Questions_and_Answers.pdf

HQ0013-16-R-0011

Questions and Answers

8 August 2016

Document Key:

“Q” in front of a number indicates what follows is a question that was asked by potential offerors.

“A” in front of a number indicates it is the response given by DSCA, to the question of the same number.

Q1. We do not have Facility Clearance at this time. However, our teaming partner has facility clearance.

We would like to know if we can bid under these circumstances. Please let us know.

A1. The Facility Clearance has to belong to the contractor whose name will appear on the contract.

Q2. I'm reaching out in reference to the requirement for DSCA Security Assistance and Equipping

Support Services in Arlington, Virginia under the solicitation number HQ001316R0011. Would you kindly confirm if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing the services? If so, can you please provide the incumbent contract details?

A2. The services are currently being performed by Genesis International Management Group, under

Purchase Order HQ0013-16-P-0076. HQ0013-16-P-0076 was established to allow time for this procurement competition to be completed. Prior to the awarding of HQ0013-16-P-0076, on 30 June

2016, the services were performed by Genesis International Management Group, under Contract

HQ0013-12-C-0002. There currently seven (7) FTEs performing on the contract.

Q3. Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past?

If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

A3. Please refer to A2.

Q4. Is there an incumbent? If so, who is the incumbent?

A4. Please refer to A2.

Q5. Who is the incumbent contractor?

Ho(w) many FTE's are currently working on the contract?

A5. Please refer to A2.

Q6. Would the Government consider pushing the due date for proposals one day to the right (so that proposals are due Tuesday, 16 August) so that we are not required to ship on a Friday and lose that weekend to prepare?

A6. The proposal due date has been extended to 2:00 pm EST, on 17 August 2016. The change is reflcted at Paragraph 6.5.1 of the Instructions to Offerors.

Q7. I respectfully request an extension to the proposal due date from 15 August to 29 August. The RFP requirements are extensive including eight key personnel, a 40-page technical volume, plus resumes for all key personnel, plus quality control plan, plus past performance volume, price volume and numerous other requirements. As a WOSB, this is a voluminous solicitation; and an additional two weeks is needed in order to support producing a high quality conforming proposal given the extensive amount of solicitation requirements as well as working potential teaming partners.

A7. The Government will not be extending the proposal due date to 29 August 2016.

Q8. Regarding the subject solicitation, I'm wondering if DSCA had conducted market research on this or how you had determined this as a WOSB? It seems like this would be perfect for SDVOSB. Would you consider opening this to Any Small Business or to SDVOSB?

A8. DSCA did conduct market research. As part of market research, a Sources Sought notification was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website, on 29 April 2016. DSCA is not considering opening the competition to all Small Businesses or competing it as a SDVOSB set aside.

Q9. The purpose of this e-mail is to request your Bidder’s List of WOSB companies that submitted a qualifying response to the RFI. This information is necessary to market capabilities to a potential prime

WOSB offeror.

A9. Because DSCA did not indicate it would be forwarding the contact information of any responders to the RFI, DSCA will not be providing a Bidder’s List.

Q10. RFP Instructions to Offerors, section 6.1.2 states, Offerors shall submit five (5) hard copy versions of their proposal. Four (4) of the copies shall have the offeror???s name and any other identifiers redacted or removed.

a. In today???s electronic world, providing electronic copies (both redacted and an un-redacted copies) is an more affordable and efficient approach. Would DSCA please consider electronic submission of proposal volumes in order to save the WOSB's time and money? Thank you.

b. Will the Government please clarify if key personnel candidate resumes are also supposed to be redacted according to this section, or only information regarding Offeror???s name. Also, regarding

SF 33???s and 30???s, cover letter, etc. ??? are offerors supposed to include redacted files for these documents as well?

A10. a. Currently DSCA does not have an electronic distribution system that would limit access to proposals to evaluation board members, only. In addition, DSCA does not want to be responsible of generating copies of proposals for distribution among evaluation board members. Therefore, DSCA is not considering electronic submission of proposal volumes. b. Any references to the offeror or logos of the offeror appearing on the resumes of proposed personnel shall be removed/redacted. In addition, where the resumes of proposed personnel indicate he or she is currently working for the offeror, the offeror’s name should be removed/redacted. For example, if a resume indicates the proposed person worked from 29 December 2014 to the present for ACME and ACME is the offeror submitting the proposal, the name ACME shall be redacted/removed from the resume. If a person worked for ACME three years ago, left and returned on 29 December 2014 to the present, the mention of ACME at the

“three years ago” reference does not have to be removed/redacted. Yes, four copies of each amendment has to be redacted. At Paragraph 6.2.4 of Instructions to Offerors, the word “Key” is added to the title.

Q11. RFP Instructions to Offerors, section 6.3.3 states, A Past Performance Questionnaire is included in the solicitation package. Offerors shall send copies of the Past Performance Questionnaire to vendors.

Offerors shall instruct the vendors to return the questionnaire directly to Mr. Woodrow Bell at the

Defense Security Cooperation Agency Contracting Office. Past Performance Questionnaires may be returned via email to woodrow.w.bell.civ@mail.mil<Caution-mailto:woodrow.w.bell.civ@mail.mil> or mailed or delivered to the addressed at paragraph 6.5.1 of this section. Offerors are to inform the vendors the questionnaires are due 11 Aug 2016. If the vendor???s past performance contracts have completed

Government CPARS, may we use those vice past performance questionnaires since they include the same information and are readily available?

A11. Offerors are instructed to follow the instructions at 6.3.3., of the solicitation.

