HDTRA1-10-R-0007 AAS RFP QAs FINAL 12Mar10.pdf

3/12/2010

# RFP Section Question Government Answer Section C 1 Item 2.3.19 of the Statement of Objectives (SOO), page

Item 2.3.19 of the Statement of Objectives (SOO), page 8, requires the contractor to “provide work-force development and acquisition-related training to US Government personnel…” Will the Government make available briefing slides and other instructional material from the DTRA CTR Program Management Course?

The incumbent will turnover non-proprietary training materials during transition. The contractor selected may update and/or improve upon training materials based upon lessons learned and other documentation presented during the transition period.

2 Item 2.3.22 of the SOO, Item 2.3.22 of the SOO, page 9, requires the contractor to “provide information systems, technology, networking, web site administration and database management expertise.”

DTRA CTR uses a number of purpose-built software tools that do not appear to be based on COTS. Will the Government make all such tools, their documentation and certifications available for examination in the reading room?

During the transition period the incumbent will introduce the successful Offeror to the COTS tools and modifications made to the tools which support the CT Directorate.

3 While the RFP defines the scope of work, the scale of operations is unclear. To help us better understand the scale of your operations, please provide an estimate of the incumbent A&AS contractor’s current personnel staffing level by project, and an estimate of each project’s completion date.

The Statement of Objectives (SOO), paragraph 2.3 - Required Capabilities and Expertise should be used to estimate support requirements. Industry Day presentations revealed the incumbent contractor’s FTE numbers.

4 Section C Ref. Section C, Statement Of Objectives. The SOO calls for support to OSD(AT&L/NCB) as part of this contract. The current contract does not include AT&L support. Where will their place of performance be?

The government will work with the successful Offeror on place of performance details upon award of initial task order, but it is expected to be in the DC/Northern Virginia area.

5 SOO,

Paragraphs

2.1.9 and 2.1.3

Section C SOO, paragraphs 2.1.9 and

2.1.3 reference the GNLD and DMC organizations. Paragraph L.3.3.2 says….”leader/manager for each of the CT program areas,……” Are GNLD and DMC considered program areas?

Will DTRA provide an updated Organization Chart reflecting GNLD and DMC?

In accordance with paragraph 2.1 of the SOO, DMC and GNLC are not programs but merely participate in CTR Program Execution. DMC will be run out of the CTI program area. GNLD is currently executed via the existing programs of NWSS, SOAE and WMD-PPI program areas, as they have overlapping mission areas with regard to GNLD. Because these tasks are still fairly new to CTR and their objectives are under development, the government will work with the successful Offeror to structure support levels for them.

These organizations are not part of any Organizational Chart, thus a revised version is not forthcoming.

6 Section H.1 of the RFP, page

Section H.1 of the RFP, page 19, requires that our proposal address the “proposed schedule for completing the task order effort.” Beyond the specific proposal requirements cited in Sections L and M, and the CDRLs, please describe project deliverables, milestone events, etc., currently planned by the incumbent contractor(s) so that we can better plan for transition and follow-on work requirements.

The contractor should focus their proposal on Sections L, M & CDRLs. Project deliverables, milestone events, etc related to future contract obligations will be negotiated via Task Orders.

7 Section H 8

CTR/A&AS

Conflict of Interest

Ref. H. 8 CTR/A&AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. We did note a change at H.8 was updated in the final Solicitation in accordance with DRFP questions/responses. We have included the H.8 language below. We have also provided two earlier OCI questions and replies from Industry Day. Please confirm that the current language at H.8 is not intended to, nor will it, restrict contractors or subcontractors from providing A&AS support to multiple DTRA organizations concurrently.

H.8 CTR/A&AS CONFLICT OF

INTEREST

The contractor and its subcontractors are precluded from participating, directly or indirectly, as a contractor or subcontractor on any other contracts where the Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is the requiring activity during the period of the A&AS contract or, in case of subcontractors, during the period they are subcontracted to this A&AS effort.

6 SAIC is the A&AS prime for CTR and NGIS is the prime for another DTRA organization.

DTRA seems to have separate pricing for each major area. Are there OCI

No, contractors may be able to provide A&AS support to multiple DTRA organizations concurrently.

