A23_Q&As_final.docx

Questions

HQ0034-18-R-0002

CMSS Multiple-Award IDIQ

Q2. The RFP states that the ISFD will be used to validate Facility and Safeguarding capabilities. However, safeguarding status within ISFD is merely a snapshot status of the current contract requirements for safeguarding levels for existing contracts. Our firm has previously had Top Secret (TS) Safeguarding approval and currently has the physical facility and process capabilities to safeguard at a TS level. However, no current contract requires higher safeguarding than Secret. Therefore, ISFD will only state safeguarding of "Secret" despite our capability for TS. Upon award of this specific contract, DSS will re-certify our TS safeguarding based upon the DD254 requirement. By using the current contract safeguarding level snapshot within ISFD to validate compliance, the Government is unfairly eliminating qualified competition. who fully meet the safeguarding capabilities required for this contract. This ISFD validation approach significantly reduces the Government’s ability to bring new capabilities into the Department, despite their ability to meet all security requirements. We request that the Section L and M requirement be changed to allow the offerors to meet this pass/fail criteria by describing in detail their past and current physical facility and process capabilities to meet the post-award certification requirements. A2. The Govt will modify Sections L&M. See changes.

Q3. Page 1 of the SF1449 is missing from the Solicitation. A3. Please submit a memo acknowledging terms and conditions of solicitation (include Offeror Name, Address, and Telephone Number (box 17 of SF1449), Offeror Representative Name and Title, date and Offeror Signature (box 30 of SF1449)) as well as signed amendment first page.

Q4. Historically, DoD CIO has neither funded nor sponsored clearances for Program Management on support contracts. Regarding the change in this RFP requiring a SCI-cleared PM (Section L, Page 101), does this represent a change in the GOV requirements? A4. The information on page 101 is the PM requirement as it relates to this 2018 CMSS requirement.

Q5. Per Page 1, questionnaires are due no later than (RFP Closing Date). Per Page 2 Desired Response Date is January 2018. Per the Solicitation, PPQs are due “by the proposal due date; however, the desired response date is one week prior to the proposal due date.” Can the Government please clarify the due date for Past Performance Questionnaires? A5. Past Performance Questionnaires are due by the proposal due date; however, the desired response date is one week prior to the proposal due date. Solicitation and supporting documents have been updated.

Q6. Are there minimum Subcontracting Goal requirements? A6. No, but the Government highly encourages vendors to provide/look for subcontracting opportunities with small businesses.

Q7. Can offeror provide their response to DFARS Clause 252.209-7999 and other required certifications in an attachment to the proposal? A7. Yes, as long as the attachment complies with the Solicitation’s “NOTE TO OFFERORS: Vendors must fill out DFARS Clause 252.209-7999 and submit with quotes. Blank entries in DFARS Clause 252.209-7999 may cause quote submissions to be considered incomplete.” on page 37 of 109 of the Solicitation.

Q8. Please provide any file size limitations if any for submitting our proposal? A8. No megabyte limits, as long as readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2010 or Adobe Acrobat 9.0.

Q9. Offerors shall submit their proposals before the due date and time for this solicitation. Offerors shall be RECEIVED by the designated Government point of contacts (POCs) by the date and time specified on page one of SF 1449 (RFP). Please clarify the intent of this instruction: Is “Offerors” a typo, which should be “Offers”, or does this mean Offerors are expected to deliver the proposals to the POCs in person, to be met (received) by the POC? A9. “Offerors” is a typo; it should be “Offers” shall be RECEIVED by the designated Government point of contacts (POCs) by the date and time specified on page one of SF 1449 (RFP).

Q10. Page 1 of the 1449 is not included in the Solicitation. Can the Government please provide page 1 of the 1449 so offerors can sign and return as required? A10. See Question 3.

Q11. Please clarify that the pass/fail elements should be bound in a separate submittal volume/file, as there is no explicit provision for their inclusion in the defined Volumes 1 and 2. A11. Pass/fail factors, requirements, elements, or items will be included in Volume 1. Omission(s) of any pass/fail factor, requirement, element, or item is a fail.

