MDDC Questions_Answers_April 13_2012.pdf

MDDC HQ0147-10-R-0030

Q and A since Final RFP Release

No. Question Answer

Will the upcoming planned test events affect the award date of this contract? No.

Do you foresee any scheduling conflicts with FTI-01 and the

Transition? If FTI-01 schedule slips, will this affect the contract award?

The Test Directorate understands the potential risk associated with the transition and will adjudicate as necessary. The awardee may be in shadow mode for a certain period of time depending on test schedule and requirements.

Is the August 1, 2012 start time which we are to build our cost proposals realistic? Will we be notified, for planning purposes, if this will change?

This source selection will be closely monitored to avoid schedule slips, however, we anticipate an intense competition and discussions may take longer. Regardless, we anticipate award NLT 30 September.

Are there going to be any updates/corrections/additions to the bidder’s library that was released during the draft phase?

No update to the bidder's library is planned at this time, however, all updates to the bidder's library were automatically provided to those who made a request for the bidder's library.

In the most recent release of the bidder's library, please clarify whether all files provided on the disk were updated, or only some. If some, will the government consider providing the vendors a list of the files that were updated?

Correct, not all files were updated. The government will post to FBO information to identify the updates.

On page 34 para H20.d of the RFP states MDA retains the right to request removal of contractor personnel whose actions conflict with the interests of Government. This statement appears very broad and could be interpreted to apply in Contractor actions that are non-personnel security related. Could the Government further define “the interests of the Government” with respect to the intent of paragraph

H.20? Does this imply MDA reserves the right to review all resumes and approve hiring of incumbent personnel during transition as well as all future hires on the new contract for the status of prior security clearances or adjudications?

H-20 pertains to the behavior of contractor employees after they start work.

The standard used in H-20d is intended to apply to H-20 only (IT/ADP).

Has the government considered the requirements under FAR Part

12.101; how will they be applied to this procurement?

FAR Part 12 applies to the acquisition of commercial items. Performance on this resultant contract IAW the SOW may result in the delivery of commercial items, however, this is not a commercial acquisition.

Section L-2.1 specifies Volume IV as Cost/Price and Contract Forms.

Section L-8 does not provide instructions for submitting Contract data. Will the Government provide instructions for how the Offeror is to submit Contract Data? RFP Section L-8.3 is revised to incorporate Contract Forms instructions.

In Section L.3-10, it states, “Each fold out page counts as two pages”.

However, the solicitation requires responses to be submitted in

Microsoft Word 2007. Microsoft Word 2007 numbering feature denotes a single column 11 x 17 page as one page, not two. Will the government consider one of two options: a) allowing an 11 x 17 to be considered a single page for use of auto numbering, or b) allowing an 11 x 17 to be formatted into two columns, which will allow for the page numbering being correct? The government does not intend to revise fold out page instructions.

Per Section L-9.1 Volume V: Total Resources will be available to support the evaluation of proposals by Management, Technical and

Cost evaluators. Will there be any additional or specific section M criteria posted to address Volume V evaluation beyond the information posted in Section L-9.1?

No, Total Resources Volume supports the Management/Technical subfactors, the cost/price evaluation, and affordability.

Section L-3.10 specifies that electronic copies must be provided on

DVDs read-only memory. Section L-8.7 specifies DVD-R and

Section L-2.1 specifies CD-ROM and DVD-R. Please clarify whether MDA would like electronic copies on CDs or DVDs and confirm format type?

RFP amendment revises Section L-2.1 and L-3.10. Offerors are instructed to submit each volume on a separate DVD-R.

Section L-8.9 appears to lack instructions as to how the Government intends on Offerors to complete the Request for Rate Information

Template.

The Request for Rate Information Form in Section L-8.9 is self explanatory.

Fill in the information requested for cognizant DCAA, DCMA, proposed amount, etc. The prime and each major subcontractor should complete this

Form.

Per Section L-8.6 "Section III Government Production and Research

Property", what does the Government intend for the offeror to provide as content within this section of the cost volume?

No content required. Section L-8.6 is intended as informational purposes.

Offerors shall not propose any property in addition to the Government

Furnished Property (GFP) identified in Section J.

Section H-14 (page 29 of FRFP); and Section L-6.1(2) (page 15 of

Section L) Can the Government please clarify the term "all leads" as used in paragraph H-14?

"All leads" refers to all of the key positions identified by the Offeror per

Section L-6.1(2).

Reference Section L-2.1, Item 7 - Please confirm that the ORCA

Information is to be included in Volume II submittal.

RFP is revised to indicate ORCA information should be submitted with contract information (Volume IV).

