HQ0147-15-R-0007_QMA_Questions__Answers_-_5_May_2015.pdf

HQ0147-15-R-0007 QUALITY MISSION ASSURANCE

QUESTIONS/ANSWERS 5 May 2015

CATEGORY/GENERAL

1. General General Instructions to Offerors. What is the proposal response time?

L-1.0

Response: The proposal response time is expected to be 30 days. Please see the final RFP for the exact time frame.

2. Bidders’ Documents - CD IAW DRFP L-2.9 and L-1.3, Offeror requests a CD containing the representative products and reference documents to assist in the development of the proposal

Response: Unclassified product samples and product templates will be available for viewing in a Bidders’

Library in Building 5224 (VBIII), Redstone Arsenal (RSA), AL 35898. The final RFP will be updated to reflect this change.

3. Final Proposal

Revisions L-2.3 Matching DVD-R copies shall also be submitted. Will the Government accept CDs in lieu of DVD-Rs?

Response: No. The Offeror shall comply with L-4.4 and submit each volume on a separate DVD-R

4. Bidders’

Documents L -2.9 The Bidders’ Documents are representative products and reference documents provided to assist in development of Offerors’ proposals. Requests for the Bidders’ Documents CD may be submitted to the PCO as identified under section L-1.3. Does the Government intend to create a web-accessible technical library? When will the

Government begin accepting requests, and will this be uniform across all TEAMS acquisitions?

Response: Instructions regarding how to request access to the Bidder’s Document Library will be provided in the final RFP.

5. Ground Rules and \

Assumptions L-11.4 The Offeror must clearly identify any ground rules and assumptions made in preparing the proposal. How does the Government define "ground rules?"

Response: The Government defines “ground rules” as assumptions or any exceptions or terms of the

Offeror’s proposal.

6. Attachment L-09 The Government will provide office facilities, equipment, and materials for daily business use. This includes

Government Onsite office space, desk/work station, telephone, chair, computer, printer, and requisite consumable materials.

Accommodations Please confirm that the Government will provide only the number of workstations listed in Attachment L-09, or is this data for references purpose only?

Response: As stated in Attachment L-09, historical hours, number of workstations, and required clearances are all historical in nature and should not be used as the sole basis for proposing the effort required to accomplish the requirements of this solicitation.

7. Workforce Experience

Will the Government consider establishing a benchmark that encompasses a work force that brings multiple years of experience to the contract? The concern is that a company may have a work force planned that includes individuals with considerably more experience than the minimum experience requirements. If the Government’s benchmark for an Engineer Test is established at an upper limit of $60.55 how do subcontractors with limited

LOE bring true SME’s to the Contract?

Response: MDA will review the ERI Labor Categories to ensure that the selected categories match MDA requirements as closely as possible. Updates, if any, will be provided in the final RFP. Please note that there is an error in the MDA Labor Categories. MDA omitted some Labor Categories in the EPW

Attachment L-07 that will be included in the final RFP.

8. Technical Lead/CPM

Responsibilities Will the Government consider making the Technical Lead and CPM separate functions on these contracts? Our understanding is that the CPM has program management responsibilities for the overall contract (an experienced senior leader) and is responsible for financial and contract management, as well as client-relationship management and corporate reach-back. The Technical Lead is the lead of the technical work onsite. These are separate responsibilities that can be provided more efficiently through separate functions.

Response: Allocation of responsibilities for contract management versus day-to-day technical management is a contractor decision. Small/less complex efforts may only require a single manager for contract and technical management while larger/more complex efforts may require multiple managers. The method in which technical management of contract activities is performed should be described in the Offeror’s proposal.

