A23 Attach 10 RFP QA.pdf

ATSS IDIQ-R Final RFP

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1: Section B‐1.6 Labor Expertise states that the Contractor personnel performing work under any given labor category and associated rate must meet the corresponding requirements of Advanced, Intermediate, or Basic. However, the Government has not defined which level is required for an associated Labor Category. For example, is the technical specialist labor category a basic, intermediate, or advanced level?

Answer 1: Language is included B-1.6 to clarify, “All levels (i.e. basic, intermediate, and advanced) may be required for each IDIQ Labor Category.”

Question 2: Volume III- Past Performance currently requires Past Performance Questionnaires for referenced contracts with the information from CPARS reports. As a number of our Contracting Officers have previously refused to complete PPQs because of CPARS availability, will the government allow the proposer to submit the latest CPARS reports for referenced contracts in lieu of PPQ’s?

Answer 2: Although the Government may obtain past performance information from any source available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, submitted Summaries and Questionnaires, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), etc., the requirement in Section L-8 that, “The offeror shall request that their customer submit past performance information on the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment #6)” remains the same.

Question 3: In the pass/fail criteria for facility clearances, it states the offer is to provide “evidence of their current/active DoD Facility Security Clearance at the TOP SECRET level or above.” Since the clearances will be verified in NISS, will providing the Facility location and Cage Code suffice as evidence to meet this requirement?

Answer 3: Per the requirement in Section L-6 offerors shall provide, “…evidence of their current/active DoD Facility Security Clearance at the TOP SECRET level or above,” not only the Facility location and Cage Code.

Question 4: Is there currently an incumbent company or previous incumbent, who completed similar contract performing these services?

Answer 4: Yes, the incumbent prime contractors are ATSI (HQ0034-15-D-0011) , Artlin ((HQ0034-15-D-0012), IPTA (HQ0034-15-D-0013), BAH (HQ0034-15-D-0014), CACI (HQ0034-15-D-0015), LMI (HQ0034-15-D-0016), MTSI

(HQ0034-15-D-0017), SPA (HQ0034-15-D-0018).

Question 5: If so ‐ can you please provide incumbent contract number, dollar value and period of performance?

Answer 5: Attachment 8, ATSS Historical Environment Document details the past ATSS requirements. Dollar values and periods of performance will not be provided.

Question 6: Are you satisfied with incumbent performance?

Answer 6: Current contractor performance evaluation is kept confidential.

Question 7: Section L-8 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Factor B(1): Past Performance Summaries Paragraph 1 states the offeror shall provide a summary of their performance in this Past Performance Summaries sections. The offeror shall submit past performance project summaries for up to seven projects... This paragraph does not describe the "mix" of past performances to be submitted (i.e., all Prime or a combination of Prime and their proposed subcontractors/teammates PP summaries ). Can you clarify the "mix" of PP Summaries, or is all past performance on the Prime offeror only?

Additionally, if a potential SB Prime offeror for the Restricted Pool has no relevant PP within the 3-year window - can all PP Summaries be submitted by their proposed subcontractor teammates?

Answer 7: As stated in L-8, “Offerors shall provide contract number, whether the offeror or a proposed subcontractor was the prime contractor…” There is not a restriction on the prime or subcontractor past performance information that may be submitted.

Question 8: Please clarify if labor rate escalation is allowed at the IDIQ and/or Task Order level. Section L-10 clearly states a single labor rate will be effective for the duration of the IDIQ, however Para G-6.4 states TOs must be priced using Year 5 pricing and escalation rates in-line with approved pricing for previous two years’ rates.

Answer 8: The IDIQ rates are ceiling rates, and as stated in the pricing templates, “Each proposed labor rate is effective for the duration of the IDIQ contract; there is not a different labor rate for each contract period.” Escalation rates are allowed under task order pricing, as long as the total labor category rate is less than or equal to the IDIQ rate.

Question 9: Factor B(1): Past Performance Summaries requires each summary to pertain to one of the contracts listed in Factor A (Technical Experience). Please confirm that not every contract listed in Factor A requires an associated Past Performance Summary in Factor B.

Question 9: Correct, not every contract in Factor A requires an associated Past Performance Summary in Factor B.

Question 10: RFP page 30, Section G, 6.4: Task Order Pricing (Year 5 and beyond) on page 30 of 70 states “Task Orders awarded any time during the last year (Year 5) may have a period of performance of a base plus four (4) options, for up to five (5) years after the expiration of the IDIQ ordering period. Such TOs must be priced using Year 5 pricing and escalation rates in-line with approved pricing for previous two years’ rates.” The Pricing Worksheet instructions on pg.59, Sections L-10 and L-11 and the Pricing Worksheets at Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 do not provide the level of detail needed to propose fluctuating annual escalation as part of the approved rates. Can the Government please clarify the basis for calculating rate escalation for task orders that are awarded during the last year of the ID/IQ ordering period?

Answer 10: Task orders that run after the IDIQ ordering period may include a reasonable escalation rate. For these types of orders, the RFP language in Section 6.4 is revised to state, “Such TOs may be priced using Year 5 pricing and reasonable escalation rates.”