Q12. Does the security clearance apply to all people under the IDIQ or will they be identified in individual requirements in each TO? A12. Security clearance requirements apply to anyone performing under the IDIQ and subsequent task orders awarded a vendor. Per PWS para 1.7.6, “. . . all contractors performing work at the Govt site(s) must hold a current or active TS clearance and be SCI eligible. Any contractor(s) working at the contractor site(s) must possess at least a SECRET clearance.”

Q13. We request that the government ease the requirement “include resumes for ALL proposed personnel for TO 1”, (historically 11 FTE for this PNT Task Order). Rationale: By requiring 100% resumes on a task with a very small talent pool of qualified personnel, the government could have the following unintended consequences: 1) Should a non-incumbent contractor win the PNT task order, the personnel commitments may necessitate 100% replacement of incumbent staff; 2) By making the PNT staffing such a pivotal part of the evaluation, the government is inherently discounting skills and capabilities that are broader applicability to the DoD CIO mission. The incumbent PNT contractor is unreasonably advantaged A13. The Government declines to change the requirement. The PNT tasks have increased in criticality. Recent statute has put a premium on CIO PNT responsibilities. Any unnecessary lag resulting from a changeover in qualified personnel, technical expertise, and knowledge would be detrimental and extremely harmful. The “skills and capabilities that have broader applicability to the DoD CIO mission” have been accounted for by virtue of the specific task orders. CIO is not seeking “utility players,” but highly skilled “position players” for this task order.

Q14. For the TO 1 scope, please provide the current roles and resource alignment to tasks Rationale: Providing this information to the bidders will enable a response that more closely aligns to the government’s priorities and create a level playing field by enabling bidders to leverage information that is currently only available to the incumbent contractor. A14. IAW page 102, TO 1 Factor 1: “The Offeror must propose a detailed technical approach, which must reflect a practical and feasible method to accomplish all tasks. . .”. IAW page 106, Factor 1: “The Technical Approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement as outlined in the PWS.” The roles and resource alignment are an essential part of the Offeror’s technical approach; Offerors shall propose labor categories, roles, and responsibilities based on their understanding of the requirement.

Q15. Page 4; The Travel and CMSS ODCs CLINs (X0004, X006) is T&M and FFP, respectively, which seems atypical. Most Travel and ODC CLINs are cost reimbursable. Suggest the government consider a cost reimbursable contract type for CLINs X004 and X006. A15. The use of cost reimbursement contracts (to include CLINS) is prohibited with the acquisition of commerical items (i.e. commerical task orders) in accordance with FAR 12.207(e) and FAR 16.301(b). FAR 16.601(a)(3) defines travel as an ODC. Non-commerical task orders will use CR for travel CLINS.

Q16. Page 15; Under 1.1, “Reducing the cost of DoD IT through a review directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense”. Can the government please clarify the difference between the work being performed under the current DCMO BPA and the requirements listed here? A16. This work is not related to the reform efforts under the DCMO BPA. This work is to support DOD CIO on a daily basis within their Program Office..

Q17. Page 22, 3.3.3; It is our understanding that SIPR access is very specific to task order deliverable requirements. Does the government intend to approve/sponsor NIPR/SIPR drops associated with task orders awards? Or will the Government sponsor contractor-site SIPRNet access upon award of the CMSS IDIQ? A17. That matter will be covered in the task order solicitations.

Q18. Page 25, 4.2.3.1; Please clarify Cloud activity vs. that which was just awarded to Koniag (Eagle Harbor) to support DoD’s Executive Steering Group. A18. The requirement referenced in the question is not a DOD CIO requirement.

Q19. Page 31; PRS #4 calls for Monthly Progress Report at the IDIQ level and Monthly Status Reports at the TO level. Suggest the government consider clarifying that the Monthly Progress Report is only required after a TO has been awarded. A19. Monthly Progress Report is required at the IDIQ level and Monthly Status Reports are required at the TO level. There would be nothing to provide in a Monthly Progress Report “prior to” a TO award.

Q20. Page 36, Section H; If a contractor wins $120M in IDIQ Task Orders, reaching the ceiling stated, it appears that contractor would be prevented from bidding on/supporting subsequent Task Orders. Recommend the government remove the ceiling by individual contractor as this could severely inhibit/completely prohibit the use of IDIQ holders, dissolving competition on out-year Task Orders. A20. No change will be made to the individual ceilings.