As previously stated, Contractors have the ability to provide A&AS support to multiple DTRA organizations concurrently. The H.8 preclusion only applies to non-A&AS requirements / contracts that originate within CTR.. The government will amend the clause as follows:

“The contractor and its subcontractors are precluded from participating, directly or indirectly, as a contractor or subcontractor on any other non-A&AS contracts where the Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is the requiring activity during the period of the A&AS contract or, in case of subcontractors, during the period they are subcontracted to this A&AS effort.”

restrictions that would prevent one contractor from holding two major contracts?

12 May a company performing A&AS work elsewhere in

DTRA

perform this work with an approved

OCI

Mitigation Plan?

Yes, a contractor should be able to perform A&AS functions in multiple

DTRA

organizations.

(cont)

Section H 8

CTR/A&AS

Conflict of Interest

Ref. H. 8, CTR/A&AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Would the government consider changing the language at H.8 as addressed below?

This would be consistent with the earlier Industry Day questions and responses for numbers 6. and 12.

From:

"The contractor and its subcontractors are precluded from participating, directly or indirectly, as a contractor or subcontractor on any other contracts where the Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is the requiring activity during the period of the A&AS contract or, in case of subcontractors, during the period they are subcontracted to this A&AS effort."

To:

"The contractor and its subcontractors are precluded from participating, directly or indirectly, as a contractor or subcontractor on any other contracts where the Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is the requiring activity during the period of the A&AS contract or, in case of subcontractors, during the period they

The Government will not consider the proposed revision to H.8. The CTR A&AS contractor is heavily involved in all aspects of CTR operations. Any participation by the CTR A&AS contractor in non- A&AS contracts within CTR would carry an overwhelming appearance of impropriety. (See change to H.8 as stated above) are subcontracted to this A&AS effort if they are unable to show that any actual or potential OCI arising from such participation can be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized."

Section L 8 Ref. L.3.3.3, pg

63 of 82, and M.2.4.2, pg 78 of 82

The government states in Section L that the Offeror address 'the Offeror's available experience/expertise with foreign governmental environments and business practices . . ' The corresponding Section M requirement omits the word 'foreign'. Did the government intend that the corresponding Section M include the word 'foreign'?

The word "foreign" should have been included in M.2.4.2. The paragraph (third bulleted sentence) should read, "The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the foreign governmental organizations and business environments associated with the execution of CTR programs, and its ability to successfully execute its mission in such a complex environment." The RFP will be revised accordingly.

9 Ref L.3.3.2, pg 62 of 82, and M.2.4.1, pg 77 of 82 -

Section M.2.4.1 states that the offeror must demonstrate a commitment to meeting socio-economic goals set forth in L.2.12 as part of the management approach in Volume II. However, L.3.3.2 does not explicitly state that this commitment be included in the management approach section of Volume II. Since L.2.12 must be addressed in Volume I, Proposal Documentation, and the required demonstration of commitment will be made in Volume I, will the commitment to socio-economic goals be eliminated as an evaluation item for the management approach?

No, the commitment to socio-economic goals will not be eliminated as an evaluation item from the management approach as indicated in M.2.4.1, last bullet, "The Offeror must demonstrate a commitment to meeting the socio-economic goals set forth in L.2.12." The evaluation team will review the Offeror’s submission for socio-economic goals and assess the Offeror’s attempts for meeting the requirement.

As such, the first paragraph of M.2.4.1 Sub-Factor A, Management Approach will be revised to read:

Evaluation of this sub-factor will be based on the Offeror’s ability to effectively and successfully manage and lead the CTR A&AS effort. The information in Volume II, Section I that demonstrates application of this management plan, as well as the socio-economic commitment information submitted in Volume I (reference L.2.13) will be used during the assessment.

Also, the references in sections M.2.4.2 and M.2.4.3 of the RFP will be revised, as they both incorrectly refer to Volume II, Section 1. For M.2.4.2, the reference should be Volume II, Section 2. For M.2.4.3 it should be Volume II Section 3.

10 L.2.12 on page 59.

L.2.12 on page 59. It states: "For Socio-Economic Commitment evaluation purposes, the Total Contract Value is considered to be the numerical sum of the total dollar value for the initial task order as contemplated under this solicitation."

Question: Please confirm this total dollar value does not include the travel plug number ($4,000,000).

