COMET RFQ Solicitation Questions Response.xlsx

COLLABORATIVE

Q) Question: Under 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h) and DTM 24-004, SBA-approved JVs are not required to hold an independent FCL at the time of submission if their members performing classified work hold the requisite FCLs. Will the Government please accept a member FCL of a SBA-approved covered JV?

Section M 6.4 Revised:

6.4. The Prime Offeror must possess a valid Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) at the time of proposal submission. If the Prime Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), the JV must meet the FCL requirement at the time of proposal submission by either:

(a) holding a valid TS FCL in DCSA’s system of record; or

(b) being documented by DCSA as a Covered JV in accordance with applicable DoD/DCSA policy, and providing Government verifiable evidence of that Covered JV status.

A JV that is not a Covered JV and does not hold a TS FCL in DCSA’s system of record will be rated Fail under Factor I.

The Offeror must also demonstrate that the Offeror’s JV has at least one SCIF meeting the requirements of SOW 5.2.1.1 (OTSB) or SOW 5.2.1.2 (Small Business).

Notwithstanding the above, the clause is included in the IDIQ to address any future task orders issued under the contract that may require certified cost or pricing data. If certified cost or pricing data are required for a particular task order, the Government may then require submission of an adequate proposal, to include the Proposal Adequacy Checklist, consistent with DFARS 252.215-7009 and the task order instructions.

Notwithstanding the above, the hourly rate language remains in the IDIQ solicitation to support future task order competitions/performance under the IDIQ. The Government may require submission of fixed hourly rates (or other pricing information) at the task order level, and price may be evaluated for individual task orders in accordance with the applicable task order solicitation and evaluation criteria. No amendment to remove the language is anticipated at this time.

Can you confirm that there are no specific portions of L or M that are FOUO and that Offeror's response does not need to be portion marked overall FOUO due to these headings? The Solicitation is UNCLASSIFIED It is the Offerors responsibility to mark as directed in Section L.1.1.2, L.17, and L.3.9

As Offeror's are redacting identifying information, is it acceptable to leave content such as, "As prime contractor in DIA XX program, we accomplished...." or should references to prime contract names be redacted? While DIA specific programs may need to be redacted, other customer/client programs are not as easily identifiable. Per Section L.3.8.1, the sanitized/redacted copy of Volume II must “remove all information identifying the Offeror, including company names, logos, and other identifying marks, including document properties and metadata.” Accordingly, Offerors shall redact any information that would identify the Offeror.

General, non-identifying statements such as “As the prime contractor, we accomplished…” are acceptable provided they do not identify the Offeror. However, references that could reasonably identify the Offeror—such as specific program names, contract names/numbers, or uniquely identifying customer/program descriptors (including DIA program identifiers)—should be redacted or generalized in the sanitized copy.

24 Section L 4.4.5.2 RFP states, "The Offeror will send the completed page 1 of the PPQ to the Contracting Officer at Noryem.Maldonado@dodiis.mil and the Contract Specialist at Willimenia.robinson@dodiis.mil."

Please confirm if this delivery confirmation is required for electronic submission? Is this to request a DOD SAFE Link? Can you please provide any additional instructions for DOD SAFE link requests? RFP states, "Delivery Coordination: Offerors must coordinate delivery of proposals by the date and time listed in Section 2. Coordinate by sending an email to noryem.maldonado@dodiis.mil and Willimenia.robinson@dodiis.mil. The email subject line shall state, "Coordination of Proposal Delivery for COMET by <Prime Offeror>". A copy of the Abstract attachment (in Section J) must accompany your coordination email."

Please confirm if this delivery confirmation is required for electronic submission? Is this to request a DOD SAFE Link? Can you please provide any additional instructions for DOD SAFE link requests?

No additional DoD SAFE request procedures are specified in Section L beyond the coordination requirement in Section L.5.2; therefore, Offerors should use the Section L.5.2 coordination email to request/confirm DoD SAFE delivery 26 Section L L.1.1.1.2 How would the Government like Offerors to submit Unclassified // CUI proposal submissions?

Will the government provide a DoD SAFE Link for Unclassified//CUI proposal submission?

L.4.3.1.3, M.8.2 & M.7.2.1-7.2.5 Instructions to complete Cell H of Attachment 1 states, "For each of the applicable subfactors under the Technical Capability factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on the program applies to that subfactor." However, Sec L.4.3.1.3 changes subfactors to evaluation elements. Also, Sec M.8.2 states, "Offerors shall address all elements identified in Sec M, Factor II - Past Performance, following the format in Attachment 1."