9. 14. 8(a) Joint Venture In Section H-39 (page 48 of 109), the draft QMA solicitation accurately states that in accordance with 13 CFR

Section 125.6(i) a formal 8(a) joint venture (JV) must be in compliance with the “50% rule”. However, the note under Table L-3 (page 86 of 109) in the draft QMA Solicitation contradicts this CFR reference when stating, “SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture Limitation on Subcontracting Standard is 40%”. We believe that this statement under Table L-3 is in reference to the requirement of the 8(a) joint venture to perform no less than 40% of the total labor at the contract performed by the JV. Will the Government please confirm that the statement under Table L-3 is in reference to the work share as shared by the joint venture participants and not the total work share of the JV Prime as required by 13 CFR Section 125.6(i)?

Response : The 40% for 8(a)s only applies to 8(a) set asides. This reference will be removed.

10. PWS/ Mission Assurance Performance

Objective #4b Standards

(PWS Table 3.2.4.1) 8.0 Location (separate line for each) – Kirkland Air Force Base is identified but is not a location identified in PWS .

Please clarify.

Response : If the contractor is referring to the table 4.2.4.2 then Kirkland Air Force Base should not be listed as a location on the table. Kirkland Air Force Base was removed during the sequestration. This will be corrected in the final RFP/PWS.

CATEGORY: DATA RIGHTS

11. Data Rights

H-36.a The contractor and its subcontractors shall provide a completed Attachment in accordance with DFARS 252.227-

7017 entitled "Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government's Use, Release, or Disclosure of

Technical Data or Computer Software" that is signed and dated by a responsible official of the Contractor. This

Attachment is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. The Attachment identifies and provides information pertaining to technical data (including computer software documentation) and computer software that the contractor and subcontractors claim to qualify for delivery with less than Unlimited Rights. The contractor agrees not to withhold delivery of the technical data or software based on its claims. The Government shall investigate the validity of the contractor's claims and therefore reserves all its rights regarding the technical data/software in question, to include those rights set forth in: DFARS 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data -

Noncommercial Items; DFARS 252.227-7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and

Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation; DFARS 252.227-7019, Validation of Asserted Restrictions--

Computer Software; DFARS 252.227-7028, Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered To the

Government; and, DFAR 252.227-7037, Validation Of Restrictive Markings On Technical Data clauses until a determination is made. Will MDA provide a copy of the Identification and Assertion of Restriction on the

Government’s Use, Release, or Disclosure of Technical Data or Computer Software attachment prior to RFP release?

Response: There is no pre-formatted attachment. Use the instructions provided at DFARS 252.227-7017.

The clause is included in full text in Section I.

CATEGORY: SECURITY

12. Security Clearances

The survey data used in the development of the benchmarks does not appropriately consider the fact that all individuals working this effort are required to be “cleared”. Companies normally have to pay a premium to hire an individual with a clearance. The survey rates are an average of cleared and un-cleared individuals. Would the

Government consider an additive to the salary benchmarks recognizing the requirement to possess a security clearance to support the contract?

Response: MDA will review the ERI Labor Categories to ensure that the selected categories match MDA requirements as closely as possible. Updates, if any, will be provided in the final RFP. Please note that

13. DD Form 254

Security Guidance

Block 13 This DD 254 shall act as security guidance for the safeguarding of Secret related classified information at the contractor facility. Will the Government require safeguarding at the Contractor facility? Block 1b. - Level of

Safeguarding Required, is marked "None"; Block 11a. - Have Access To Classified Information Only At Another

Contractor's Facility Or A Government Activity, is marked "Yes"; Block 11b. - Receive Classified Documents

Only, Block 11c. - Receive And Generate Classified Material & Block 11d. - Fabricate, Modify, Or Store

Classified Hardware are marked "No" respectively. Despite these markings, Block 11l. - Other, lists "Require

CNET/SIPR/JWICS" and Secret safeguarding is mentioned in the Security Guidance Continuation Pages.

Additionally, the draft solicitation requires the Security Volume to describe procedures for safeguarding classified materials. Please clarify whether the Contractor will be required to obtain access to safeguarding at the facility prior to award.

Response: Government will not require safeguarding at the Contractor’s facility.

Block 1b – Level of Safeguarding Required is marked correct - “None”.

Block 11a – “Yes” is correct – Work will be performed at the MDA/GOV location.

