A23 Attach 11 RFP QA Amendment 2.pdf

ATSS IDIQ-R Final RFP

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Amendment 2

Question 233: In light of the fact that there are no differences in the Performance Work Statement for the large and small tracks, and that any safeguarding would be only at the Task Order level, we ask the government to reconsider its requirement for safeguarding at the IDIQ level and restate it’s true need that safeguarding only be required for certain task orders released within the IDIQ and therefore should not be a limiting factor on award of the IDIQ.

Answer 233: Although document Safeguarding at the Secret Level is anticipated to be required for task orders in the unrestricted pool, this requirement is removed from the IDIQ RFP because it will be addressed at the task order level.

Question 234: Amendment 01, included a revised PPQ as an attachment. However, the only change to the PPQ document is the following: from "Email Subject Line: PPQ [Company Name] HQ003420R0089" changed to "Email Subject Line: PPQ [Prime ATSS IDIQ Offeror] HQ003420R0089" in the instructions section. At this date and time, nearly all PPQ Customer responses have been submitted to WHS in compliance with the desired response time of 4:30pm. Therefore, will WHS accept the original issued PPQ in lieu of the Amended PPQ, which has no material change to the overall document?

Answer 234: Yes, WHS will accept the original PPQ in lieu of the Amended PPQ.

Question 235: Amendment 1, page 35, L-5 Volumes and Page Limits 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” (emphasis added).

Would the Government please confirm that offerors may include a one-page teammate overview and executive summary section that does not count against page count and that is separate from the cover page, which should include the administrative information listed in the above instructions? Would the Government also confirm that this teammate overview and executive summary should only be included in Volume II Technical Experience?

Answer 235: Language in L-5 of the RFP is revised to state, “Also include on cover pages, the volume number, solicitation number, solicitation title, company and/or team name, DUNS, CAGE code, and the name/phone number/E-mail address of the contract manager or other agent authorized to obligate your organization/team. In Volume II, offerors shall include a one page teammate overview/executive summary (not included in the page limit).” The Page Limit chart in L-5 is also revised to include “the teammate overview/executive summary of 1 Page” is not included in the page limit.

Question 236: Reference ATSS Q&A Response number 131 and RFP Section H-3.0: Contractor Team Arrangements. Please confirm that the response to Q131 DOES NOT prohibit a Large Business prime contractor proposing on the full unrestricted solicitation from having multiple subcontractors who are also subcontractors on other unique teams in the same Pool?

Answer 236: Yes, this is correct. Unique teams are not prohibited.

Question 237: Q2. Reference ATSS Q&A Response number 131 and RFP Section H-3.0: Contractor Team Arrangements. Our interpretation of the government’s response to Q131 is that it is intended to prohibit two separate Primes from bidding the exact same Contractor Teams within a single Pool. Is this a correct interpretation?”

Answer 237: Yes, this is the correct interpretation.

Question 238: Reference ATSS Q&A Response number 131 and RFP Section H-3.0: Contractor Team Arrangements. Please confirm that the answer to Question 131 does not restrict bidders from including subcontractors as part of their Contractor Team who are themselves submitting ATSS Prime bids within the same pool?

Answer 238: Yes, this is the correct interpretation, as long as the teams are unique. Unique teams are not prohibited.

Question 239: RFP Q&A #71: Cover Pages and Executive Summaries are commonly two different pages, and the answer to Question 71 implies that they are the same. Can the Government please confirm that the team summary and the executive summary are both the same requirement and that the answer to Question 71 was intended to read:

"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/executive summaries are required. Section L-5 HAS BEEN REVISED TO state, 'A

ONE PAGE TEAMMATE OVERVIEW/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN

THE PAGE LIMIT, SHOULD BE ADDED BETWEEN THE COVER PAGE AND TABLE OF

CONTENTS IN VOLUME II.'"

Answer 239: See the response to Question 235.

Question 240: For Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, the following questions were asked:

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 109: Page 65, Section M-5, Relevancy Assessment 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.” For the Unrestricted Pool, would the Government please clarify whether past performances must be relevant to PWS section 4.2 only or PWS sections 4.1 and 4.2?