Question 11: RFP pgs.52-53, Section L-5, Volumes and Page Limits, Unrestricted Pool Table entry for Volume II, Technical Experience. The 15-page limit does not provide enough space to discuss team construct and quality management to bring the technical experience to bear on task orders. In order to reduce the risk of poor performance in bidding and executing on task orders, can the Government please add 2 additional pages to this section for an executive summary including team composition and quality management?

Answer 11: The 15 Page requirement remains in the RFP. See the response to Question 71.

Question 12: RFP pg.24, Section F-6.0 Task Order Deliverables. The last sentence of the first paragraph in the section states: “All days identified below are intended to be calendar days unless otherwise specified.” In the deliverable table 2 paragraphs below and in the remainder of the section, the term “business days” is used. Can the Government please clarify that the intent of this section is to reference deliverable due dates in “business” and NOT “calendar” days?

Answer 12: Yes, the deliverable due date are correctly included as business days.

Question 13: RFP pg.56, Section L-8, Factor B(1): Past Performance Summaries uses the term “project summary” connected to performance and experience. L-8 Factor B(2): Past Performance Questionnaires and L-7 Factor A: Technical Experience use the term “contracts” connected to performance and experience. Can the Government confirm that “project summary” and “contract” can be used interchangeably? If they are not interchangeable, can the Government please define both terms in the context of the RFP instructions?

Answer 13: The language in Section L-8 Factor B(1) is updated state “contract summary” instead of “project summary”.

Question 14: RFP pg.66, Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Table 2. In Table 2, the definition for each relevancy rating includes the word “magnitude”. Sections L-7 and L-8 do not include magnitude. Can the Government please confirm that “magnitude” refers to Scope and Complexity as noted in the last paragraph on pg.65? If it refers to something other than scope and complexity, can the Government please identify what magnitude refers to and how it will be measured?

Answer 14: The RFP pg.66, Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance. In Table 2, the word “magnitude” has been removed.

Question 15: RFP pp. 53, Section L-5, Volumes and Page Limits, Unrestricted Pool Table entry for Volume VI, Subcontracting Plan. On page 53, The VI – Subcontracting Plan Row and Page Limit column says, “Unlimited, including letters of commitment,” however, there is no reference to letters of commitment in either Section L-12 on pp. 59-60 or Attach 4 Subcontracting Plan. Additionally, Answer 1 in Attach 9 states that “offerors must provide information and supporting documentation for their Small Business Participation Commitment Document and their Subcontracting Plan separately.” Can the Government please clarify what is meant by letters of commitment for Volume VI? Or can the Government confirm that letters of commitment used for Vol IV can be used for Volume VI?

Answer 15: Letter of commitment are not required in Volume VI-Subcontracting Plan. The language referencing letters of commitment in the Section L-5, Volumes and Page Limits, Unrestricted Pool Table entry has been deleted.

Question 16: L-6 Volume I: Pass/Fail Criteria, 4. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. “Offerors must complete the OCI Analysis and Disclosure Form (Attachment #7).” Could the government please clarify if only the prime contractor must complete the OCI Analysis and Disclosure Form, if no proposed subcontractors have actual or potential OCI concerns?

Answer 16: Correct, only the Prime contractor must complete the COI Analysis and Disclosure Form; however, if there are actual or potential COI concerns at the subcontractor level these must be addressed within this document.

Question 17: L-6 Volume I: Pass/Fail Criteria, 4. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. The instructions state, “If an offeror determines that an actual or potential OCI does not currently exist they shall include a statement to that effect as part of the OCI analysis and disclosure form and are not required to submit a specific mitigation plan.” However, the following sentences state, “Provide an IDIQ OCI mitigation plan which addresses how potential OCI will be handled and mitigated on future task order awards (Required for all offerors). Failure to provide adequate information on an offeror’s avoidance or mitigation will result in the proposal being rejected and relieves the Government of any further responsibility to resolve OCI issues.” Could the government please clarify whether or not offerors must submit a mitigation plan if they have determined an actual or potential OCI does not currently exist?

Answer 17: RFQ language in Section L-6 is updated to state, “When the offeror determines an actual or potential OCI exists, the offeror shall provide an IDIQ OCI mitigation plan which addresses how actual or potential OCI will be handled and mitigated on future task order awards.”

Question 18: L-10 Volume IV: Factor C: Pricing Worksheet – Small Business Reserve Pool Only. “Proposed loaded hourly labor rates will be the maximum allowable rates used throughout the life of this contract.” Could the government please clarify if the labor categories should be priced as though they are all at the Advanced level as outlined in B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support? Should labor categories also be priced as though they are at the TS/SCI level?

Answer 18: Correct, the labor category pricing is a maximum for the labor category at all labor category requirement levels and all security levels, and for entire contract period.

Question 19: Attachment #6: Past Performance Questionnaire. The desired response date listed on the Past Performance Questionnaire is August 24. However, the proposal due date is August 31. In order to give customers as much time as possible to fill out the Past Performance Questionnaire, could the government please change the PPQ due date to August 31?