The Socio-Economic Commitment should be a percentage of the total contract value (inclusive of travel cost). Thus, the "travel plug number ($4,000,000)” should be included in the "numerical sum of the total dollar value for the initial task order" as outlined in L.2.12, paragraph one and L5.4.2 last sentence in paragraph.

11 L.5.4.2 on page

L.5.4.2 on page 68. It states: "The Offeror shall provide a cost proposal for the initial twelve month CPAF task order consistent with the technical

The sentence should read, "The Offeror shall provide a cost proposal for the initial twelve month CPAF task order consistent with the requirements Mission Capabilities in Volume II. In this cost proposal, do not approach in Volume II." Question:

Should this be "The Offeror shall provide a cost proposal for the initial twelve month CPAF task order consistent with the Initial Task Order in Volume II"? (See M.2.6 on page 81: "The Transition Plan, Initial Task Order and the Labor Category Tables cost proposals will serve as the basis for the cost evaluation.") include costs related to the sample scenario." The RFP will be revised accordingly.

12 Ref L.1.2, pg 53 of 82, and RFP synopsis update posted 2/23/10.

Referenced paragraph allows the offeror 4 pages per past performance reference using the format provided as Attachment L-1. Synopsis update posted on FedBizOpps 2/23/10 states that 'none of the formatting or verbiage of the existing L-1 or L-2 documents may be altered or changed in any way, save to add space for answers provided to the government.' The L-1 template provided by the Government is only 3 pages and is formatted using a font larger than the minimum allowed for the proposal. The template thus constrains the offeror's ability to provide the government the level of information required to make an informed assessment of the relevance of the past performance citations to this procurement. Recommend that the government allow the Offeror to format L-1 using 10 pt font and economical spacing, provided that all of the elements of the format be preserved in the numerical order presented in L-1.

Alteration of the formatting of L-1 is not permitted, per direction on FedBizOpps 2/23/10 which states that "none of the formatting or verbiage of the existing L-1 or L-2 documents may be altered or changed in any way" however the Government would remind the Offerors that adding space for answers provided to the government is allowed per FedBizOpps 2/23/10.

13 L.1.3.5.3 L.1.3.5.3 makes reference to a Past Performance questionnaire point of contact list, though a requirement for such a list in the Past Performance Volume is not specified in L.4.1 - Volume Organization. Does the government require a Past Performance Questionnaire Point of Contact List, and if so, where would they like it inserted into the volume structure?"

Reference L.4.1 - insert: "e. Past Performance questionnaire point of contact list." The RFP will be revised accordingly.

14 L.3.3.5, Section 4 Sample Scenario.

Paragraph L.3.3.5, Section 4: Sample Scenario: The final RFP includes a requirement for “specific quantity, labor categories, and skill levels of personnel.” Will a table displaying this information count against the page allocation for the Sample Scenario?

Per L.1.3.5.3, labor categories tables do not count towards the page allocation.

15 Section L.1.2(c) There is a conflict between the language in Section L.1.2(c) which

Yes, Attachment L-2 may be returned by organization completing the questionnaire by following the states that "Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment L-2) shall also be provide by mail or commercial express or ground carrier." The L-2 itself states "Mail, e-mail, or fax the completed questionnaire to:" These two items are in conflict. In the accompanying Word document, there was language that was not included in the authoritative pdf version that stated: In addition to the information provided in the Present and Past Performance Volume, the offeror shall ensure that each reference identified completes a Present and Past Performance Questionnaire PPPQ)(Attachment L-2). This questionnaire shall be submitted directly to the government from the reference; questionnaires received from the Offeror will not be considered. However, the responsibility to send out and track the completion of the PPPQs rests solely with the Offeror. Completed PPPQs shall be emailed in PDF format to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist at the e-mail addresses shown in Paragraph L.1.1.1. We assume the language in L-2 is acceptable and that the L-2 questionnaires can be e-mailed or faxed per the instructions on L-2 itself.

Is this assumption correct?

instructions on the L2 or noted in L.1.1.1, but not later than the proposal due date.