Section L-3.8, what materials are required to define the “Teaming

Arrangements” in the Executive Summary?

Offerors are to identify the prime, proposed team members, subcontractors, and consultants. Offerors are not required to submit "materials".

Section L-3.10, does not list Total Resources volume limitations;

although assumed to be in accordance with L.2.1.

RFP is revised to change the maximum page count from "35" to "N/A" for

Total Resources Volume V.

Section L-3.10, states “Offeror shall provide cross-reference matrices in each volume, as necessary.” In Section L-2.1(8) the Government notes that the Section L&M Compliance Matrix is not part of the page count. Please confirm that if cross reference matrices are added to other volumes, they too are not part of the page count for those specific .

Section L-2.1(8) is revised. The Section L&M Cross Reference Compliance

Matrix and any other cross reference matrices will be excluded from the page count.

Section L.8-5, 2nd paragraph – please confirm that the pre-award survey should truly be included in the past performance volume as stated.

The Pre-Award Survey should be submitted as part of the Past Performance

Volume.

Section L-2.1—This section contains the following note: “** Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals. Each page shall be counted except the following….”

Question: When electronic versions are opened on different computers than they were created, the electronic version may not match the printed versions. This is due to normal.dot template setting from the viewing computer influencing the electronic submitted version document. If desired, we can submit a pdf of the documents to ensure that our volume does indeed meet page count, and also a

2007 compatible Word document for Government reference, search, etc.

Since the electronic copies can change based on individual computer settings, we request that Government consider only the printed copy when determining page count since it will also remain unchanged.

Pursuant to Section L-3.10, bullet 5, sub-bullet 14, "if discrepancies are identified between the paper version and the electronic version, the paper version shall prevail."

In reference to the one-on-one sessions detailed in Amendment4, will the discussions of all sessions be made available to all offerors? Non proprietary information only will be posted as Q & As.

Section L-2.1 states, "The executive summary and each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD-ROM, except Volume IV which shall be submitted on a DVD-R". Section L-3.10, second to last sub-bullet states, "electronic copies must be provided on DVD's, read only memory". Please confirm how to submit.

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors to submit each volume on a separate DVD-

R.

For the Schedule B CLINs Section L-8.2 specifies that the offeror is to input their target cost and target fee; however each CLIN also has line items for Total TGT Cost + Fee, Minimum Fee, Maximum Fee and Share Ratios for above and below target, are we as the offeror to complete these additional line items?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

Outyear concerns on a cost plus incentive fee contract for a small business concern is "What if we underbid escalation". Will you consider including an equitable adjustment clause, or tie the escalation to, for instance, the Bureau of Labor statistics? If so, may we propose these terms and conditions in our proposal?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

If delivery of fewer hours on a task order would not be considered an underrun, what is an underrun? In other words, how will incentive fee be calculated?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

How is efficiency paid out in incentive fee? How does one underrun?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

Do we understand correctly that final rate approval from DCAA audit is required before final IF determination?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

The incentive fee calculation affects how we propose our target fee.

What costs are included in the IF?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

29 Will the Target Fee be rebaselined annually?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

30 Will the IF remain 50/50?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

31 Is the 15% maximum incentive fee for proposal or earned purposes?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

32 Is incentive fee evaluated at task level or contract level?

RFP is revised to change the contract type from Cost Plus Incentive Fee to

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (LOE).

If the use of commercial software is authorized, what category of data rights will the government seek?

IAW H-29: commercial computer software licenses shall designate the U.S.

Government as a contingent licensee. At a minimum, this shall include the rights to make an archive copy of the software, to relocate the computer on which the software resides, to re-host the software on a different computer, to permit access by support contractors, and to permit the Government to transfer the license to another contractor.

Is the government open to negotiating additional or modified use rights under a commercial contractor’s/supplier’s commercial software license agreement as allowed under FAR Sub Part 12.212?

IAW H-29: commercial computer software licenses shall designate the U.S.

Government as a contingent licensee. At a minimum, this shall include the rights to make an archive copy of the software, to relocate the computer on which the software resides, to re-host the software on a different computer, to permit access by support contractors, and to permit the Government to transfer the license to another contractor.

It is our understanding that “Rights in Special Works” are applicable to “works” first created, generated and produced, and required to be delivered under a government contract. Section 4.5.2 seems to suggest that commercial software will be classified as a “special work”, and the government will seek “Rights in Special Works”.

Please clarify.

Any modifications to prior developed computer software, and subsequent required delivery of the modified computer software, shall be considered a

"Special Work" pursuant to DFARS 252.227-702, Rights in Special Works.