Answer 19: The Past Performance Questionnaire due date remains unchanged in the RFP.

Question 20: L-8 Volume III, Factor B(2) Past Performance Questionnaires. Please confirm that Volume III will contain only a response for Factor B(1), Past Performance Summaries, and not Factor B(2).

Answer 20: Correct, Volume III from the offerors will only contain a response to Factor B(1). Responses to Factor B(2) will be provided directly from references.

Question 21: Ref. L-9 through L-12, Volumes IV through VI. Please confirm that for Volumes IV through VI, only the respective completed forms (Attachments 1 - 4) are required, without a cover page, table of contents, marginal page headings, page numbers, etc.

Answer 21: The requirements for these Volumes are included in the RFP Section L, and are purposefully not reiterated here.

Question 22: Attachment #6: Past Performance Questionnaire. Would the Government consider accepting CPARS in lieu of a PPQ?

Answer 22: See the response to Question 2.

Question 23: L-5 Volumes and Page Limits. L-5. P. 54. The Electronic Submission section states that, “There is a 10MB limit for all electronic submissions via email.” Are offerors permitted to submit multiple emails, each under the 10MB limit, for their full proposal submission?

Answer 23: Yes, multiple emails are permitted for proposal submission. RFP Section L-5 has been updated to include “Multiple email transmissions are allowed for proposal submission. Emails must be clearly marked.”

Question 24: Section G - Contract Administration Data. G-5.0 Contractor On-Ramping and Off-Ramping P. 28. This section states: “The objective of on-ramping and off-ramping is to increase competitive contractors and expand the industry base to accommodate evolving DoD needs. To qualify for an on-ramp, a new contractor’s proposal must meet the criteria of the RFP.” Will on-ramping be allowed throughout the period of performance?

Answer 24: There is the potential for on-ramping within the period of performance, but proposal may be requested at a specific time instead of accepting proposals throughout the entire period of performance.

Question 25: Section G - Contract Administration Data. G-5.0 Contractor On-Ramping and Off-Ramping. P.28. This section states: “The objective of on-ramping and off-ramping is to increase competitive contractors and expand the industry base to accommodate evolving DoD needs. To qualify for an on-ramp, a new contractor’s proposal must meet the criteria of the RFP.” What will the on-ramping process be?

Answer 25: The on-ramping process will be definitized at the time of need.

Question 26: B-1.0 Contract Type. B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support. P. 5. The RFP states that “Each labor category is classified with one of the following education/experience levels…” however, the solicitation only describes the requirements of the three levels. Will the government provide the education/experience level for each labor category?

Answer 26: See the response to Question 1.

Question 27: A23+Attach+3+FP+ and+TM-LH+Labor +Category+Pricing+Worksheet A23+Attach+3+FP+ and+TM-LH+Labor +Category+Pricing +Worksheet Sheet Each tab has labor categories without education/experience levels. Will the government revise the pricing worksheet to add levels to the labor categories?

Answer 27: See the response to Question 1.

Question 28: B-1.0 Contract Type. B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support P. 5. The RFP states that “Each labor category is classified with one of the following education/experience levels…” and also says that “Contractors may deviate from the level definitions above when responding to task order solicitations…” If a category is classified with one of the outlined levels, will the contractor be allowed to use the labor category at another level on the task orders?

Answer 28: Task order requirements will be specified at the time of task order solicitation. Depending on the contract type and task order specifications, specific labor categories and levels may be required.

Question 29: B-1.0 Contract Type. B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support. P.5. The RFP states that “Each labor category is classified with one of the following education/experience levels…” and also says that “Contractors may deviate from the level definitions above when responding to task order solicitations…” If a category is classified with one of the outlined levels, how will the contractor be allowed to price the labor category at another level on the task orders?

Answer 29: Task order requirements will be specified at the time of task order solicitation. Depending on the contract type and task order specifications, specific labor categories and levels may be required.

Question 30: L-5 VOLUMES AND PAGE LIMITS. P. 52. Due to the breadth and depth of the topics in the Factor A:

Technical Experience areas for the unrestricted pool and their linkages to paragraphs in the PWS, will consideration be given to increasing the page count in the technical experience volume beyond 15 pages to enable source selection evaluators to better discern the capabilities of the bidders? The previous ATSS technical volume proposal requirement was 30 pages. The current RFP has additional PWS requirements in comparison to the previous solicitation.

Answer 30: See the response to Question 11.

Question 31: L-9 Small Business Participation Commitment Document. P.57. Per the Government’s response to Questions 9 & 10; L9 - Since the SBPCD is an enforceable, contractual requirement which will be incorporated in the resultant IDIQ awarded contract and the Government does not anticipate awarding the total ATSS ceiling amount of $1.5 billion to just one ATSS contractor, should this amount be divided by a specific number of anticipated contractors to create an attainable ceiling and commitment to our small businesses for use in our proposal and use for the SBPCD?

Answer 31: The SBCPD and MQR is a binding commitment document which applies to the entire ATSS IDIQ. The total contract of the ATSS IDIQ of $1.5 Billion, remains as the amount to use when preparing their MQR.