Block 11b – N/A Work will be done at the MDA/GOV facility.

Block 11c – N/A Work will be done at the MDA/GOV facility

Block 11d – Correct – The Contractor will not be required to store classified since work is being done at the MDA/GOV facility.

Block 11l – The contract will be performed at the MDA/GOV facility so the contractor will not be required to have Safeguarding at their facility.

14. Cybersecurity Risk

Management (PWS 5.0) Cyber Incident or Compromise Report (CDRL A003): The Prime Contractor (sub-contractors will make

CDRL notification through the prime) will notify the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), MDA/DEI at

MDAIndustrialSecurity@mda.mil and MDA Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) at mdacsirt.mda.mil within 72 hours of any reportable, cybersecurity incident (as defined in DFARS clause 252.204-7012) once the contractor has confirmed MDA data is involved. When will the Government provide a format for CDRL A003?

Response: The CDRLs (DD Forms 1423-1, Feb 2001), will be provided in the final RFP. The requirements for the CDRLs will be found in the Data Item Description (DID), Block #4; and the

Remarks Section, Block #16.

15. Volume III: Cybersecurity

Risk Management Plan L-7.0 The Cybersecurity Risk Management Team will review the draft plan and the PCO will provide non-binding feedback to the Offeror with respect to the adequacy of its plan. Will the same individuals comprising the

Government's Cybersecurity Risk Management Team review all the draft plans submitted early?

Response: The appropriate subject matter experts will review all of the draft plans that are submitted early.

16. Volume IV: Security Plan

L-8.0 The Offeror shall describe its procedures for obtaining appropriate company and personnel security clearances and safeguarding classified materials and controlled unclassified information (to include handling, storage, and transmission) in accordance with the requirements for the DD254. Will the Government permit redundant discussions between this volume and Volume III: Cybersecurity?

Response: No. Volumes must stand on their own.

17.Volume III: Cybersecurity

Risk Management Plan

L-7.0 As a part of describing these procedures, the Offeror shall describe the methods used by all contractors and subcontractors to satisfy the NIST 800-53 Cybersecurity controls identified in DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 and the procedures that will be put into place to track and report Cybersecurity incidents at contractor facilities. The

Plan shall include reference architecture drawings for the network(s) containing MDA owned data. NIST 800-

171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations, had not been finalized. Will using the information in the draft be sufficient until it is published?

Response : Yes, using the information provided in the draft will be sufficient until it is published.

CATEGORY: OCI

18. OCI Issues with

Subcontractors Can MDA provide clarification on the OCI issues of subcontractors supporting TEAMS QMA and the same subcontractor’s ability to support other areas of TEAMS outside of QMA as a subcontractor?

Response: OCI concerns are explained in the TEAMS OCI Policy and were clarified in FedBizOps announcement titled TEAMS_OCI_Update – CS-2015-0004.

19. Organizational

Conflict of Interest Please clarify which OCI Attachment, J-05 or J-12, takes precedence for this acquisition? Please provide the significance for Attachment J-05, as it is not directly referenced in the DRFP.

Response: Attachments J-05 (TEAMS OCI Policy) and J-12 (MDA OCI Policy) are complementary documents. Attachment J-05 will be referenced in the final RFP.

20. Organizational Conflict of Interest (H-09.f.l) 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 (form shall be requested from the Procuring Contracting Officer). Is the OCI Analysis/Disclosure Form referenced in H-09 the same as Attachment L-05, the OCI Disclosure Form?

Response: Yes

21. OCI Issue L-1.4 Notice Regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) – Determination to Participate in This Acquisition

(JAN 2015). The Contracting Officer will meet with Offerors on a one-on-one basis, if requested and as necessary, to discuss individual Offeror or team arrangements concerning MDA’s OCI policy. When will the

Government begin meeting with contractors to discuss MDA's OCI policy, and does the Government intend to release any additional guidance publicly that is discussed during these one-on-one sessions?