Answer 109: For the Unrestricted Pool past performance should be relevant to both PWS Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

The answer to Question 45 conflicts with the Amended Solicitation, which will score relevancy based on “requirements outlined in the PWS”. Can you please confirm that the past performance references should be relevant to the entire PWS?

Answer 240: Yes, Past Performance references only need to address the specific PWS elements aligned to the nine Section L task areas for the unrestricted pool. The RFP in M-5 under Volume III: Factor B:

Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment, was revised to state. “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 applicable Factor A tasks areas.”

Section L in the unrestricted pool covers PWS Sections 4.1 and 4.2; therefore, past performance for the unrestricted pool will be related to both of those PWS Sections.

Question 241: Section L-5 was updated to state that executive summaries can be included on cover pages, “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.” Offeror’s cannot include an executive summary on the cover page of their proposals, with all of the other information, such as DUNS, solicitation number, etc. that is requested. As such, can Offeror’s submit a one-page Executive Summary as part of Volume I?

Answer 241: See the response to Question 235.

Question 242: Reference: Question 92 “request the subject line of the PPQ email include the ATSS IDIQ prime offeror. The Attach 6 Past Performance Questionnaire has been revised to include “Email Subject Line: PPQ [Prime ATSS IDIQ Offeror] HQ003420R0089”. Given that PPQs have, in some cases, already been submitted, would it be acceptable to ask customers to revise their subject line in the submission email instead of resubmitting a revised PPQ form?

Answer 242: See the response to Question 243.

Question 243: Can the Government please upload an unsigned amendment so that offers may complete the Reps and Certs in Amendment 0001?

Answer 243: The full text of the clauses may be referenced in the FAR found here:

https://www.acquisition.gov/.

Question 244: L-1 GENERAL…..Teaming Arrangements are allowable per Section H-3.0; however, each team must specify a prime contractor.

Multiple offers will not be accepted. It is not acceptable for contractors to submit multiple offers with the same Contractor Team (even with different Prime Contractors) under the Small Business Reserve Pool or the Unrestricted Pool. It is however acceptable for the same Contractor Team to submit separate proposals under the Small Business Reserve Pool, and propose the same Contractor Team, with a different Prime Contractor, in the Unrestricted Pool.

For example, it is NOT acceptable to have Company A as the Prime Contractor and submit a response for the Small Business Reserve Pool with Company B as its Subcontractor, and to have Company B as the Prime Contractor and submit a response for the Small Business Reserve Pool with Company A as its Subcontractor.

It is acceptable to have Company A is the Prime Contractor and submit a response for the Small Business Reserve Pool with Company B as a subcontractor, and have Company B submit for the Unrestricted Pool as the Prime with Company A as a subcontractor.

H-3.0 Contractor Team Arrangements

Contractor Team Arrangements as described in FAR Subpart 9.6 are allowable. Teaming arrangements must have one Prime Contractor. It is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of Contractor team arrangements and to not restrict the market, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective. The Government will not normally require or encourage the dissolution of Contractor team arrangements.

Questions 1: Is it acceptable to use the following teaming arrangement / subcontracting arrangement?

Company A is submitting as prime in the Unrestricted Pool with companies B and C as subcontractors.

Company B is submitting as prime in the Small Business Reserve Pool with company A and C as subcontractors.

Company D is submitting as prime in the Small Business Reserve Pool with company C and others as a subcontractor.

Question 2: Can a company be submitted as a team mate / subcontractor on 2 or more teams (i.e. be non-exclusive as a subcontractor?)

Answer 244: Yes, all of the arrangements are acceptable.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

Questions 245: Requiring Safeguarding for only the Prime is restrictive, particularly since the small business pool does not have the same requirement. We ask that you allow the Unrestricted team to be measured by the same standard and allow a member of our team to meet this requirement.

Answer 245: See the response to Question 233.

Question 246: In regards to the OCI Analysis and Disclosure form, instructions for Blocks 14-16 are not addressed in the instruction section. Is the intent of Blocks 14-16 for bidders to obtain each respective KO’s signature?

Answer 246: Language in the RFP Section L-6, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan is revised to include “Blocks 14-16 will be filled-out by the IDIQ contracting officer for awarded IDIQ contracts.”