Question 32: L-6 VOLUME I: PASS/FAIL CRITERIA. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan P. 54- 55 Can the government please clarify if Offeror’s “OCI Disclosure Forms” are included in 20 limit page count for Volume I?

Answer 32: Yes, the COI Mitigation Plan is included in the 20 page limit.

Question 33: L-6 VOLUME I: PASS/FAIL CRITERIA. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan P. 54- 55 Are subcontractors required to submit OCI Disclosure Forms in addition to the prime contractors?

Answer 33: See the response to Question 16.

Question 34: L-6 VOLUME I: PASS/FAIL CRITERIA. Organizational Conflict Question of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan P. 54-55 Section 4 states, “If an offeror determines that an actual or potential OCI does not currently exist they shall include a statement to that effect as part of the OCI analysis and disclosure form and are not required to submit a specific mitigation plan. Provide an IDIQ OCI mitigation plan which addresses how potential OCI will be handled and mitigated on future task order awards (Required for all offerors).” These statements are contradictory can the government confirm that if an Offeror determines that there are no OCIs because of the analysis, is a mitigation plan still required?

Answer 34: See the response to Question 17.

Question 35: Ref. L-6.1, Volume I Reps and Certs: In lieu of completed forms, will the government accept a statement that all company representations and certifications are current in the System for Award Management (SAM)?

Answer 35: Per L-6, “Offerors will complete representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements via System for Award Management (SAM).” Additional language was added to this section to state, “FAR provisions 52.204-24 and 52.204-26 must be included in full text and marked to show the offeror will not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract or other contractual instrument resulting from this solicitation and that the Offeror represents that it does not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services as a part of its offered products or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract, or other contractual instrument.”

Question 36: Ref. Page 6, Section B: For pricing out the IDIQ labor categories, what qualifications (years of experience and education) shall we use for each labor category?

Answer 36: See the response to Question 1 and Question 18.

Question 37: Ref. page 54, Section 3: Security Clearance, for only Unrestricted Pool (LG) bidders to have the ability to safeguard classified documents. This is not required of Small Businesses. If safeguarding capability is a prerequisite for IDIQ contract award, it should be required for all bidders, not just bidders exclusively in the Unrestricted Pool. This new prerequisite, that changed after the draft, does not appear to comply with the requirement under CICA, which says an agency is required to solicit offers in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition, so that all responsible sources are permitted to compete. 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1)(A)(i). The safeguarding requirement will limit competition and unnecessarily restrict competition on the IDIQ. The safeguarding requirement appears to be better suited at the task order level where safeguarding may or may not be required for a specific order. We respectfully request that the current safeguarding ability requirement be removed from the Unrestricted Pool, or that in the alternative, the requirement may be satisfied by team members and not only the prime contractor to further enhance competition for this award.

Answer 37: Safeguarding capability requirements remain the same in the RFP as they were determined in market research to not be unduly restrictive.

Question 38: H-2.2, Security Clearances. Page 31 of 70. If Top Secret safeguarding is required, please confirm that it will be at the task order level and will be reflected on the DD-254.

Answer 38: Yes, per H-2.2, “…each TO will indicate the clearance requirements via DD254.” There is there potential Top Secret safeguarding may be required.

Question 39: L-7, Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience. Page 55 of 70. Item 1 for the Small Business Reserve Pool states “The offeror shall submit experience in: 1. The Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) tool”. However, the PWS does not mention DAI. Please clarify if DAI is used as a representative program to gauge similar experience, or if all offerors must have direct DAI experience.

Answer 39: Per Section L-7, the offeror shall submit experience in the Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) accounting system to create and modify funding documents.

Question 40: Reference SB Reserve Pool: L-5 Volume and Page Limit Table, Page 54 of 70 The government requests in Volume III – Past Performance, Factor B (2) for PPQs for each past performance summary detailed in Factor B (1). Will the government please allow for a printout of the CPARS Evaluation for the identified past performance in leu of a PPQ for those past performances which are mature and are listed in PPIRS?

Answer 40: See the response to Question 2.

Question 41: L-7, Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience. Page 55 of 70. The government states, “The appendix shall contain the following information on each referenced contract: contract number, whether the offeror or a proposed subcontractor was the prime contractor,” Are subcontracts referenceable in the Technical Experience or must the contracts be prime contracts?

Answer 41: Per Section L-7, the offeror shall submit an appendix listing all contracts that it referenced in its discussion of experience. The appendix shall contain the following information on each referenced contract: contract number, whether the offeror or a proposed subcontractor was the prime contractor.

Question 42: L-8, Volume III: Factor (B)2: PPQs Page 56 of 70 The government states, “1. The offeror shall request that their customer submit past performance information on the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment #6).” Is it acceptable to submit past performance completed as a subcontractor, if a Government representative is the submitter of the past performance information?

Answer 42: See the response to Question 7.

Question 43: Section L L-5 Unrestricted Pool Table. P. 53. In the table for the Unrestricted track, the Past Performance volume includes a two page limit for each Past Performance Questionnaire (Factor B(2): Past Performance Questionnaires). Will the Government confirm that an Offeror's submission for Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance shall only include their seven (7) page Past Performance Summaries?