What is the governments licensing approach to deliverables that have been developed using / based upon mixed funds? Deliverables under this contract will be developed with Government funding.

How will practicable opportunity be given to the use of commercial software?

MDA does not intend for software items which are subject to Restricted

Rights to be incorporated into the design of any systems, or models/simulations thereof under this contract without the prior written authorization of the contracting officer. Consideration will be given to a contractor's request to use software and a rough order magnitude (ROM) estimate to perform development of the software should the request not be granted.

What is the process for obtaining PCO approval authorization for commercial software to be utilized?

During the performance of the contract, IAW SOW 4.5.2, the contractor shall request in writing to the Contracting Officer regarding an approval authorization for the commercial software to be utilized, and/or modified for use during the contract for operation of the MDDC program. The contractor shall not incorporate prior developed computer software in computer software developed during the performance of the contract without prior written approval authorization from the Contracting Officer.

SOW 4.5.2. If the contractor proposes the use of prior developed software, and that software is not modified under the contract, is the software considered deliverable?

The contractor shall not incorporate prior developed computer software in computer software developed during the performance of the contract without prior written approval authorization from the Contracting Officer. No limited rights or restricted rights technical data, operating systems, and/or computer software, or proprietary commercial software shall be delivered under the MDDC program during the performance of the contract, unless the contractor requests in writing and receives in writing from the Contracting

Officer an authorization to incorporate limited rights and/or restricted rights information, and/or proprietary commercial software in operations of the

MDDC program and/or in deliverables under the contract. Any authorization made by the contracting officer based upon such a request is fact specific to the terms of the request.

SOW 2.1.4, L-3.3, 6.2, 8.3 SOW Section 2.1.4 indicates that “The contractor shall improve performance, reduce on-site footprint, consolidate MDDC Program assets where applicable, develop and implement reconfigurable MDDC Program leave behind asset capability…” Additionally, there are a number of references to development of innovations and/or efficiencies in the management/execution of the MDDC program throughout Section L

(L-3.3, 6.2). In contrast, Section L-8.3 states, “The Cost Plus

Incentive Fee (CPIF) – Level of Effort (LOE) CLIN 0001 and

Option CLINs 0005, 0009, 0013, 0017, and 0021 shall be priced in accordance with Government provided Total DPLH Pricing Exhibit

B7.” With the requirement that the total proposed DPLHs on

Exhibit B4 and the BOE Summary must equal the DPLHs provided on Exhibit B7, how can/should contractors demonstrate efficiencies/innovations that would lead to cost-savings without changing the total DPLHs proposed?

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

Do the hours in the WBS have to match the government CLIN hours? For example, as Ms. Williams mentioned, if 1000 hrs is the

LOE today but innovative approach means we propose 500 hrs, the

WBS in the management volume will not match the Total Resources or Costs Vols. Please confirm this is acceptable.

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

How do we bid what we determine to be extra hours from the total we are required to use? The challenge is figuring out how to apply

"extra hours", whether for surge or what, as this affects the labor categories proposed.

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

Section M.3.1 states, "…the Offeror may discuss any cost advantages that may or may not appear in the Cost/Price Proposal." Please clarify.

You may state estimated cost savings associated with your proposed efficiencies and/or innovations in the technical and/or management factors.

Include risk(s) associated with the innovations and demonstrate how the innovations will help the government. The estimated cost savings, as not definitive, will not be evaluated as part of the Cost/Price Volume.

In building BOEs, we consider the skill mix to get the hours in the

RFP. We must match BOEs with the cost volume. How do we show efficiencies? Do we address potential surge or assume the SOW will grow over the years?

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

How will you evaluate efficiencies/innovations in the technical/management factors if we have to use the labor hours given.

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

Please consider, during any review for an RFP amendment to change from requiring offeror to propose the given hours to allowing offers to propose the number of hours, that the potential for "gaming" or the potential for drawdown as years go on that will never be realized is ripe in this situation, and that the best value is on technical, not cost/price.

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

It was mentioned in the Industry Day that the offeror as part of our response to Management Volume, could provide saving such as hours and costs from our efficiencies and innovation since we cannot adjust the hours in the cost volume. Since our staffing is aligned to the full number of hours allocated for each year, would it be an acceptable method to provide a percentage of savings based on experience in other contracts?

RFP is revised to instruct Offerors they may propose a quantity of hours as deemed appropriate by the Offeror.

Which of the six evaluated subfactors does the SOW Data

Management requirements fall under?

Data management is not one of the six Technical Subfactors. Data

Management will be evaluated as part of the Contract Work Breakdown

Structure (CWBS) and dictionary required in L-6.2, Management Subfactor 2-

Management Approach.