Response: The request for a one-on-one meeting with the Government to discuss OCI issues may accompany the OCI submission to the OCI email address: TEAMS_OCI@MDA.MIL. A request may also be submitted to the PCO by email. These will be scheduled as soon as possible. The Government will provide preliminary, written advisory approval to participate in this acquisition. This advisory approval will not be binding on MDA and will not be released publicly.

22. OCI Policy

Attachment J-05 Due to the oversight role provided by quality, mission assurance and safety contractors, they cannot also provide

A&AS for other TEAMS contracts. Does this paragraph mean that the successful Safety and QMA contractors

(prime and/or subs) cannot participate on other TEAMS contracts?

Response: The Government always considers any OCI mitigation plans submitted. However, Safety and

QMA prime contractors will not likely be able to participate on other TEAMS contracts.

23. Cover Letter – OCI

Package Submission L-1.4 The cover letter established a due date of 4/17/2015 for the submission of an OCI Disclosure Form packet;

providing the opportunity for potential Offerors to seek an early non-binding OCI determination. Instructions at

L-1.4 e. 1 indicate that Offerors should submit an OCI Disclosure Form “for itself and its subcontractors”. Can the Offeror take advantage of this opportunity to seek an early non-binding OCI Determination. The Offeror is not interested in Priming in the QMA opportunity; however, the Offeror is interested in continuing their subcontracting role. The Prime contractor in this teaming effort has requested that the sub-contractors submit

OCI Disclosure Forms through the Prime (complying with the instruction at L-1.4 e. 1). The concern, as a sub, is with providing this detailed competition sensitive information to another company that may be competing with a sub on other parts of the overall TEAMS acquisition. Will MDA accept a sub’s OCI Disclosure Form

Submission as a sealed package provided directly to the Government. This would meet the intent of the instruction at L-1.4 e. 1 without placing competition sensitive proprietary data in the hands of another company involved in a competition for other opportunities. Will MDA accept a sealed package directly from a sub-contractor in lieu of a combined submission from the Prime Offeror and its subcontractors?

mailto:TEAMS_OCI@MDA.MIL

Response: The Draft RFP Cover letter, dated 23 March 2015, encouraged companies to submit early

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Forms by April 17, 2015. There were no restrictions noted at that time preventing subcontractors from submitting an OCI package separately. In a FedBizOps Special

Notice entitled “TEAMS RFP Schedule Update” dated 24 April 2014, it was noted that all OCI submissions were to be submitted to the email address: TEAMS_OCI@MDA.MIL. Based on MDA’s review, of this submission, a preliminary, non-binding written advisory approval will be provided for continued participation in this acquisition.

24. Factor F7 Discriminator

Definitions M-10.3 The Government’s Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and discriminators, including proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined at

Table M-7). Will MDA provide a copy of the PPBE Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to RFP release?

Response: The PPBE Non-Disclosure Agreement, Attachment J-04, relates to the requirements of clause

H-16 in the solicitation.

25. Contractor Access to Planning, Programming, Budgeting and

Execution (PPBE) Data

H-16.e The Contractor shall be responsible for informing its personnel (hereinafter includes persons employed by the

Contractor as an agent, consultant, or subcontractor) of the provisions of this clause and providing original MDA

PPBE certifications, “PPBE Non-Disclosure Agreements” (MDA Form 99), to the Contracting Officer within fifteen (15) days after the award of this contract. Will MDA provide a copy of the PPBE Non-Disclosure

Agreement prior to RFP release?

Response: The PPBE Non-Disclosure Agreement is provided at Attachment J-04 of the draft solicitation.

CATEGORY: GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

26. Government Furnished

Property (GFP) Reporting mailto:TEAMS_OCI@MDA.MIL

Requirements CDRL PWS 8.4 Physical Inventory Plan/Schedule and Reports for GFP (CDRL A005). The contractor shall deliver this report within 30 days of completion of the Contractor's periodic inventory of GFP in accordance with the Contractor's approved Property Management System. Will the Government provide a format for CDRL A005?