Answer 43: Correct, the offeror’s submission only includes the past performance summaries.

Question 44: Section L L-8 B(1) Past Performance Summaries. P. 56 While Section L-7 provides specific guidance on how Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience should address both the nine (9) Task Areas and the PWS, Section L-8 does not provide similar guidance for Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance. Given the total seven (7) page limit for seven (7) Past Performance Summaries, can the Government verify that each Past Performance Summary needs to only address one (or more) of the 9 Task Areas listed in Section L-7 and the specific PWS Task element(s) linked to those 9 Task Areas? Or does the Government want offerors to provide information on all PWS tasks in each Past Performance Reference?

Answer 44: Correct, the past performance information “must pertain to one of the contracts that the offeror referenced under Factor A (Technical Experience).” Not all PWS areas must be addressed.

Question 45: Section M-5 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment P. 65 Section M states, "A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon similarity in scope and complexity to the requirements outlined in the PWS." Since the Past Performance references are used to demonstrate experience directly related to the Technical Volume, and the Technical Volume is organized by the nine (9) Task Areas in Section L with a specific PWS element(s), can the Government confirm that each Past Performance reference only needs to address those specific PWS elements aligned to the nine Section L task areas (e.g., Electronic Warfare with PWS C-4.2.6 Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Studies; and C-4.2.8 Joint Rapid Acquisition)?

Answer 45: Yes, the past performance references only need to address the specific PWS elements aligned to the Section L task areas.

Question 46: Can the government confirm that Attachment 2 is not required for the unrestricted pool pricing submission?

Answer 46: Correct, Attachment 2 is not required for the unrestricted pool pricing submission.

Question 47: Attachment 3. N/A. All Tabs. Will the Government please include the applicable labor category levels (i.e., Advanced, Intermediate, Basic) for each labor category to be priced in Attachment 3?

Answer 47: See the response to Question 1.

Question 48: RFP, Attachment 3. B 1.6. P. 5, 6. In Section B, Paragraph 1.6, Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support the RFP indicates that each labor category (LCAT) is classified with one of three experience levels - Advanced, Intermediate, or Basic. However, Attachment 3 – Fixed Price, T&M and Labor Hour Pricing worksheet does not provide for separate levels for each LCAT. Considering this, are bidders expected to bid only ceiling (i.e. Advanced) rates for each

LCAT?

Answer 48: Yes, offerors are expected to propose only one rate ceiling per labor category.

Question 49: RFP, Attachment 3. B 1.6 P. 5, 6 Referencing the question above relating to Section B, Paragraph 1.6 - if the Government intends bidders to provide rates for all experience levels for each LCAT will they please provide an updated Attachment 2/3 which distributes the hours to be used for each LCAT across the additional experience levels?

Answer 49: See the response to Question 1.

Question 50: RFP, Attachment 3 B 1.6 5, 6 Referencing the question above relating to Section B, Paragraph 1.6 - if bidders are not expected to provide a separate rate for Intermediate and Basic experience levels at the IDIQ level, please confirm that post award that successful IDIQ holders will bid and invoice a single labor category rate regardless of experience level on future task orders.

Answer 50: Task order rates are to be proposed at less than or equal to the IDIQ rate and must be fair and reasonable for the applicable labor category level.

Question 51: Attachment 8. N/A. 1-4. The ATSS Historical Environment Document (Attachment 8) provides information on the types of requirements previously awarded under the current ATSS IDIQ and the OSD organizations directly supported. Many of these offices are OSD-level organizations in addition to OUSD(A&S). Given the precendent that the current ATSS IDIQ is used by other OSD level organizations and that the ATSS Re-compete RFP notes the vehicle will be open to OSD and other Fourth Estate organizations, can the Government verify that offeror's past performance references supporting OSD-level organizations will be considered as equally relevant as those supporting OUSD(A&S) specifically?

Answer 51: The RFP in L-7 Factor A, and M-5, Factor A has been revised to state, “Experience in Department of Defense is preferred”, and M-5 Factor B, “Past performance within the Department of Defense is considered more relevant than performance within other Government or commercial customers.”

Question 52: Section M. M-5 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment P.65 . Section M states "Past performance within the Department of Defense, and OSD(A&S) in particular, is considered more relevant than performance within other Government or commercial customers." Since the ATSS Historical Environment Document (Attachment 8) identifies multiple efforts awarded under the current ATSS MA IDIQ and the OSD organizations directly supported beyond OUSD(A&S), can the Government verify that past performance references for contracts supporting OSD and Fourth Estate entities under the DoD are also considered equally relevant as those supporting OUSD(A&S)?

Answer 52: See the response to Question 51.

Question 53: Section M.M-5 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment. P.65. Please confirm that Department of Defense contract past performances are equal in relevance to those past performance references for contracts support OSUSD(A&S).

Answer 53: See the response to Question 51.

Question 54: Section M. M-5 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment P. 66. Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings outlines the degrees of relevance for past performance citations, ranging from "Very Relevant" to "Not Relevant." Can the Government explain how it will score degrees of relevance?