Reference Section L-6.2 – Management Subfactor 2 management approach. Currently, the section provides the order of evaluated items as:

1) Program-wide approach to managing technical, performance, cost, and schedule risk. 2) Process and approach to organize, staff, and allocate resources to meet the

SOW. Offeror shall describe an approach for personnel recruitment and retention to ensure personnel are in place and trained. 3) Approach to adding first and second tier subcontractors during the contract performance to meet the SOW.

4) Approach to provide a crossed-trained work force for SOW efficiencies.

5) Approach to risk management that includes identification, tracking, and mitigation of program risk. 6) Provide a Contract Work Breakdown Structure

(CWBS) and dictionary, which reflects the Offeror’s understanding of the contract effort. The CWBS shall serve as the framework for organizing the MDDC effort to include in-house, inter-divisional, subcontractor, and associate contractor activities.

The reference document for developing the WBS and dictionary is MIL-HDBK-

881A. The CWBS shall be developed to a depth (level) and breadth sufficient to accurately describe the Offeror's understanding of the effort required as reflected in the SOW. Each element of the CWBS shall include a reference to the primary

SOW paragraph or paragraphs. Illustrate how the CWBS will be used to manage the work outlined in the SOW. The top four levels may be placed on contract as the CWBS.

See Answer to #50.

#49 Cont. Section M-6.2 states provides the order of the evaluated items as:

1) Offeror demonstrates a program-wide approach to managing technical, performance, cost, and schedule risk. 2) Offeror demonstrates a planned process to organize, staff, and allocate resources to meet the SOW. Offeror identifies an approach for recruitment and retention to ensure personnel are in place and trained.

3) Offeror demonstrates their approach to provide a crossed-trained work force for

SOW efficiencies. 4)Offeror demonstrates their approach to adding first and second tier subcontractors during contract performance to meet the SOW.

5) Offeror demonstrates their risk management approach to identify, track, and mitigate program risk. 6) Offeror demonstrates their understanding of the scope and interaction of activities within the MDDC Program by providing a Contract

Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS dictionary that reflect the MDDC program. Question: Please clarify if we address the items in Subfactor 2 in order of Section L or Section M.

Section M-6.2.3 and M-6.2.4 have been corrected to match the order of

Section L-6.2.3 and L-6.2.4. The updated Section M will be provided in a

Final RFP amendment on FedBizOpps.

Management Sub 1 - "provide a plan to be incorporated into the resultant contract…" Is the entire plan due in the proposal narrative here?

Yes; CDRL 26 requires a small business compliance plan due with the proposal, and must illustrate how the prime small business concern, will perform over 50% of the effort.

Management Volume: Is the plan to illustrate 50% to be performed by small business an actual plan?

Yes; CDRL 26 requires a small business compliance plan due with the proposal, and must illustrate how the prime small business concern, will perform over 50% of the effort.

Could the government provide additional detail on "qualification packages" for [each] individual proposed [to fill a position]? Other than the position description, what does the government expect to evaluate in these packages?

In addition to the position description, the qualifications package can include information such as: (a) Name; (b) Security Clearance and Date Granted; (c)

Certifications; (d) Education and Special Training; (e) Experience; (f)

Related Experience; (g) Most Significant Technical Accomplishment in the

Last Three Years Related to This Effort; (h) Most Salient Skill That Relates to the Proposed Effort; and (i) Planned Percentage of Time to This Effort. In accordance with Section M-6.1, key positions will be evaluated to determine how successfully their experience support and execute the SOW requirements.

The general test support task under the MiDAESS contract supporting DTD was recently awarded. Data management requirements were included on this task order award. Is it the

Government intent to utilize this contract as the primary means to obtain Data Management services? Does this award of the same services requested under the MDDC Program have any impact on the above issue? Could the Government provide clarification on the role of this MiDAESS task order support with respect to BOE assumptions and baselines?

The MDDC Program acquisition has been designated as a Small Business Set-

Aside contract and is not included within the MiDAESS effort. The MDDC

Program effort is not considered to be Advisory and/or Assistance in nature

(See Industry Day Q&A #13).

What will be the relationship between the MDDC contract and

MiDAESS task orders? And what will our responsibility as the

MDDC contractor in coordination and integration with the

MiDAESS contractor community?

There is very little interaction between MDDC and MiDAESS. This interaction may consist of MidAESS employees aiding Data Managers on

MDDC in performing their job. The management tools are on the MDDC contract. There are currently 3 MiDAESS contractors located in VBII which use the Data Management System.