Q21. Page 36, Section H and Page 99, Section L; The RFP states that Prime Contractors MAY NOT sub contract or team/partner with any other CMSS Prime Contractors. Can the Government please confirm that this is for the IDIQ competition only and that, after award, CMSS Prime Contractor awardees may team on a Task Order competition? A21. No; this Special Contract Requirement applies to both the IDIQ competition and subsequent Task Order competitions.

Q22. Page 100, section M, Factor 1. Given the stated ongoing budget pressures, does the government intend to consider, as part of their evaluation, an offeror’s corporate history of effectively providing value, demonstrating innovation, and staffing efforts in a timely manner? A22. Page 100 is Section L of the solicitation, not Section M. Evaluation considerations for Basic Contract Factor 1, Corporate Experience and Management Approach, are given on page 105. The description must include details of direct experience and be able to show specific, measurable outcomes from their work. Descriptions shall be sufficiently robust to allow evaluators to judge relevancy to this requirement.

Q23. Page 100, Volume 1 Table; Since questionnaires are expected to be submitted directly to the Acquisition Directorate POC, are draft (uncompleted) questionnaires expected to be included as part of the submitted tech volume? A23. It is each Offeror’s responsibility to ensure complete proposals (including Past Performance Questionnaires filled out by third parties) are with the Government no later than the due date and time. Drafts will NOT be accepted.

Q24. On Page 100, the Subcontractor Management and Small Business Commitment plan is said to have a limit of five (5) pages. However, the provided small business plan template is 7 pages. Can the government please clarify if the template is to be used and if the page limit should be five or seven pages? A24. 1) SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FORMAT, the “A23_Attachment_4_Subcontracting_Plan” (7 Pages);

2) Both the specific plan (as applicable) that addresses the three bullets (bottom of page 101) AND the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (bottom of page 101 and top of page 102) (7 Pages). Note: these limits do not include “evidence of your commitment to small business, e.g. letters of intent or actual teaming agreements”, which has no page limit. These documents may be included in Volume 1. Page limit chart updated.

Q25. Page 101, Section L; Will the IDIQ PM require a TS/SCI to support completion of deliverables or for onsite access to the SCIF? If not, can the requirement be set at TS or can we provide SSBI Dates in lieu of SCI eligibility? A25. Per the RFP, the PM must currently possess a current or active DoD Top Secret security clearance and be eligible for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information; i.e. must have occupied an SCI position within 24 months of contract/task order award. (page 101)

Q26. Page 102, Factor 1, Last sentence of Paragraph two requires that all personnel must be available on day one of the task order. This requirement significantly advantages the contractor that is providing PNT services and staff to DoD CIO today. Given it is unclear that contractor will receive an IDIQ award and, therefore, be eligible for TO award, recommend that the Government modify the requirement to allow for a timely transition so as to not unfairly advantage one company. We therefore request that the wording be updated to indicate that this would follow a two week award notification from the Government so that staff have sufficient time to complete and transition other critical DoD engagements. A26. A two week transition period (from date of task order award) will be allowed.

Q27. Section 3.6 of Attachment 3a – Task Order PWS, states that the historical level of effort for this tasking has been satisfied by approximately 11 FTEs. Can the government please identify the contractor or contractors that currently execute this tasking and the contract(s) where the work is being performed? A27. The current effort is being executed by SAIC on BPA task order HQ0034-13-A-0024-0001.

Q28. LCAT Descriptions: All LCATs have a minimum of 2 years’ experience required; however, Section M states “The Department of Defense is facing ongoing budget pressures which will continue into future fiscal years”. Suggest the Government consider adding LCATs that do not require 2 years of experience as a minimum to allow for scenarios where junior staff may be a cost effective approach to selectively staff portions of future task order competitions? A28. Govt will not add LCATS that do not require 2 years of experience as a minimum.

Q29. The RFQ requires signing the SF1449. However, an SF1449 was not included in the solicitation package (just a continuation sheet). Please provide the SF1449. A29. (See Q3 response.)