Final Government Property Inventory Report (CDRL A006). The contractor shall deliver this report within 30 days of completion of the final physical inventory of all Government Property (Government Furnished Property and Contractor Acquired Property), unless waived by the Government Property Administrator. When will the

Government provide a format for CDRL A006?

Response: The CDRLs (DD Forms 1423-1, Feb 2001), will be provided in the final RFP. The requirements for the CDRLs will be found in the Data Item Description (DID), Block #4; and the

Remarks Section, Block #16.

CATEGORY: PAST PERFORMANCE

27 Major Subcontractor Definition

L-10.1 Given the definition in L-10.1 that a “ ‘Major Subcontractor’ is defined as a subcontractor whose proposed effort provides at least 10% of the proposed total price of the contract and/or performs a critical function in the performance of the resulting contract, whether it is technical or financial, and/or have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the Offeror’s proposal,” are subcontractors who have less than 10% work share but perform a critical function or have important roles in high or medium risk areas allowed to submit PPI’s?

Response: Yes. As stated in L-10.1, Past Performance information should be submitted for Major

Subcontractors (perform 10% of the price of the contract and/or perform a critical function, and/or have important roles in high or medium risk areas).

28. Past Performance Questionnaire

Package for Services

(Atch P4) Given that some Government contracting organizations may choose not to submit a PPQ where recent CPARs are available, would the Government consider adding language to allow a CPAR to suffice for the PPQ? A potential example could state: “For contracts that have Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) that are more than 12 months old, the Offeror will complete items numbered 1 through 8 on page 1 of the Past Performance

Questionnaire Package for Services (Attachment P4) and forward it to the contract customer’s Program Manager to address only the items numbered 9 to 15 on page 1. Any CPARs assessment entered on or after (DRFP DATE

– 12 months) would be considered to be within the 12 month time period for being current. For all contracts identified which do not have CPARs, the Offeror will complete items numbered 1 through 8 page 1 of the Past

Performance Questionnaire Package for Services (Attachment P4) and forward the 2 pages to that contract customer’s Technical Point of Contact or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).”

Response: As stated in M-8.0, the Government may use information obtained from the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Should a Government organization decide not to return a PPQ, the Past Performance Evaluation Team would have access to relevant Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) data through PPIRS.

29. Past performance

L-10.3 A maximum of ten PPIs may be submitted for the entire team. For Task Order contracts (e.g. MiDAESS), does the Government want Task Order PPIs or IDIQ level PPIs?

Response: Task Order PPIs are preferred. Each will be considered a single PPI.

30. Factor F5: Past Performance

(Acceptable/Unacceptable)

M-8.0 Based on an evaluation of recency, relevancy, and quality, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine and assign either an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating for each Offeror. Offerors receiving an

“Unacceptable” rating will not be considered for award. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, have Unknown Past Performance, will receive an "Acceptable” rating for the Past Performance Factor. Can the Government clarify how an Offeror with no recent or relevant

Past Performance can be adequately assessed to offer a low-risk offer in accordance with a Best Value determination, and therefore not receive an "Unacceptable" rating?

Response: Please refer to DoD Source Selection Procedures on how past performance is evaluated.

CATEGORY: SECTION L – GENERAL

31. Competency Qualifications

Attachment L-10 Many Government contracts with RFP-defined labor competency qualifications or descriptions often permit substitution of years of experience and degrees. Would the Government consider adopting a similar practice, e.g., 4 years’ experience interchangeable with a Bachelor’s degrees, 6 years experience interchangeable with a Masters, and 8 years’ experience interchangeable with a Doctorate.

Response: The Government is considering some education substitutions. See the final RFP for determination.

32. TABLE L-1: Proposal

Organization and Content

L-4.4 *** Volume X, Cost/Price should include a table with the proposed skill mix (labor category by task by location by hour). Please define "task". Is "task" the PWS?

Response: Task with respect to this requirement is defined by the Performance Objectives outlining the objective to be performed, reporting, and compliance requirements within the PWS.