Reference Section L-5 – The RFP stipulates that “All typing, including that on charts and graphs, shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 11 pitch, uncompressed font.” Is it acceptable to have a picture as a background to a graphic that contains text that ends up being smaller than what is equivalent to Times New Roman 11 pitch, as in the example below? Here, the accent overlays are in compliance at 11 pt Times New Roman, but the underlying picture, which comes from the MDDC Bidders Library, has text in it that is not.

Any embedded text that does not meet the size standard may be disregarded by the evaluation panel. The government would caution an Offeror from submitting non value added information which could result in confusion on the part of the evaluator.

57 What funding is available in 2012-2016?

The MDDC Program effort is budgeted, however, funding availability for

2012-2016 is not known. Award is subject to FAR 52.232-22 Limitation of

Funds.

Will oral presentations be considered during evaluation? For example, to determine technical clarity of a prime (and subs) as applicable.

The Government does not contemplate instructing Offerors to give oral presentations of proposals. One-on-One sessions were conducted on March

9, 2012.

How many task orders do you expect to issue on the resultant contract?

The government anticipates issuing multiple task orders, of differing dollar values, depending on work requirements and funding. Anticipate the first task order will be for a post award conference and the second will be for transition.

What is the status of the move to the medioc facility? Should

Offerors assign resources for the move in the proposal?

The move to the MDIOC is in process. The MDIOC should be in place and operational prior to award of this solicitation.

The expense reports in the Bidder's Library shows an average $65/hr rate at the start, and now average $98/hr rate currently on the current contract. Why?

At initial award of the current contract, the bulk of the effort was performed by employees with salaries averaging $65 an hour. The contract requirements have expanded to necessitate higher level expertise.

We understand what a best value is, but can we anticipate that, with budget cuts, this will result in a competition on cost? This is a tradeoff analysis. Cost will be evaluated as stated in Section M-8.0.

Clause H-31 Technical Cognizance. We understand DTD/DTR are stakeholders for MDDC. H-31 references COR and COTR responsibilities. What will the lines of communication be?

DTR will assign a task order monitor (no COTR on DTR side); the T/O

Monitor and/or COTR serves as a liaison for technical aspects. The contract

COR performs specific administrative functions; the PCO has final approval.

64 Will we take direction from a task order monitor?

Any government person that has the authority to give contractors direction will be identified in a task order.

Could the Government provide an update to the status of PCO determination letters for OCI packages that were submitted late last year?

Review of OCI packages is in process. Offerors who submitted OCI packages will be contacted as soon as a determination is made.

Could the Government clarify the submission dates for delta packages regarding OCI determinations?

It is in the Offerors best interest to submit delta packages as early in the acquisition process as possible to ensure they are not restricted from participating.

L-1.4 Notice Regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

Agreements. This section seems to require an Offeror and any subcontractor to submit to the PCO a large amount of data concerning contracts or task orders that they may be performing that contain an OCI clause. Additionally, this section appears to require the submittal of information even if a company could easily certify that the contract or task order in question DOES NOT present a real

OCI issue with the MDDC solicitation /contract. This process is intended to allow an Offeror to obtain approval to participate in the

MDDC solicitation. Would the government consider changing this requirement to providing a list of all contracts being performed that contain an OCI clause and a certification by a company official that there is no OCI, real or perceived, with the MDDC contract? Any contract that the Offeror cannot certify as having no OCI with the

MDDC contract should then be submitted to the PCO for approval or possible mitigation.

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). All Federal Government contracts should be considered when determining if: 1) the prime or its subs have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, not just a generic

OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subs are performing on a contract that the

Offeror thinks may appear to have a potential conflict with the MDDC effort, regardless of whether an OCI clause is in the contract. The Government is not requesting OCI submittal for every prime and every sub who has signed a contract that contains the generic OCI clause. If either of the potential OCI restrictions exist, then L-1.4 items a through e are requested in order for the government to make its determination.

Can the government clarify the meaning of an OCI agreement, OCI plan, and OCI clause relative to the MDDC solicitation? In section L-

1.4 term agreement and clause is used.

A "contract with an OCI agreement" is a contract in which an OCI mitigation plan, bi-lateral OCI settlement or other OCI specific agreement has been incorporated into the contract.

In Section L-1.4 it states “Any offeror who has signed, as well as proposed subcontractors who have signed, a contract with an OCI agreement as either a prime Contractor or subcontractor under any such contract, shall submit a written application to obtain approval….” Can the government clarify that for OCI on the MDDC contract the scope of OCI agreements and issues are limited to contracts within MDA and BMDS?

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s).