Q30. The submission requirements for Factor 3 direct offerors to use Attachment 4 for the Subcontracting Plan. Can the government affirm that the Subcontracting Plan is separate and distinct from the Corporate Commitment described in the RFQ, which includes a subcontracting component? A30. Yes (see Q24 response).

Q31. Will the government permit offerors to include evidence of subcontracting and small business partnerships to be submitted in an Appendix at the end of (and excluded from the page count of ) the main body of the Technical Volume? A31. Yes (see Q24 response).

Q32. Will the Government please provide examples of what it expects a prime to report on vis a vis subcontractor performance? A32. For the 5 past projects under Factor 1, “Corporate Experience”, performance responsibility either as prime or subcontractor can be applicable to the evaluation, and completed or substantially completed within the past five (5) years of this RFP closing date. For the 3 past performance questionnaires (PPQs) under Factor 2, “Past Performance”, they will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s relevant prime experience during the last five (5) year. In summary, for Factor 1, subcontractor experience/performance applies. For Factor 2, only prime experience/performance applies. Also relevant; 3 of the 5 Factor 1 submissions must be as a Prime in order to satisfy Factor 2’s requirement regarding relevant prime experience for the 3 PPQs.

Q33. Will the Government provide target percentages for socioeconomic participation category and validate that such percentages should be contained within the table of section (1), "Goals", based on subcontracting percentages? A33. No, the Government is looking for vendors to propose the socioeconomic goals that they see fit for this requirement.

Q34. For Attachment 4, ADAP Form 19-704 Subcontracting Plan Format, please confirm that the offeror should include this submission within Volume 1. A34. Yes, this information may be submitted in Volume 1.

Q35. Please confirm that the information required (Corporate Commitment, Security and Safeguard Information, etc.) should be contained within the Technical Volume. A35. Yes, please provide this information in Volume 1.

Q36. The government identifies that it expects the 3 past performances to be drawn from the 5 corporate experiences (identified in Factor 1 of Section L. It also expects the past performances to be the highest value identified in Factor 1 of Section L. Section M disqualifies past performance from subs for consideration. How will the government evaluate the Corporate Experience of the full team where more than 3 companies (including small business team members) are included on the team? A36. The government will amend the RFP to allow past performance at the IDIQ level from vendors who submit as a Prime Contractor or for a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) (See sections L&M for definition of CTA.) Past performance for subcontractors will be allowed for task order 0001 and future task orders as required. The government will amend the RFP to evaluate the role each member of the full team will play in satisfying the CMSS requirement.

Q37. Since some primes will claim credit in their prime contracts for work they did not perform -- where they served only as a pass-through -- will the government consider allowing more past performance citations from subcontractors who are a part of a new prime's team? A37. See Question 36

Q38. How will the government evaluate corporate capabilities of small businesses on the team when only 2 non prime projects of similar scope, size and complexity of Section 4 can be presented? Is the intent of the government to disqualify (or rate lower) a bid that brings exceptional corporate capability from small companies? A38. No, it is not the intent of the government to disqualify (or rate lower) a bid that brings exceptional corporate capability from small companies.

Q39. N/A

Q40. The combination of higher ratings for the full scope of Section 4 past performance with elimination of subcontract past performance from consideration appears to establish incentives for the existing successful BPA teams to remain intact and, by definition, penalizes the formation of a team under a new prime that brings together highly successful companies delivering parts of the Section 4 under different teaming arrangements. Is it the intent of government to limit competition to the existing primes? A40. No.

Q41. Other than evaluating the Socio-economic status of small business teammates, how does the government plan to assess corporate capability of the small business team members? A41. The Government will revise Factor 1, Corporate Experience and Management Approach, to require Offeror’s to address “Roles and responsibilities of each subcontractor” as they relate to supporting future task orders. . .

Q42. Is it in the government's best interest to limit awards to three firms? A42. Per the RFP, The Government reserves the right to award more than three (3), less than three (3), or to award no IDIQ contracts at all.

Q43. What is the basis of splitting the total ceiling equally among the three awardees prior to the award of any Task Orders? A43. It is the Govt requirement.