16 L.1.2, pg 53 of

Ref L.1.2, pg 53 of 82, and RFP synopsis update posted 2/23/10 Referenced paragraph allows the offeror 4 pages per past performance reference using the format provided as Attachment L-1. Synopsis update posted on FedBizOpps 2/23/10 states that 'none of the formatting or verbiage of the existing L-1 or L-2 documents may be altered or changed in any way, save to add space for answers provided to the government.' The L-1 template provided by the Government is only 3 pages and is formatted using a font larger than the minimum allowed for the proposal. The template thus constrains the offeror's ability to provide the government the level of information required to make an informed assessment of the relevance

The government will not allow changes to the font size.

of the past performance citations to this procurement. Recommend that the government allow the Offeror to format L-1 using 10 pt font and economical spacing, provided that all of the elements of the format be preserved in the numerical order presented in L-1.

17 L.3.3.5 Ref L.3.3.5, Sample Scenario. To provide the Government sufficient detail to evaluate the technical content of the Sample Scenario, we request that the Government place the requirement to identify 'the specific quantity, labor categories, and skill levels of personnel' outside the Sample Scenario page limit of 15 pages.

Per L.1.3.5.3, labor categories tables do not count towards the page allocation.

18 L.1.3.5.2 and L..1.3.7

Ref. L.1.3.5.2, Page Limitations.

Instruction requires printed material shall be on one side of the sheet only (single-sided).

Ref. L.1.3.7 Foldouts. Instruction provides when and how a foldout may be used for tables, charts, etc. It also provides that each printed side of a foldout will count as one page. Please confirm that since only one side may be used (contain printed material per L.1.3.5.2) foldouts shall be counted as one page.

L.1.3.5 paragraph and its subparagraphs outline page sizing, limitations and counting.

L.1.3.5.1 specifically states, "Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts."

L.1.3.5.2 is clear and concise - no change. Printed material shall be on one side of the sheet only (single sided) (8.5 x 11 paper).

L.1.3.7 Foldouts. This paragraph is addresses "Foldouts". Foldouts may be printed on both sides of a maximum 11 x 17 inch piece of paper. Each printed side of a foldout will count as ONE page.

19 Section L.4.3;

L.1.2 and L.1.3.5.3.

(a) Section L.4.3 - “For each reference, the Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the effort and the results of the Offeror’s performance. This narrative shall include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance and should be supplemented with a completed Present and Past Performance Information Form (attachment L-1).”

(b) Section L.1.2 - The “Page Limit” for “Present and Past Performance References” is listed as “4 per reference for Attachment L-1”

(c) Section L.1.3.5.3 Pages Counted

Question:

Is there a page limit for the “narrative describing the effort and the results of the Offeror’s performance” (referenced

The narrative should be one page in length and it is included in the Page Limit established in Table 1-2 Proposal Organization.

in Section L.4.3), or is the narrative excluded from the page count?

General 20 DD 254 Section

13b 7 - "Section 13b of the DD254 requires that all A&AS staff be U.S. citizens with a secret clearance. This is a change from the current operating model which only required the Secret Clearance when working with classified materials. Also the current operating model allows the A&AS provider to utilize non-US citizens for the overseas staff provided they have been approved for hire through the CTR Suitability Screening process.

Was it the Government's intent to make these changes? If the answer is no we would request that the Government modify the language in the DD254 to clarify its position.

Specifically that a Secret clearance is only required when working with classified material and that non-US citizens may work on the contract provided that they have been approved for hire through the CTR Suitability screening process."

The language on the DD254 was incomplete. The government will revise the form to allow non-US citizens to provide support to the government overseas in functions that do not require access to sensitive information.

For US citizens, a security clearance will be required if that individual has a specific need for access to classified information.

The DD254 will be adjusted accordingly.

21 Industry Day The Industry Day presentation revealed the incumbent contractor has a staff of 195 FTE supporting the A&AS program, while the RFP mentions sample scenarios with potential staffing surge requirements. Of the 195 FTEs, roughly how many are due to short-term surge requirements?

Paragraph L.3.3.5 first paragraph outlines parameters to address the sample scenario. The Offeror will use best judgment to provide support and response to this sample scenario.

21 Will the government consider issuing a two (2) week extension to the closing date for proposal submittal to accommodate time for Offerors to review and implement any and all changes that may arise once responses have been posted for all questions?

The government has granted a 8 day extension to March 26th (See FBO announcement HDTRA1-10-R- 0003 posted on March 9, 2010)