Question 247: RFP L-5, Question 71, Section L-5, Amendment 0001, Page 35: In accordance with Amendment 0001 Offerors are required to include on cover pages 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 the company. Given the extent of the additional information the Government is seeking will the Government confirm offerors can provide the executive summary and teammate overview within the introduction to Volume I and not on the cover page? If not and the teammate overviews and executive summary are required in Volume II, can the Government confirm they are excluded from the page count?

Answer 247: See the response to Question 235.

Question 248: Section L, page 30-33 In accordance with Amendment 0001 and the Government’s response to question # 17 an offeror who does not have a potential or actual OCI is no longer required to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan. Can an offeror who does not have a potential or actual OCI submit an IDIQ level OCI Mitigation Plan so that it is incorporated into any resultant award?

Answer 248: Language in the RFP Section L-6, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan 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.” See G-4.0 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) for post-award requirements.

Question 249: May Attachments 1 & 4 be submitted in Attachment format, or need to be included into Volume format with cover page, TOC, header footer, etc. requirements. Will the Government confirm Attachments 1 & 4 are exempt from Volume format requirements?

Answer 249: Attachments 1 and 4 are required to follow the formatting requirements. Please see the answer to Question 218.

Question 250: Questions 44, 45, and 109, In the government’s response to Question 44 states “Not all PWS areas must be addressed” and in the government’s response to Question 45 they state, “The Past Performance references only need to address the specific PWS elements aligned to the Section L areas”, and in the government’s response to Question 109, the government states, “For the Unrestricted Pool past performance should be relevant to both PWS sections 4.1 and 4.2.” But on page 47 of the Amended RFP, Section M. 5 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance, the full PWS is cited as the basis of the Relevancy Assessment.

Will the Government please confirm that is it correct that the Past Performance Contract Summaries should be outlined to PWS areas specifically aligned to the nine (9) Tasks which include: 4.1.2 (Task 1)

4.1.1 (Task 2), 4.2.7 (Task 3), 4.2.6 (Tasks 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and 4.2.8 (Task 5)?

If so, can the Relevancy language in M-5 Volume III: Factor B: Past Performance state, “A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon similarity in scope and complexity specifically to those PWS areas that align to the nine (9) Tasks, outlined in the PWS.”

Answer 250: See the response to Question 240.

Question 251: Does Vol V Pricing, submitted as an Excel Spreadsheet, need to have a cover page?

Answer 251: It is acceptable if the Pricing Volume does not include a cover page.

Question 252: In Question 71 Attachment 10: 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.”

As written, this requires the teammate overviews and executive summary to be included on the cover pages of each volume. Respectfully request that the teammate overview and executive summary be included in the technical volume (outside of page count), instead of on the cover page.

Answer 252: See the response to Question 235.

Question 253: In Question 140: Please advise if the Government is willing to consider additional terms and conditions proposed by the Offeror as the answer stated, “Additional terms and conditions will be accepted.”

Answer 253: No, per M-1, “The Offeror must unconditionally accept the terms and conditions of the RFP. Offerors cannot redline or condition proposals.”

Question 254: In Question 121 Attachment 10 does not clearly address the following Question: RFP Section G-1.2.1 IDIQ Contractor Point of Contact, p. 27. Is the Government requesting identification of these POCs with the proposal or upon award? Answer 121: Per L-5 of the RFP, the 1.2.1 of the contract.

Answer 254: Per L-5 of the RFP, the “…E-mail addresses of the contract manager or other agent authorized to obligate your organization/team” is required to be provided on the cover pages.

Question 255: The COI instructions in Section L require that we complete Attachment 7 and we do NOT need to submit a specific OCI mitigation plan. However, another sentence says to submit a plan for potential OCI. Is this a General OCI mitigation plan requirement that differs from a specific OCI mitigation plan that is not required because we do not have any known OCI? In other words, although we do not need a specific OCI plan because we do not currently have actual or potential OCI, are we required to submit a general OCI plan for potential OCI?

Answer 255: See the response to Question 248.

Area to Note:

Section L-6 of the RFP requires proposals to be valid for 180 days.

Section F 4.0 is revised to state, “There is the potential for OCONUS task order requirements.” instead of “There is the potential OCONUS task order requirements.”

Section L-1 is revised to state, “It is acceptable to have Company A as the Prime Contractor…” instead of, “It is acceptable to have Company A is the Prime Contractor…”.