Q44. Please confirm that the government is only requiring the 2 completed Excel spreadsheets, Attachment 2a and 3b, and that the total evaluated price TEP will be based on cell H25 on the Instructions and Summary tab of Attachment 2a for the IDIQ pricing template. A44. Vendors must complete two pricings spreadsheets, Attachment 2a (IDIQ LCAT pricing), and Attachment 3b (Task Order Price Template). The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the IDIQ (Basic Contract) is calculated using the methodology described in Section M for the Basic Contract, Factor 4. The vendor’s TEP for the Basic Contract will appear on the Attachment 2a spreadsheet, under the “Instructions and Summary” tab at cell H-25. (Please note that should there be an error in the spreadsheet’s formulas such that the figure at cell H-25 is different from the TEP figure calculated using the methodology listed in Section M, the figure derived from the Section M methodology will prevail.)

Q45. The Government has identified the Travel CLIN as a T&M CLIN. Q: Should the Travel CLINs 0004/ 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004 be Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs? A45. See Question 15.

Q46. Paragraph 1.7.1 states, “The contractor’s QC plan must be submitted to the Contracting Officer 10 days after contract award.” However TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1 – DELIVERABLES states, “Deliverable #1, MPR, is the only deliverable required at the IDIQ contract level; all other deliverables are task order level deliverables that will be further defined in each task order.” Will the Government clarify if a QC plan is required at the vehicle level, the individual task order level, or both? A46. The Government requires a QC plan at the vehicle level IAW PWS paragraph 1.7.1. Requirements for QC plans at the individual task order level will be identified in the respective task order PWS.

Q47. Please confirm that NDAs for proposed staff members are required to be completed after award of the task order. A47. Confirmed.

Q48. Please confirm that the Subcontracting Plan is to be included as an attachment to Volume I - Basic Contract/Task Order and is excluded from the 5 page limit allocated for Factor 3 - Subcontract Management and Small Business Commitment. A48. See Question 24

Q49. A23_Attachment 4 - Subcontracting Plan is not identified in the RFP as part of the required IDIQ response. Are offerors required to submit the Attachment 4 as part of the IDIQ Bid? A49. See Question 24

Q50. Are offerors required to use the Attachment 4 format or can the offeror use its Individual Subcontracting Plan format? A50. See Question 24. Offerors should use the Government’s format.

Q51. Please confirm that vendors are required to respond to the DOD Support Services for the DOD PNT Enterprise Task Order in order to be awarded a position on the IDIQ? A51. Confirmed. IAW RFP Section L page 98 “Each Offeror must submit a response to the solicitation consisting of the items described below. The submission of these items to the Government will constitute the Offeror’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP.” IAW RFP Section L page 100, the Submission Requirements include Basic Contract and Task Order Submission.

Q52. Factor 1 – Technical Approach Staffing Plan states, “The staffing plan must detail proposed resources allocations for all tasks identified in the PWS (attachment 3a)…including name, labor category…and number of hours of each employee.” The paragraph further states, “Resumes of any proposed personnel not currently employed by the Offeror, or a subcontractor of the Offeror, must contain a statement that the use of their resume for this solicitation is authorized.” The result of the requirement for named personnel provides an unnecessary competitive advantage to incumbent offerors and prevents any other offeror from proposing to hire existing personnel currently supporting the Attachment 3a activities increasing transition risk. Would the Government consider waiving the requirement for named personnel? A52. The Government will not waive this requirement.

Q53. Please confirm contractors will be allowed to add new subcontractors not included in the proposal Factor 3 - Subcontractor Management and Small Business Commitment in order to provide maximum flexibility to meet future requirements. A53. Contractors will be allowed to add new subcontractors with prior Govt Contracting Officer approval provided the Contractor has complied with restrictions listed elsewhere that “Prime Contractors MAY NOT Sub-contract or Team/Partner with any other CMSS Prime Contractors” (RFP page 36)

Q54. Will the Government identify the incumbent(s) currently performing work supporting Attachment 3a activities? A54. The current effort is with SAIC on task order HQ0034-13-A-0024-0001.

Q55. The RFP provides an IDIQ model contract but no Task Order Model Contract. Will the Government be providing Offerors a Task Order model contract so that offerors have more specific details reflecting the CLIN structure and terms and conditions applicable to the task order? A55. The Government does not think a Task Order Model is necessary.