Answer 54: Relevancy will be determined by the offeror’s present/past performance effort compared to the requirements of the solicitation.

Question 55: Reference: L‐7 Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience Question: Could the Government please confirm that the Appendix listing all contract references does not count against the 15‐page limit for Volume II?

Answer 55: Correct, per the Chart in L-5 the appendix does not count against the page limit.

Question 56: Reference: L‐8 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance Question: Must all Past Performance summaries be for contracts performed by Prime Offeror on this proposal, or may a proposed subcontractor/teammate contract be used for this purpose (provided it is included in the Technical Experience Volume)?

Answer 56: See the answer to Question 7.

Question 57: Reference: L‐8 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance Question: Is there a limit to how many of the seven Past Performance Summaries may refer to subcontractor/teammate past performance rather than Prime Offeror past performance?

Answer 57: No, there is not a limit on subcontractor/teammate past performance.

Question 58: Reference: L‐8 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance. Question: May the Offeror include among the seven Past Performance Summaries projects where the offeror performed in a subcontractor capacity?

Answer 58: See the answer to Question 7.

Question 59: Reference: L‐7 Volume II : Factor A : Technical Experience – This section states that the offeror shall submit experience in The Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) tool to create and modify funding documents. Since the use of this system is primarily within Defense Agencies, will the Government consider allowing demonstrated experience with creating and modifying funding documents using DAI or other financial systems used within DoD. Limiting experience only to DAI is unnecessarily restrictive and will eliminate firms that have this experience working with the military services and other organizations not served by DAI.

Answer 59: See the answer to Question 39.

Question 60: RFP, Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices – This section includes CLINs for 2 separate NAICS codes for the ATSS procurement. These are 541611 for Administrative and General Management and 541990 for all other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. NAICS 541611 may be appropriate for work that is administrative and management oriented (which constitutes a relatively small portion of the PWS). However, 541990, as defined by the US Census at https://www.census.gov/cgibin/ sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=541990&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017 < Cautionhttps:// www.census.gov/cgi‐ bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=541990&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017 > does not include the type of industries that perform services described in the ATSS RFP for the Department of Defense (DOD). In contrast, NAICS Code 541330 for Engineering Services (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons) does seem appropriate as does the Industry Grouping and NAICS Code 541715 for Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering and Life Sciences. The PWS and the RFP Labor Category Pricing Worksheet appear to show a preponderance of the effort to be technical and engineering support services for DOD weapon systems. It appears that the significant amount of technical support required by ATSS would be more appropriate with the corresponding small business size standards oriented toward DoD engineering and technical support for military weapon systems, and especially aircraft and space.

Since FAR 19.102(b)(1) requires that only 1 NAICS code be assigned to a solicitation according to the principal purpose of the services, will the Government reconsider the use of NAICS 541990 and assign a more appropriate NAICS, such as 541715 or 541330, together with SBA’s DoD exceptions, consistent with the work described in the PWS and the requirements of the FAR?

Answer 60: The NAICS codes in the RFP are remaining unchanged.

Question 61: How many awards does the government anticipate making to the unrestricted pool?

Answer: 61: The Government will determine the amount of contract awards based on the best value.

Question 62: If a SB bids on that portion, may it also be a subcontractor to a Large Business prime in the unrestricted portion?

Answer 62: Yes, if a SB provides and offer in the SB portion, they may also participate as a subcontractor in the unrestricted pool.

Question 63: Re: Attachment 1. Does the government have specified percentages it is looking for with each of the small business categories for this Attachment?

Answer 63: Offerors set their own socio-economic dollar amounts and percentages in Attachment 1 - Section 2, Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR).

Question 64: Re: Attachment 3 – it appears the government wants a single set of rates to encompass the entire 5-year period of performance. This would penalize early users of the vehicle because offerors will have to balance those earlier years vs. the later years, and would also introduce a risk factor to the offerors. Would the government consider a set of rates for each contract year, or alternately a set of rates for the base year and an agreed-upon escalation for the out-years?

Answer 64: Task order rates are to be proposed at less than or equal to the IDIQ rate and must be fair and reasonable for the applicable period and labor category level.

Question 65: Re: Attachment 5. Is this required if the offeror has a DCAA audited accounting system?

Answer 65: No, per L-6, “The offeror must state whether or not they have a DCAA-approved accounting system. If the prime offeror does not currently have a DCAA-approved accounting system, they must fill out the Accounting System Checklist.”

Question 66: Re: Attachment 7. If the offeror has determined based on evaluation of the PWS that no OCI exists, do they need to complete this Attachment?

Answer 66: See the response to Question 17.

Question 67: Is this IDIQ subject to the Service Contract Act?

Answer 67: No, the IDIQ is not subject to the Service Contract Act.

Question 68: How long does the government want proposals to be valid?

Answer 68: The Government prefers for offers to be valid for 180 days.

Question 69: RFP & LCAT Pricing Sheets. RFP Page 6. B-1.6 "Paragraph B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support states: "Each labor category is classified with one of the following education/experience levels. Contractor personnel performing work under any given labor category and associated rate must meet the corresponding requirements"" Question: The pricing sheet contains only labor categories, without any corresponding Experience Level (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced). Should the vendor price an experience level for each labor category?"