70 What is your timeline for OCI approval? Each OCI submittal is being worked as quickly as possible.

For point of clarification: is it the government's intent for each team to require that both the prime and all subcontractors submit the list of document and information listed in REF L-1.4(a-e), for every federal contract (both DoD and non-DoD) if they include an OCI clause, regardless if there is an actual or potential OCI risk for the MDDC contract. a. Please clarify the difference in terms between "OCI

Clause" referenced in L-1.4 paragraph 1, and "OCI Agreement" referenced in L-1.4 paragraph 2. Are these the same terms or is there only a requirement for contracts with agreements rather than a clause.

b. What date is the OCI information required to be submitted to the government, and will the approvals be announced prior to proposal submission due date. c. Since the general scope of the

MDDC is primarily IT/security and data services, could the government describe the types of contracts or ongoing work being performed within MDA that would have an OCI with MDDC contract.

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). All Federal Government contracts should be considered when determining if: 1) the prime or its subs have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, not just a generic

OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subs are performing on a contract that the

Offeror thinks may appear to have a potential conflict with the MDDC effort, regardless of whether an OCI clause is in the contract. The Government is not requesting OCI submittal for every prime and every sub who has signed a contract that contains the generic OCI clause. For proposal purposes, disclosure of the existence of or potential existence of OCI is a standing requirement through award. Offerors should consider the MDDC SOW requirements and effort being performed on a contract to determine if a potential OCI exists. If a question remains, recommend submittal for

Reference Section L-1.4, Notice Regarding Organizational

Conflict of Interest (OCI) Agreements – The final Solicitation language regarding OCI remains unchanged. Please clarify difference in guidance between Section L and draft RFP questions and answers regarding OCI submittals. Our team has OCI packages ready for submittal in accordance with final RFP guidance. Section

L-1.4, states “Any offeror who has signed, as well as proposed subcontractors who have signed, a contract with an OCI agreement as either a prime contractor or subcontractor under any such contract, shall submit a written application to obtain approval to participate in this acquisition.” This Section further states that “Responsibility lies with the prime contract Offeror to ensure that both it and its proposed subcontractors are not restricted from participation in this proposed acquisition due to an OCI clause in any Federal Government contract, including, but not limited to, MDA contracts.”

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). All Federal Government contracts should be considered when determining if: 1) the prime or its subs have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, not just a generic

OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subs are performing on a contract that the

Offeror thinks may appear to have a potential conflict with the MDDC effort, regardless of whether an OCI clause is in the contract. The Government is not requesting OCI submittal for every prime and every sub who has signed a contract that contains the generic OCI clause.

Please confirm that your intention is to receive these submittals for all contracts meeting the criteria outlined in the final RFP language above or do we follow the guidance in the draft RFP questions and answers (#142 and #143) which indicates submittal only for those contracts where we believe there is a possible conflict between work currently being performed and work to be performed under the

MDDC effort?

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). Follow the guidance in the final solicitation. All Federal

Government contracts should be considered when determining if: 1) the prime or its subs have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, not just a generic OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subs are performing on a contract that the Offeror thinks may appear to have a potential conflict with the MDDC effort, regardless of whether an OCI clause is in the contract. The Government is not requesting

OCI submittal for every prime and every sub who has signed a contract that contains the generic OCI clause.

Attachment 6, OCI Application; Cover letter; Section H.09; and

Section L.1-4. If an OCI application has not been reviewed and signed off by the Government prior to submission, will the

Government consider the proposal submission compliant? It is unclear since the language at Section H.09 makes mention of review prior to award. Additionally, if a prime and/or subcontractor has submitted its application, found at Attachment 6, does this fulfill the requirement at Section L. What is the relationship between Section

H.09 and L.1-4?

Yes. Section L-1.4 provides information specific to this acquisition which is in addition to the more general H-09 Organizational Conflict of Interest clause.

Section H-09.f and Section L-1.4 H-09.f (1) and (2) state: (1) The

Contractor represents that it has disclosed to the Contracting Officer, prior to award, all facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest as that term is used in

FAR Subpart 9.5. To facilitate disclosure and Contracting Officer approval, the Contractor shall complete an OCI Analysis/Disclosure

Form for each MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD-related contract or subcontract (See Section J, Attachment 6). (2)

The Contractor represents that if it discovers an organizational conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest after award, a prompt and full disclosure shall be made in writing to the Contracting

Officer. This disclosure shall include a description of the action the

Contractor has taken or proposes to take in order to avoid or mitigate such conflicts.