Q56. RFP indicates that the task order is intended to be an FPLOE task order but no reference is made to FPLOE CLIN #s in the Task Order pricing template nor has the Government provided a Task order model contract reflecting the Task Order CLIN structure. Would the Government please provide a model task order contract identifying the CLINS that will be used and confirm that the task order pricing template is for pricing the FPLOE Commercial CLINs # 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 and 4005? A56. The CLINS for the Task Order will be (XXX5) for FPLOE (Labor) and (XXX4) for Travel. Travel costs are fixed at $10,000 NTE per POP.

Q57. The task order PWS states, “Both Congressional legislation and Presidential directives have mandated that the proliferation of federally provided radio navigation systems be reduced and that the DoD-provided GPS be promoted as both a national and international standard, dual-use (military and civil) PNT system. These same mandates also direct the DoD to ensure the protection of GPS for use by US and coalition allies, while preventing adversary use of civil GPS (or like systems) and not unduly impacting peaceful use of civil GPS (or like systems) outside a theater of operations. Further, recent Congressional legislation has focused on ensuring complements to GPS are also employed in the event GPS reception is disrupted by natural or hostile interference. In carrying out the congressional and presidential direction, CIO is responsible for ensuring the DoD addresses a number of GPS, PNT and Navwar acquisition, integration, sustainment, and modernization challenges before the full benefits envisioned for GPS and other DoD PNT systems can be realized.” Q: Due to the nature of new directives for dual use GPS and PNT Enterprise services, does the Government anticipate higher number of personnel for this task order than historically required, especially for liaison with non-DoD users? If so, would the Government provide an approximate increase in the level of effort required (e.g. additional FTE quantity to the current 11 FTE’s referenced under 3.6 Historical level of Effort)? A57. The designated FTE estimate is the best approximation of resources required against the tasks at hand.

Q58. What OCONUS travel is expected and to what countries? Will the travel be in the hostile areas? A58. OCONUS travel will be to US allies. It is almost impossible to perfectly predict exactly which countries, but historically OCONUS travel has been restricted to NATO allies, other treaty allies, and allies enjoying FMS relationships. Other, neutral nation travel is possible, but it does not include travel to “hostile areas,” if what is meant are areas with extreme Foreign Clearance Guide restrictions on travel

Q59. Paragraph 3.6 HISTORICAL LEVEL OF EFFORT states, “Historically, this effort has been satisfied by a level of effort equating to approximately 11 FTE.” Is this number provided for informational purposes only or is the offeror required to propose 11 FTE to support the awardable task order (Attachment 3a)? A59. The historical effort is 11 FTE. However, the vendor may propose differently but must support any and all FTE submissions.

Q60. The majority of the work associated with this task order will be performed on-site within Government facilities. On-site Government facilities will predominantly be in the Pentagon, Mark Center, Crystal City, Rosslyn, Ft. Belvoir, and surrounding metropolitan Washington, DC area. It is unclear how to price this effort without further information. What percentage of work in the Task Order PWS will not be performed at the Government Site? A60. The Government estimates that approximately 80% of the effort involves working directly with the Government on a day-to-day basis and will therefore be performed on-site at the Government facility. The remainder of the effort, approximately 20%, will be performed off-site at the Contractor facility.

Q61. The RFP did not include a DD254 for the IDIQ in the RFP documents. Will the Government please provide a draft DD254 aligned to the IDIQ security requirements reflected in the PWS? A61. Yes. The Draft DD254 is Attachment 5.

Q62. Is it the Government’s intent that offerors include the Past Performance Questionnaires in their proposal as sent to the client representative in this Factor? A62. “The Offeror shall request that the client’s representative most knowledgeable of the project complete block 8 on the form and submit the Past Performance Questionnaires directly to the Acquisition Directorate POC identified on the form by the proposal due date; however, the desired response date is one week prior to the proposal due date.” Please do not send drafts.

Q63. Because Basic Contract Factor 3 is Pass/Fail, is the required information excluded from any page limitations as stated in the Pass/Fail paragraph of Section L (page 99 of 109)? If not, the offeror respectfully submits that the limit of 5 pages is not adequate to address Factor 3 requirements, including the completed Attachment 4, which is 17 pages, and the required evidence of commitment. A63. Attachment 4 is 7 pages not 17. See Question 24.