33. Proposal Organization

L-4.1, L-4.12 L-4.1: There is no need to repeat information in more than one volume if an overlap exists; the detailed information must be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas.

L-4.12: Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal.

If each volume must be written as stand-alone basis and each response to each sub factor is self-contained it appears inconsistent with L-4.1 which states that information may be referenced in other areas. Please clarify.

Response: Each Volume must be written on a stand-alone basis as prescribed in L-4.12. The conflicting language at L-4.1 will be removed in the final RFP.

#34. Proposal Organization

L-4.3 & L-5.3 Table L-2 VOl I Tab 2: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix 1 page; Proposal Cross Reference Matrix: The Offeror shall provide a matrix using the format below (Table L-2) to cross reference their proposal to, at a minimum, the PWS and Sections L and M. The Offeror’s proposal paragraph number and format shall mirror Sections L and M paragraph numbering to the maximum extent practicable. Please clarify the Governments intent for the

"Description" column in Table L-2. It is not possible to fit all of L & M and all levels of the PWS in a one page table

Response: The Table L-2 sample will be updated in the Final RFP to remove the “Description” column

CATEGORY: SECTION M – GENERAL

#35 Subfactor M1: Recruitment and Retention

L-13.1 & M-10.1 Sect L: The Offeror shall describe the compensation plan to be used for obtaining and retaining a quality workforce. Data shall be provided IAW FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees” (Note: Supporting data that sets forth the proposed salaries and fringe benefits for all proposed professional employees shall be submitted in the Cost/Price Volume).

Sect M: Presenting a sound process by which the Offeror’s compensation plan is used for obtaining and retaining a quality workforce based on data provided IAW FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees”. In section L the Government requests data provided IAW FAR 52.222-46. “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees”. In section M the Government requests the process based on data provided IAW FAR 52.222-46. Please clarify that salaries and Fringe Benefit data should not be included in the response and that the ability to reference the Cost/Price Volume is permitted.

Response: The salaries and fringe benefits data IAW FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees” should only be referenced in the Management Volume.

#36. Factor F7 Discriminator

Definitions M-10.3 The Government’s Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and discriminators, including proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined at

Table M-7). Will MDA provide a copy of the PPBE Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to RFP Release?

Response: The PPBE Non-Disclosure Agreement form was provided with the Draft RFP as

Attachment 04. In Section H, Clause number H-16 provides information regarding the form and how it will be used.

CATEGORY: PRICING

37. Cost/Pricing Data

Provisions The cost or pricing data provisions in Section I are inconsistent with a competitive acquisition.

Page 49, Section I Would the Government consider deleting the following cost or pricing data provisions because this is anticipated to be a competitive acquisition:

52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data AUG 2011

52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modification AUG 2011

52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data OCT 2010

52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications OCT 2010

52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing

Data – Modifications OCT 2010

Response: The clauses in question are included in this solicitation for post award purposes.

38. Cost Vol Narrative

Document Section L-14.2 states that the Offeror shall provide accompanying narrative and any necessary

Pages 91, L-14.2 information to substantiate the cost reasonableness and realism. Should that narrative be included in the cost volume narrative document, or as embedded comments in the Excel worksheet.

Response: The narrative explanations should be included in the Cost Volume.

39. Basis of Estimates (BOE)

Pages 93-94, L-14.4 The DRFP specifies the requirement for Basis of Estimates (BOE), and that they be referenced in the

Labor Resources Tab, Subcontracts Tab, and the Contract Staffing Summary Tab. Will the Government

Release a prescribed BOE (Basis of Estimate) format referenced in L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW)

(Sect L, p. 93-94)? Specifically the instructions for Attachment L-07 sheets ‘Labor resources’, ‘Subcontracts’ (p. 93) and ‘Contract Staffing summary’ (p. 94).

Response: The BOE information should be entered into the Excel Pricing Workbook (Contract Staffing

Summary Worksheet – Column H). An example format will be included in the EPW in the final RFP.