Q12. RFP Instructions to Offerors, section 7.5 states, To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than ???Acceptable??? must be achieved for the Technical Capability Factor and each of the

Technical Capability Sub-factors. Will the Government please provide the definition of what is acceptable vice not acceptable with respect the Technical Capability Factor evaluation.

A12. To be considered “Acceptable”, the offeror’s proposal shall meet requirements and indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Q13. RFP Instructions to Offerors, section 7.6.1.2.d (past performance) states, To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than ???Somewhat Relevant??? must be achieved for the Past Performance factor. Will the Government please provide the definition of what is ???somewhat relevant??? and other relevance evaluation categories under this evaluation factor.

A13.

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Unknown/Not

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Q14. The solicitation states that the Government will provide an estimated ceiling price for the travel

CLINs at time of award. However, can the Government clarify if any OCONUS travel is required? If so, will ancillary costs such as Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance and hazardous duty pay be included in these ceiling amounts?

A14. There may be some OCONUS travel. Under a previous contract there was some travel to Iraq and

Afganistan. As result of possible travel to such OCONUS locations, the following clauses are added to the solicitation. 1) DFAR Clause 252.225-7043 Antiterrorism/Force protection Policy for Defense

Contractors Outside the United States (JUN 2015); 2) 252.225-7994 Additional Access to Contractor and Subcontractor Records in the United States Central Command Theater of Operations (DEVIATION

2014-O0020); 3) 5152.225-5908 Government Furnished Contractor Support (MAY 2012); 5152.225-

5904 Monthly Contractor Census Reporting (DEC 2011) and 5152.225-5903 Compliance with Laws and

Regulations (DEC 2011). Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance will be addressed in the ceiling amount.

Hazardous duty pay will be addressed under anouther CLIN.

Q15. Section 6.1.2, Instructions to Offerors, states that:Offerors shall submit five (5) hard copy versions of their proposal. Four (4) of the copies shall have the offeror's name and any other identifiers redacted or removed. Can the Government please clarify what is meant by "other identifiers"? Does this include candidate names on resumes? Does this include the name of the Contract Manager and the alternate?

A15. Offerors are aware of all identifiers they use for the promotion of their brand. These “other identifiers” include, but may not be limited to logos. For example, NBC’s peacock logo is identifiable as NBC with or without the letters NBC under it. Candidate names (assuming this is a reference to proposed personnel) are not considered identifiers. The names of the Contract manager and the alternate are not considered “other identifiers”.

Q16. Section 6.1.5, Instructions to Offerors, states that:

In addition to the paper copies identified above, the offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Should the CD contain the full version of our proposal response, the redacted version, or both?

A16. Both.

Q17. It was stated that historically, there were 5 contractors that supported this program. Who are these contractors?

A17. In the reference “historical” language 5 contractors is referring to 5 FTEs. The Government will not be providing the names and contact information of the incumbent workforce prior to award. The

Government may provide the information after award, if permission is given, by the individuals.

Q18. Are we allowed to use at least one of our teaming partner's past performance?

A18. Paragraph 6.3.4 allows offerors the option to submit past performance information regarding the past performance of subcontractors. Please follow instructions with regards to stating percentage of work to be performed by all subcontractors. Whether past performance information is submitted or not. If the intent of this question was to actually ask about the submission of the past performance of at least one of the partners and not subcontractors, I’m puzzled because if the past performance does not come from at least ONE of the partners, from where would it come?I contacted vendor, but did not receive a response regarding clarification.

Q19. Is there a certain time period that a surge is expected?

A19. None that can be predicted, at this time.

Q20. How much travel is required?

A20. DSCA is unable to predict the amount of travel, at this time. However, in the last period of performance under HQ0013-12-C-0002, a few contractor employees traveled on a total of four (4) trips.

Q21. Do you want all eight SME's resumes with signed letters for the proposal?

A21. The Instructions to Offerors requests letters, “If the offeror is including the resume of SMEs that are performing under the current contractor.” For every proposal submission to which this applies, offerors need only submit letters with the resumes of those particular individuals. All others do not require such a letter.

Q22. Would you like a first right of refusal to the current contractors' staff to be in place?

A22. The successful offeror may reach out to current personnel that are qualified. An offer only indicating the offeror will reach out to current employees, should it win the contract award, will not be evaluated as has having met the requirement of providing personnel that meet the minimum experience, qualifications and skills.

Q23. The basic services call for 8 FTE; however, CLINS are provided for SMEs in excess of 24 FTE

(base plus two options). Can you confirm the expected LOE for this contract?

A23. As indicated in the question above and the CLIN structure of the solicitation, the contract is for 8

FTEs, each period of performance that is exercised. Under each period of performance, there are the options for up to 5 additional SMEs.

Q24. If there is a finite, incumbent workforce, exclusive letters of intent (LOI) may be unlawful under the

Sherman Act, or otherwise inconsistent with promoting free competition among competing contractors, both incumbent and non incumbent. Given this, would the government consider disallowing the use of exclusive LOIs?

A24. For the services to be acquired as a result of this procurement effort, the workforce is not finite.

Q25. Will the government provide the names and contact information of the incumbent workforce prior to award? If not, will the government provide the names and contact information of the incumbent workforce after the award?

A25. The Government will not be providing the names and contact information of the incumbent workforce prior to award. The Government may provide the information after award, if permission is given, by the individuals.

Q26. How many resumes is the government requiring?

A26. The government is requiring eight (8) resumes.

Q27. Can you confirm that the Contract Manager position is unfunded, and is provided by the offeror from the offeror’s personnel? Given the importance of this position to contract performance, would the government consider making this position a government funded, FTE?

A27. The Contract Manager position is not a funded Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The

Government is not considering making it a funded CLIN.