Q64. Will the government revise the Model Contract to include the first page of the SF 1449? A64. See Question 3.

Q65. Should the offeror list percentages of commitment and/or dollar value of commitment? If dollar amount, should this be calculated based upon the total dollar estimate from Attachment 2a? A65. Assuming the question refers to subcontracting, the Offeror should provide its percentage commitment.

Q66. The CLINS do not appear to align with either the IDIQ evaluated pricing totals from Attachment 2a or the Task Order pricing totals from Attachment 2b. Please confirm what totals offerors are supposed to complete in Section B CLIN totals. A66. There is no requirement for an offeror to complete Section B.

Q67. Please confirm that it is acceptable to establish our IDIQ Labor Category rates by mapping to our approved Commercial Price List and/or GSA PSS category rates and discounting as appropriate. A67. No. Please price the provided LCATS.

Q68. With respect to Section H, offerors are instructed to fill out DFARS Clause 252.209-7999 however, the full text of the clause does not appear in the solicitation. Can the Government please provide the clause if applicable? If it is applicable, where in the proposal does the Government require the requested certification? A68. http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/. Clause added.

Q69. Are offerors required to include the representations applicable to FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications (JAN 2017) and FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items (NOV 2017) in the proposal submission? If so, where in the proposal submission shall should this information be provided? A69. The Offeror may submit this information in Volume 1 (does not go toward page limits) and within the clauses themselves.

Q70. In reference to Attachment 2b, LCAT Definitions will the Government consider adding a Project Control Analyst needed to support the financial reporting required for the Monthly Progress Report? A70. The govt will modify the Admin Assistant LCAT to include project control work area -- "May assist the program manager with related responsibilities such as program control; tracking and reporting program and/or project technical, cost, and schedule; and similar functions."

Q71. With respect to Volume II, Factors 2 and 4 please confirm the Government does not require offerors to provide pricing for the 6-month option period. A71. Reference solicitation page 103: “Offeror must submit pricing using the same excel spreadsheet format in Attachment 3b.” There is no provision for a 6 month extension in Attachment 3b. FAR Clause 52.217-8 will be evaluated by the pricing team using pricing from Option Year IV.

Q72. In reference to Section M, Evaluation of Options it states, “For purposes of determining the evaluated price for the six-month extension authorized under FAR clause 52.217-8, the total price is calculated to reflect a continuation of services at the same labor rate as Option V.” Please confirm the reference to Option V should be Option Year IV. A72. Yes -- the total price is calculated to reflect a six-month continuation of services at the same labor rate as Option IV (i.e., the last option year in a base-year plus 4 option year Task Order).

Q73. With respect to Volume 2, Price are offerors permitted to provide a narrative detailing the methodology used to develop the proposed labor rates and discounts offered as well as the basis of estimate and labor mix applicable to the task order? A73. Narratives may be submitted for labor mixes at the task order level.

Q74. In accordance with the instructions, offerors are required to provide a signed SF 1449, Solicitation/Order for Commercial Items. The RFP appears to only include page 2 of the SF 1449 therefore, offerors cannot complete the information required for blocks 17a., 17b., 30a., 30a., 30c., 31a., 31b., and 31c. Can the Government provide page 1 of the SF1449? A74. See Question 3.

Q75. We operate under a DCMA approved Master Subcontracting Plan and will submit an Individual Subcontracting Plan that state our small business goals as our full compliance to FAR 52.219-9. Will the government accept our Master Subcontracting Plan and Individual Subcontracting Plan in place of Attachment 4 ADAP FORM 19-704 (SEE ADAP PGI 19.704)? A75. All vendors are required to submit Attachment 4; the Government will not accept any other Subcontracting plans.

Q76. The RFP states a requirement of 5 pages for the Subcontractor Management and Small Business Commitment section. Please confirm that the five page limit is for the response to Factor 3 requirements and that Attachment 4 is outside of page count. A76. See Question 24

Q77. The required corporate commitment section requests information similar to that requested in the management approach (p. 100-101). Can the government please clarify the different inputs required for each of these proposal elements? A77. The two are different. The former is more structural; the latter is more operational.

