Yes. L.4.2.1

It is stated: "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." Would the government allow, on a task order by task order basis, labor categories to be added for the years of experience these labor categories do not cover?

For instance, adding a Principal Systems Engineer to a task order where the skill set is for someone with 15+ years of experience or Systems Engineer Manager for scope that requires technical leadership.

No.

Attachment 10, page 1

The Government states, "Past Performance Questionnaires submitted for any Offeror's team members shall clearly indicate the name of the Offeror within the questionnaire."

Is the second instance of Offeror in that sentence speaking of the prime contractor or speaking of our team member?

The Prime Contractor. L.4.2.4.3

Do offerors need to include the Sample Questionnaire Cover Letter as part of including the PPQ in our Past Performance response?

No.

Attachment

Can the Government confirm for the Factor 1 Innovation response, can we write a response which speaks to our collection of companies (teaming partners)? We anticipate some of the unique, niche areas would require a teaming partner/subcontractor.

No. L.4.2.3

States that "Program Manager is considered a Key Personnel and shall be a direct employee of the company".

In case of an unpopulated JV, where the JV has no direct employees, is it acceptable for the key personnel to be an employee of the JV Managing Partner?

Yes. G7.6 (pg 51)

For SBA approval (e.g. 8(a) JV), SBA requires that the Program Manager be an employee of the JV Managing Partner i.e. the 8(a) firm. Would this be acceptable to meet the requirement stated in G7.6 that "Program Manager is considered a Key Personnel and shall be a direct employee of the company"?

Yes. G7.6 (pg 51)

Is a letter of commitment needed if the Program Manager is not a current employee of the company?

No, however see Section G, clause 52.237- 9000.

G7.6 (pg 51)

Is there a requirement to include Company Name in the File/Folder naming convention for the individual Volume and/or Tab subfolders and files?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L2.2

If an innovative project went through the full life cycle from innovation to deployment over more one year PoP, then they are usually split into an original task order and a renewal task orders in the subsequent option years. But the scope of the task orders are the same or a continuation.

Provided the client can attest or verify that fact in the PPQ, in this described instance, can the 2-3 task orders be combined and considered as one project to cover the required full life cycle of engineering (R&D innovation, implementation and deployment/testing)?

No. L.4.2.4.3

Most single innovative initiatives that require R&D, implementation and testing/deployment in the DoD, could be split into multiple task orders due to the (a) type of funds used i.e. RDTE or OMA, (b) availability of funds to continue an innovative project (i.e. shortage of RDTE funds in a specific time frame) (c) sponsoring agency i.e.

R&D funds from the program or grants vs deployment and OMA funds from G6. In those typical real scenarios, as long as the task orders were a continuation or part of the same initiative can the task orders be combined as a single project in the PPQ?

No. L.4.2.4.3

Can the entire IDIQ contract primarily issued for the same R&D product’s engineering, deployment and testing at different DoD agencies be submitted as a project in the PPQ since this would be a one for one match in similar scope, size and relevance to SETI?

No. L.4.2.4.3

For an innovative complex technical solution that was developed by R&D and implemented at a commercial client but later adopted by the government, can the offeror get a PPQ filled by both the commercial and government client for the same past performance. This might be required to show multiple experiences and varied lessons learnt on technically complex and cutting edge solutions.

No, only 1 PPQ is permitted per reference. L.4.2.4.3

Will the Government revise the RFP to include the FAR CLAUSE 52.222-53 for this IDIQ effort?

No.

Section B2, Service Contract

Labor Standards

The RFP states “Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI): X% of the total acquisition value. If no opportunities exist for HBCU/MI, indicate so. If relationships exist that may be suitable depending on the task order, describe these relationships.”

Question: Is this really the Government’s intent to include percentages specific to the HBCU/MI category since the DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirement was removed from the overall policy? Within FY16, several Government RFPs had this reference removed.

This is being removed from the RFP.

Section

L.5.2.1, TAB

A: Factor 4:

Small Business

Participation and

Commitment Plan, page

Could you please validate the correct person or persons that will be the recipient of the hand-carried proposal? For folks who are hand-carrying, are there any more instructions about getting the proposal to the correct person and location at Fort Meade?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

Section L.2.4, Distribution and Copies, Does the Government have any specific instructions for hand delivering the proposal to DISA?

The Government is changing the requirement to an electronic delivery via email. Instructions will be provided in this Amendment.

L.2.4

Attachment 5 includes a sample questionnaire Cover Letter from…