Can you confirm that offerors are to illustrate experience against the evaluation elements, which are:

M.7.2.1. F&TI (SOW 1.1.1)

M.7.2.2. FME (SOW 1.1.2)

M.7.2.3. IT Ops (SOW 1.1.3)

M.7.2.4 M&S (SOW 1.1.4)

Please confirm that offerors can add content that will require the government to scroll through and read? Is there a limit to the amount of text that can be added to Cell H to respond to all evaluation elements? Offerors shall complete Attachment 1 in accordance with the solicitation instructions and comply with the applicable page limitations in Section L.3.3.1 (and any other referenced limits). For Cell H, 1 page has been added for extra space.

If content is not visible to the Government in the printed/PDF view (i.e., requires scrolling to see), it will not be evaluated. Accordingly, Offerors should limit text to what can be displayed in the visible area and ensure all information intended for evaluation is viewable without scrolling.

30 Section L 4.1.1.2.1 and 4.1.1.2.4 If the Offeror and its subcontractors do not have an OCI concern, please confirm that the Offeror is only to provide 1 statement for the Prime and Subcontractors and not separate OCI Statements for each subcontractor. No. Per Section L.4.1.1.2.1, the prime Offeror must provide OCI Statements for all joint venture partners, teaming partners, and subcontractors at any tier, even when no OCI is identified.

Accordingly, if no OCI concerns exist, the Offeror shall submit separate OCI statements/certifications for the prime and for each subcontractor (and other team members, as applicable) affirming that the entity reviewed the SOW/RFP and identified no OCI.

M.6.6 Each offer will be evaluated to determine that they provide a sound approach to maintaining compliance with and staying abreast of changes in DoD and I security policies, procedures and directives as described in the PWS. (This Sec M reference was in the Draft and remains in the Final)

Please confirm if Sec M.6.6 is still an evaluation factor and where would offerors be required to submit the data? If required, can you provide page count allocation.

Section L revised:

L.4.2.2.4. Security Approach Narrative (1 Page Limit) will provide a sound approach to maintaining compliance with and staying abreast of changes in DoD and IC security policies, procedures and directives as described in the SOW.

34 Section M 4.2.1 Will the Government confirm that an Offeror's most recent DCMA Financial Capability Review determination adequatley addresses the requirement in Section M 4.2.1. The Government cannot confirm that an Offeror’s most recent DCMA Financial Capability Review determination will, by itself, adequately address the requirement in Section M 4.2.1 in all cases.

A DCMA Financial Capability Review may be submitted as supporting evidence, but offerors should still provide the specific evidence/information required by M 4.2.1 (e.g., latest financial statements and/or other documentation demonstrating the 75‑day capability), because the Contracting Officer must make an affirmative responsibility determination based on the solicitation’s stated criteria.

the individual is a current employee in good standing;

the individual is committed/available to serve in the proposed Key Personnel role (e.g., Program Manager) upon award; and the company’s intent to retain and assign the individual to this effort for contract start/transition, subject to award.

L.4.2.2.4. Security Approach Narrative (1 Page Limit) will provide a sound approach to maintaining compliance with and staying abreast of changes in DoD and IC security policies, procedures and directives as described in the SOW.

Page size: Section L, Para. 3.4.1 requires formatting as standard 8.5 x 11-inch pages.

Font: Section L, Para. 3.4.2 requires 12-point Times New Roman minimum for textual content.

There is no language in Section L authorizing submission of the Abstract as an image to enable a smaller font, nor authorizing 11 x 17 foldouts. Therefore, the Abstract must be submitted in accordance with L.3.4.1 and L.3.4.2.

48 Section L 4.1.1.2.1 Regarding "The prime Offeror must provide OCI Statements for all JV partners, teaming partners, and subcontractors," can the prime Offeror make a single statement in the 1 page alloted for OCI Statements cerifying that neither it nor any of its partners have an OCI as opposed to individual signed statements per partner? No. Section L requires OCI statements from each entity, not a single consolidated prime statement.

Section L.4.1.1.2.1 states the prime Offeror must provide OCI Statements for all joint venture partners, teaming partners, and subcontractors at any tier.

Section L.4.1.1.2.4 reiterates that the prime must provide OCI Statements for all subcontractors at any tier.