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). All Federal Government contracts should be considered when determining if: 1) the prime or its subs have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, not just a generic

OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subs are performing on a contract that the

Offeror thinks may appear to have a potential conflict with the MDDC effort, regardless of whether an OCI clause is in the contract. The Government is not requesting OCI submittal for every prime and every sub who has signed a contract that contains the generic OCI clause. If either of the potential OCI restrictions exist, then L-1.4 items a through e are requested in order for the government to make its determination.

Can you clarify where MDDC effort falls so we can decide whether a possible OCI issue exists between effort we are currently performing on other contracts and the MDDC effort?

No, it is up to a potential offeror to submit a request for an OCI determination if that offeror has a contract that includes an OCI agreement or thinks it may have a contract that has a possible conflict with the MDDC effort. As a general statement, the government is not aware of any OCI issue between

MiDAESS effort and the MDDC effort. If uncertain, submit OCI and we will make a determination.

If I do not submit any OCI information, am I compliant with the solicitation requirements?

Yes, if you have no contracts with OCI agreements and no contracts in which you think a possible OCI issue may exist.

Is OCI submittal required for teammembers with any contract with an

OCI clause?

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). All Federal Government contracts should be considered when determining if: 1) the prime or its subs have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, not just a generic

OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subs are performing on a contract that the

Offeror thinks may appear to have a potential conflict with the MDDC effort, regardless of whether an OCI clause is in the contract. The Government is not requesting OCI submittal for every prime and every sub who has signed a contract that contains the generic OCI clause.

If we determine we have no OCI agreements, is it correct we do not need to submit any OCI information?

Yes, an offeror is required to submit a request for determination if the Offeror thinks a possible OCI issue may exist, regardless of whether actual OCI agreement is included in the contract. An Offeror is not required to submit

OCI information simply because their contract contains the standard OCI clause.

Section L-1.4 the first paragraph references "OCI Clause in any

Federal Government contract" and second paragraph reference "an

OCI agreement…under any such contract", is government requesting all Federal Government contracts (DoD and Civilian) with OCI clauses or agreements to be provided? Additionally, the next paragraph states "(or in the process of proposing on". What is the definition of "in process of proposing on"? Will there be any additional verification processes on OCI since it is the responsibility of the prime to provide OCI packages for themselves and their subcontractors?

The Government is preparing an amendment to the RFP that will limit the scope of the L-1.4, NOTICE REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) AGREEMENT(S) clause to situations involving MDA, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and BMD related contract(s). The Offeror has the responsibility of requesting an OCI determination if: 1) the prime or its subcontractors have entered into a contract that contains an actual OCI agreement or a specific OCI clause, but not just a generic OCI clause; and 2) the prime or its subcontractors are performing on a contract that the Offeror thinks may have a potential conflict with MDDC effort. The government will need seek other information, but the

OCI conflict determination is made by the government, and if during the evaluation of a proposal a potential conflict is identified, then the issue will be addressed during discussions. When submitting OCI information, relate your contract with the MDDC effort and include your evaluation and mitigation plan. "In the process of proposing on" means you may submit for determination a Draft SOW/PWS.

In the Industry Day slides from 12 July 2012, slide 48 (Operations and Sustainment) states the Test Support System (TSS) is currently offsite. Is the Offeror to assume all MDDC contract personnel will be located on-site for this contract? If not, how many on-site seats are available?

As stated during Industry Day, the Test Support System (TSS) operations are currently off-site and are expected to remain off-site for the foreseeable future. If space becomes available at VBIII or VBIV, there is a possibility they could be relocated on-site at Government facilities. There are currently

270 full time seats and 50 transient workspaces in the VBIII basement that are supported via this effort. However, the number of on-site seats that would become available for TSS operations can not be estimated at this time.

If the Offeror is to provide an off-site facility, is the cost for the facility included in the dollars given in the Material/ Approved ODCs included in the solicitation or are we expected to add the cost of the off-site facility in our Cost/Price Proposal?

No, off-site facility costs are recoverable as an indirect overhead expense allocated to the FBLRs.

If the Offeror is to provide an off-site facility, what are the security requirements for this facility?

Security requirements for any off-site facility are dictated by the classification of data stored and/or processed not by MDA. The actual protection requirements are based on the classification level of the information stored or processed and are covered in the NISPOM as implemented by DSS. At no time is it anticipated that any classified information above the collateral secret level will be stored, processed, or discussed at the contractor facility under this contract.

Multiple Cost Exhibits for labor rates only provide for a single site rate capability. Should the Offeror assume that the government intends to provide facility space for all personnel or should Offeror provide an allocation between the two with justification?

RFP is being revised to include Government Site and Off-Site FBLR effort.

Offerors may propose an off-site facility. Offerors should propose their best approach.