Answer 69: No, see the response to Question 48.

Question 70: RFP P. 30 and 59. G-6.4 and L-10. "Section G-6.4 states ""Task Order Pricing (Year 5 and beyond) Task Orders awarded any time during the last year (Year 5) may have a period of performance of a base plus four (4) options, for up to five (5) years after the expiration of the IDIQ ordering period. Such TOs must be priced using Year 5 pricing and escalation rates in-line with approved pricing for previous two years’ rates." "Section L-10 states ""(Each proposed labor rate shall be effective for the duration of the IDIQ contract; there will not be a different labor rate for each contract period.)"" Does this mean that IDIQ ceiling rates are effective for all potential 10 years, as we are not allowed to use any escalation on the base rates?"

Answer 70: See the response to Question 10.

Question 71: RFP. P. 52-53. L-5. Will the Government consider adding a one-page executive summary in Volume I or II for offerors to provide company and teammate overviews?

Answer 71: Yes, language in L-5 states, “Page limits do not include cover pages, tables of content, glossaries, acronym lists, list of figures, blank pages for separation, etc.” and language as has been revised to clarify teaming overviews are required. Section L-5 states, “Also include on cover pages, the volume number, solicitation number, solicitation title, company and/or team name, teammate overviews, an executive summary, DUNS, CAGE code, and the name/phone number/E-mail address of the contract manager or other agent authorized to obligate your organization/team.”

Question 72. RFP. P. 56. L-8. Per Section L all past performances listed in Volume III past performance must be referenced in Volume II technical experience. Can an offeror reference a project in Volume II if it is not one of the 7 past performances in Volume III?

Answer 72: See the response to Question 9.

Question 73. RFP. Will the Government confirm that offerors are not required to submit a signed SF33 with the proposal?

If it is required, will the Government confirm it should be included in Volume I?

Answer 73: Per the SF33, the Offeror must complete and submit Sections 12-18 on the SF33. RFP language is included in Section L-6.

Question 74: General. Will interim security clearances be authorized in the performance of work on this contract?

Answer 74: No, interim security clearances will not be accepted to meet the RFP requirements.

Question 75: General. Does the Government anticipate releasing answers to all questions regarding the draft RFP?

Answer 75: Yes, all questions as stated, are being answered.

Question 76: General. Could the Government please confirm that bidders are not required to address any requirements related to Management of the IDIQ Contract? If the government desires Offeror’s to address Management capability, would the government consider increasing the page limit by at least 3 pages to accommodate?

Answer 76: There is not a Management Approach evaluation criteria.

Question 77: L-3 Proposal Due Date. Would the Government consider extending the due date until after the Labor Day federal holiday to September 4, 2020?

Answer 77: The proposal due date is revised to September 2, 2020.

Question 78: Section L-5 Volumes and Page Limits. Please confirm that the Table of Contents will not be assessed against page count?

Answer 78: Yes, per Section L-5, “Page limits do not include cover pages, tables of contents, glossaries, acronym lists, list of figures, blank pages for separation, etc.”

Question 79 Section L-5 Volumes and Page Limits. Please confirm the Proposal Cover will not be assessed against page count?

Answer 79: Yes, per Section L-5, “Page limits do not include cover pages, tables of contents, glossaries, acronym lists, list of figures, blank pages for separation, etc.”

Question 80: Section L-5 Volumes and Page Limits. Would the Government allow a one-page Executive Summary outside of page count?

Answer 80: See the response to Question 71.

Question 81: Section L-5 Volumes and Page Limits. Would the Government consider increasing the page count of Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience from 4 pages to 6 pages?

Answer 81: Page limits remain unchanged.

Question 82: Section L-5 Volumes and Page Limits. Would the Government consider increasing the page count of Volume III: Factor B(1): Seven past performance summaries from 7 pages to 9 pages?

Answer 82: Page limits remain unchanged.

Question 83: Section C-4.0 [Performance Work Statement (PWS)] Task Areas; C-4.1 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services; Section G – Contract Administration Data; G-6.0 Task Order Procedures;

Section L-7 Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience Entire Section The Government has moved multiple Task Areas from PWS 4.1 of the Draft PWS, released on April 22, 2020, to (PWS) C-4.2 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; however, several Task Areas that moved such as Strategic Communications, Congressional Affairs, International Affairs, and Program Acquisition Oversight Analysis appear to fit better within the scope of Administrative and General Management Consulting Services and they have all historically been procured under the 541611 NAICS code

(set aside for SB Reserve Pool in this RFP) vice the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (set aside for Unrestricted Pool in this RFP). This is further substantiated by Section G – Contract Administration Data; G-6.0 Task Order Procedures (pg. 28), in which the Government states that if future Task Order (TO) Request for Proposal (RFP) “…PWS contains a majority of work under NAICS 541611 [which covers services/support that include Strategic Communications, Congressional Affairs, International Affairs, and Acquisitions], the TO RFP will be set-aside to the small business IDIQ contract holders.” Additionally, the Government states in Section L-7 Volume II: Factor A:

Technical Experience (pg. 56, paragraph 3), “If a small business is proposing on only the set-aside reserve of NAICS Code 541611, it shall address areas of PWS Section C-4.1” that includes experience in supporting “DoD business process improvements including data standards, acquisition and procurement analysis, and decision making,” which directly relates to the Task Area PWS C-4.2.1 Program Acquisition Oversight Analysis. Since the Task Areas (Strategic Communications, Congressional Affairs, International Affairs, and Program Acquisition Oversight Analysis) fall within the purview of NAICS 541611, would the government move any or all of these Task Areas back to C.4.1, which would allow the small business community to propose against those task areas?