Accordingly, the Government expects separate OCI statements/certifications (signed as applicable) from the prime and each teaming partner/JV partner/subcontractor, even when all parties report no OCI. A single prime statement covering all entities does not meet the requirement to provide OCI statements for each entity.

For where to address this in the proposal and how it will be evaluated, see Section L, Table L‑1 (Volume I) and Section L.4.2, and Section M, Factor I (Security), including M.6.4–M.6.7.

52 General 5.2.1.1 Other thn Small Business To promote fair competition and maximize innovation, the Government should consider moving the requirement that “50% of the 50 workstations be located within 180 miles of Redstone Arsenal” from the base contract level to the task order level. As currently written, this requirement significantly restricts competition by favoring incumbents and local joint ventures while excluding otherwise highly qualified vendors. Additionally, because not all work will occur within the 180-mile radius, the restriction appears unnecessarily limiting. Applying this requirement at the task order level would allow the Government to maintain local presence when mission needs require it while preserving broader competition. Thus, Would the government consider moving this requirement to the TO level? No. The Government will not move the “50% of the 50 workstations within 180 miles of Redstone Arsenal” requirement to the task order level; it remains an IDIQ-level minimum requirement as stated in the SOW.

Individual task orders will continue to specify place(s) of performance as applicable.

For OTSB, see SOW 5.2.1.1.

For Small Business, see SOW 5.2.1.2.

See Section L.3.7.1–3.7.3 (Offeror submits one electronic version of each volume; page limits apply) and Section L.4.2.2.4 (SCIF supporting documentation submitted as attachments to Volume I).

If a subcontractor’s SCIF documentation cannot be shared with the prime due to need-to-know restrictions, the Offeror remains responsible for ensuring its proposal includes the required documentation in the manner prescribed.

59 Section L L.4.2 In leiu of submitting copies of SCIF accreditation letters or certificates, would the Government consider allowing the submission of the message information for look up in DIA messages. This would include submitting the message type, DTG, and SUBJECT line as evidence and allowing the Government to look up the accreditation. No. The solicitation requires submission of the SCIF accreditation letter/certificate as supporting documentation; providing message metadata in lieu of the document is not authorized.

See SOW 5.2.2.1.1 (copy of the current SCIF accreditation letter/certificate) and Section L, Volume I supporting documentation instructions.

Accordingly, it is acceptable to use the Table L‑1 volume structure and clearly map/label the required Paragraph 4 (L‑4) content within the appropriate volume (e.g., via section headers and/or a compliance matrix), provided all required information is included in the correct volume and the volume remains self‑contained.

63 Section L Table L-2 Table L-2 - SCIF Capability appears to force the SCIF's physical location to be tied to the Cage Code, but in many cases you can have a cage code tied to a corporate entity and then have a SCIF or accredited facility in another location not directly listed under your cage code. Request guidance to accommodate this commonality in the Security table. Offerors shall complete Table L‑2 in accordance with Section L.4.2.2.3, which specifies that the “Company’s Physical Address” must be associated with the given CAGE code.

If an Offeror’s SCIF is located at a different address than the address associated with the CAGE code, the Offeror should still provide the CAGE‑associated address in Table L‑2 and provide the SCIF’s physical location and supporting documentation in the SCIF Supporting Documentation submitted with Volume I.

64 Section L L-4.2.2.4 SCIF inspection documentation documents are normally never requested for a proposal IDIQ level request and in many cases the documents are classified. In almost all cases industry, per your direction will send in an Unclassified COMET proposal. Making a few pages classified could drive considerably more redtape and potential risk of proposal writing and reviewing to make the whole proposal classified for arguably not a critical piece of the proposal, especially if the SCIF is accredited. This may be able to be pushed down to the TO level for when work is actually required in the SCIF, not at the IDIQ level.

1) Would the Government consider making this optional?

The solicitation does not prescribe a mandatory internal ordering beyond those instructions. Either approach is acceptable, provided Volume III is complete, clear, and compliant with the page limits and “self‑contained” requirement.

72 Section L Table L-1 Volume III Past Performance Attachments 1 and 2 are provided as separate files. Does the Government expect to receive multiple files for Volume III, with the Attachments as separate files? Or does the government prefer to receive 1 PDF file for Volume III with all Attachments included in the single PDF file? Section L.3.7.1 requires Offerors to submit one electronic version of each volume, and Section L.3.7.2 requires each volume file be labeled “Original.”

Accordingly, the Government prefers one consolidated file for Volume III (PDF or Word per Section L.3.18.1) that includes the required Volume III…