Q78. The government indicates that a prime offeror cannot also be a subcontractor on another prime Offeror’s team; does that restriction apply only at the IDIQ level and are prime awardees restricted from teaming at the task order level? A78. This restriction from teaming applies at the task order level as well.

Q79. Section G appears to be blank in the RFP. Can the government clarify the information intended for this section? A79. Section G is accounting and appropriations data. There is no funding at the IDIQ level so this section would be blank.

Q80. What is the period offerors should provide to the Government for which the costs specified in the proposal shall remain valid? A80. IDIQ Rates and Task Order Rates should be valid for 90 business days.

Q81. The government requests a "detailed organizational chart of your business or corporate structure to include the locations of the corporate headquarters, regional offices, and any other satellite offices and clearly define lines of authority, responsibility and communication. Include all joint venture, teaming partners and first tier subcontractors as applicable". Can the government confirm this organizational chart is to depict the elements of the prime Offeror’s business involved in executing/supporting this program and the associated teaming partners and subcontractors who will support the prime Offeror’s bid? If not, can the government please clarify what is requested? A81. Confirmed.

Q82. What information does the government want to see in the “Detailed Implementation Approach and Plan?” How does this differ from the Program Management Approach at the IDIQ level? A82. Offerors should provide information described in the RFP Sections L and M. The Program Management Approach at the IDIQ level should describe the Offer’s approach to organize, staff, and manage efforts required to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Detailed Implementation Approach and Plan implements the Program Management Approach and should provide a time-phased plan to stand up the Offeror’s organization and provide the required staff.

Q83. Please confirm that teaming agreements are outside of page count for Factor 3? A83. See Question 24

Q84. The government identifies that it expects the 3 past performances to be drawn from the 5 corporate experiences (identified in Factor 1 of Section L. It also expects the past performances to be the highest value identified in Factor 1 of Section L. Section M disqualifies past performance from subs for consideration. How will the government evaluate the Corporate Experience of the full team where more than 3 companies (including small business team members) are included on the team? A84. See Question 36

Q85. Since some primes will claim credit in their prime contracts for work they did not perform -- where they served only as a pass-through -- will the government consider allowing more past performance citations from subcontractors who are a part of a new prime's team? A85. See Question 37.

Q86. How will the government evaluate corporate capabilities of small businesses on the team when only 2 non prime projects of similar scope, size and complexity of Section 4 can be presented? Is the intent of the government to disqualify (or rate lower) a bid that brings exceptional corporate capability from small companies? A86. See Question 38

Q87. The combination of higher ratings for the full scope of Section 4 past performance with elimination of subcontract past performance from consideration appears to establish incentives for the existing successful BPA teams to remain intact and, by definition, penalizes the formation of a team under a new prime that brings together highly successful companies delivering parts of the Section 4 under different teaming arrangements. Is it the intent of government to limit competition to the existing primes? A87. No.

Q88. Other than evaluating the Socio-economic status of small business teammates, how does the government plan to assess corporate capability of the small business team members? A88. See Question 41.

Q89. Is it in the government's best interest to limit awards to three firms? A89. See question and answer 42.

Q90. What is the basis of splitting the total ceiling equally among the three awardees prior to the award of any Task Orders? A90. See question and answer 43.

Q91. In sect. L, p. 99, it reads, “Offerors shall include the signed 1449 to accept all terms and conditions of the RFP.” Will the Government provide the first page of the SF 1449? A91. See Question 3.

Q92. In sect. L, p. 99, there are instructions for Corporate Commitment, Security and Safeguarding Information, and Certified Cost Accounting System. Where does the Government wish to see this information placed: Volume 1 or Volume 2? A92. Volume 1.

Q93. Attachment 3a, sect. 3.6, it reads, “Historically, this effort has been satisfied by a level of effort equating to approximately 11 FTE.” Will the Government provide the labor categories and number of FTEs in each that are supporting this task order? A93. The Government cannot provide the particular labor mix of the incumbent contractor as this may represent proprietary information.

Q94. Attachment 3a - Will the Government identify the incumbent of the work on this task order? A94. The current effort is being performed by SAIC on task order HQ0034-13-A-0024-0001.