Answer 83: Task Area alignment remains unchanged.

Question 84: Section M-5 Evaluation Criteria (Non-Price Factors); Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience Section L-7 Volume II: Factor A: Technical Experience Section M-5 “If evaluating a small business proposal on only the small business reserve Pool, the evaluation will consider how the offeror addresses the areas of the PWS Section C-4.1 in accordance with the following evaluation detailed below… TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS RESERVE POOL ONLY – PWS Section C-4.1: The Government will evaluate offeror’s submitted experience in: 1. The Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) tool to create and modify funding documents; 2. DoD business process improvement including data standards, acquisition and procurement analyses, and decision-making.” Section L-7 “If a small business is proposing on only the set-aside reserve of NAICS Code 541611, it only shall address areas of PWS Section C-4.1 as follows. TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS RESERVE POOL ONLY – PWS Section C-4.1: The offeror shall submit experience in: 1. The Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) tool to create and modify funding documents; 2. DoD business process improvement including data standards, acquisition and procurement analyses, and decision-making.” Could the Government confirm that offerors will not be evaluated on any requirements related to Management capability or approach? If the Government wishes to evaluate offeror’s Management capability, please revise the RFP to clarify and increase the page limits by at least 2 pages to accommodate?

Answer 84: Correct, there is not a Management Approach evaluation criteria.

Question 85: Section B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desire Support; For each of the Labor Category Levels in the table the Requirements state, “or substantial equivalent occupational experience.” Could the government define the number of years of occupational experience that would qualify as substantial for each level – Advanced, Intermediate, and Basic?

Answer 85: Years of experience is defined in the chart in B-1.6 Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support.

Question 86: Section M-6 Evaluation Criteria (Price); Volume IV: Factor C: Price – SMALL BUSINESS RESERVE POOL ONLY (pg. 69, paragraph 1) “The offeror will be evaluated on the fairness and reasonableness of total labor rates” Will the government consider evaluating for cost realism instead of cost reasonableness?

Answer 86: The pricing evaluation factor remains the same.

Question 87: Section M-6 Evaluation Criteria (Price); Volume IV: Factor C: Price – SMALL BUSINESS RESERVE POOL ONLY (pg. 69, paragraph 5). “For each Government-defined labor category listed…, the Government will multiply the offeror’s proposed FFP labor rates by the Government’s estimated number of hours, resulting in the extended price for those categories. The Government will then add the total extended pricing for both FFP on-site and the off-site rates on the Overall Total tab to obtain the total evaluated price” Can the government clarify whether it plans to evaluate the price of each Labor Category as fair and reasonable, individually, or will it just determine fair and reasonable by evaluating the TEP, which aggregates pricing across all of the Labor Categories into a single, overall value?

Answer 87: As included in M-6, “The offeror will be evaluated on the fairness and reasonableness of total labor rates applied against Government pre-defined notional labor hours submitted on the Labor Category Pricing Worksheet.”

Question 88: L6 Volume I. P. 54. ALL PROPOSALS: To be eligible for contract award, all offerors (prime only) must provide on the date of quotation submission, evidence of their current/active DoD Facility Security Clearance at the TOP

SECRET level or above. The offeror must have the ability to provide and maintain contractor personnel up to and including a Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) minimum with Special Program Access eligibility.

There will be no exceptions or extensions to this requirement. This security clearance is a PASS/FAIL requirement to be verified by the Government. Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate will NOT sponsor potential proposers for the facility clearance requirement. If a small business offeror has a Top Secret Facility Clearance, may they use a teammates SCIF to provide and maintain contractor personnel up to and including TS/SCI with Special Access eligibility?

Answer 88: SCIF use will be addressed during post award at the task order level.

Question 89: P.5 Contractual. B-1.0. RFP Section B-1.0 states that the government intends to award multiple IDIQ contracts. Can the government clarify how many IDIQ contracts it intends to award for the unrestricted and small business tracks?

Answer 89: The amount of IDIQ contracts awarded will be determined on a best-value basis.

Question 90: P.5. Contractual. B-1.6. RFP Section B-1.6 “Labor Expertise Typical of Desired Support” states each labor category is classified with 1 of 3 education/experience levels (Advanced, Intermediate, or Basic). However, RFP Attachment 3 “FP and T&M-LH Labor Cat Pricing Worksheet” does not include notional hours by labor category level.

Will the government update Attachment 3 to provide hours by labor category…