Section L-8.7, Exhibit B1. Can Exhibit B1, Fully Burdened Labor

Rate Exhibit be extended to accommodate both off-site (Contractor site) and on-site (Government site) for those MDDC Labor

Categories where work could be performed at either location?

RFP Cost/Pricing Exhibits have been revised to include both Government

Site and Off-Site FBLR computations.

How many TSS operators are there? How many offsite employees?

This will help us know what to propose/provide solutions.

As stated during Industry Day, the Test Support System (TSS) operations are currently off-site and are expected to remain off-site for the foreseeable future. If space becomes available at VBIII or VBIV, there is a possibility they could be relocated on-site at Government facilities. There are currently

270 full time seats and 50 transient workspaces in the VBIII basement that are supported via this effort. However, the number of on-site seats that would become available for TSS operations can not be estimated at this time.

How do I propose innovations if I don't understand where the MDDC employees are - i.e. offsite/onsite, govt space/contractor space? The possibility for innovations is not limited to space/location.

From a proposal standpoint, do we propose an offsite facility and can we get the range of hours that should apply to an offsite facility? Is the offsite to be a government or contractor owned facility?

Offerors may propose an offsite facility. No, MDA will not provide the range of hours to apply to an offsite facility. MDA does not want to constrain any

Offeror's approach to the "as is". Offerors should propose their best approach.

89 Will you consider the use of a non-labor plug # for offsite? No.

As a nonincumbent, we do not know the offsite/onsite ratio of employees. Can you provide a roster of the current employees?

We anticipate the current contract will remain in position until adequate transition. No, we will not provide a roster of names on the current contract prior to award. After award, additional information will be timely supplied.

Section L-2.1 Table, states that the Past Performance Volume is due on "10 Apr 2012 2:00 PM CT." This is in conflict with a later sentence of this Section which states, "Note that the Past Performance

Information Sheets are due 2 weeks earlier than the other proposal volumes". Are you requesting the PPI sheets be submitted 2 weeks earlier than the remaining portions, i.e., TOC, Summary Page, Consent Letters and Org Structure Change History, of the Past

Performance Volume?

Yes; PPIs are due 2 weeks earlier than the proposal due date (and the remainder of the Past Performance Volume). Section L-2.1 is revised for clarity and will reflect the correct due dates.

Under L-7.6, no date is listed for the return of the Past Performance

Questionnaires to the Government. The PPQ itself also does not list a return date. Could you please clarify the due date for the Past

Performance Questionnaire?

Paragraph 2, sentence 3 indicates the government's recommendation Offerors forward PPQs to POCs 15 days prior to the proposal due date. Sentence 4 requests the completed questionnaire be email as a pdf file NLT the proposal due date. The due date should be filled in for the POCs' benefit.

Under L-7.7, the subcontractor consent letter is to be completed "by each key subcontractor and/or subsidiary identified in the proposal".

Do you want consent letters from subcontractors or teaming partners even if their past performance is not included in the Past Performance volume? Yes.

Could the Government provide the specific delivery times and format

(i.e. electronic, hard copy or both) for the Past Performance

Information Sheets that are due two weeks earlier than other proposal volumes?

Submit in accordance with the instructions for proposal submittal, i.e. One electronic copy and one hard plus 4 copies.

It has been our experience that KO/COTRs decline completing questionnaires in the case of a completed CPARS; requesting evaluators to use this as an indication of the cited firm’s past performance; thereby reducing their workload. We request the

Government amend its instructions to request a PPIS submission in cases where a CPARs does not exist. Instruction will remain as is.

Past Performance Information Sheet section 9. Rationale for effort relevance states PPI shall include rationale for each of the six sections as they apply to Information Technology, Software, Test and

Evaluation Data Acquisition and Communications, Telemetry

Operations, Truth Analysis and Library Operations. However, Section L-7.3 determines relevant contracts that provide program management, mission assurance, operations & sustainment, mission focus and security capabilities. Recommend the PPIS be changed to reflect this language for detailed narratives.

A revised Section J, Attachment 8 will be issued with the solicitation amendment to reflect a change from "Test and Evaluation Data Acquisition and Communications" to "Mission Operations" in question #9.

In Section M-7.0 it states that “Past performance regarding predecessor companies or key subcontractors, and/or subsidiaries that will perform critical aspects of the requirement will be considered the same as past performance information of the principal offeror.” Is it the government’s intention to allow a prime offeror to substitute a subcontractors past performance for prime contract management? Is the small business prime going to be evaluated on their ability to manage a prime contract of this scope and magnitude? The government's intent is to evaluate relevant past performance.

Section L-7.1…