40. Analyst/Engineer Labor

Categories Will the Government consider utilizing the previously proposed average labor rates (properly escalated) for the

“Analyst” and “Engineer” Labor Categories to help establish the upper bounds? The proposed labor rates from past awards are truly established by competition and by performance making these rates a much better indicator of the work force required to successfully perform the task.

Response : In order to increase competition and create a more level playing field, the Government has provided the average annual hours by Stakeholder for this effort. Due to the fact that the current

MiDAESS task orders were awarded in a different competitive environment, the average labor rates may not be representative of what is expected for the TEAMS competitions, and will not be provided.

41. Range for Systems Analyst/

Engineer Categories #1 Will the Government consider selecting multiple categories to provide a high and low range of rates and establish a broader and more representative range for the “Analyst” and “Engineer” Labor Categories? The

Analyst is based on the System Analyst labor category from the survey – this would likely be a person involved in

IT support – not data analysis. Would the Government consider using a Data Analyst from the survey to help define this benchmark? The Engineer Test labor category would seem to be too narrow to establish an appropriate benchmark. Would the Government consider using an Aeronautical Engineer or Electrical Engineer as a guideline to establish the benchmark.

#2 When reviewing the ERI labor category description for Systems Analyst it seems IT focused with limited scope. However, the labor category Data Analyst seems more closely aligned to Attachment J-01 TEAMS QMA

PWS and Attachment L-10 QMA Labor Competencies. Would MDA consider substituting the labor category

Data Analyst for the Systems Analyst?

#3 Engineer Test Labor Category. The labor category Engineer Test seems test focused with limited scope. The labor category Engineer Aeronautical is more closely aligned with Attachment J-01 TEAMS QMA PWS and

Attachment L-10 QMA Labor Competencies. The key issue is Engineer Test is missing system design and development. Would MDA consider substituting the labor category Engineer Aeronautical for the Engineer Test?

#4 Excel Pricing worksheet: Tab Named “Direct Labor Benchmarks” – it appears that the Government has selected one labor category each from the survey data as representative of the skill set required for“Analyst” and “Engineer”. It also appears that the data pulled from the survey correlates to a workforce that is very close to the Minimum experience requirements. We feel this provides a very narrow range for the establishment of a benchmark and may not take into consideration the various skill sets and advanced years of experience required to completely meet the contract requirements.

Response: MDA will review the ERI Labor Categories to ensure that the selected categories match MDA requirements as closely as possible. Updates, if any, will be provided in the final RFP. Please note that

42. MiDAESS Task Order

Labor Rates To encourage competition and create a level playing field would MDA consider publishing the average labor rates by labor category for the current MiDAESS Task Orders? This will allow non-incumbent bidders the same historical cost knowledge as current MiDAESS contractors.

Response: As stated in response to question number 41, MDA will review the ERI Labor Categories to ensure that the selected categories match MDA requirements as closely as possible. Updates, if any, will be provided in the final RFP. Please note that there is an error in the MDA Labor Categories. MDA omitted some Labor Categories in the EPW Attachment L-07 that will be included in the final RFP.

43 . ERI Salary Data/

Wage Information Since the entire TEAMS QMA workforce will require security clearances would MDA consider an adjustment to the ERI salary data? The ERI salary data includes non-cleared positions which causes the ERI salary data to understate wage information.

Response: The ERI salary data will be reviewed and adjustments, if any, will be included in the final RFP.

44. Offeror and Major

Subcontractor Compliance

Requirements L-14.1 The Offeror must include proposed cost and fee, by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) and detailed by Contract Line

Item Number (CLIN). The Offeror must define its CFY (for example January – December). Will the Government define the periods of performance for each CLIN to enable the Offeror to appropriately apply labor cost and indirect burdens?

Response: Yes, the Government will define the periods of performance for each CLIN to enable the

Offeror to appropriately apply labor cost and indirect burdens.

45. Cost or Pricing Data

Requirements L-14.3 The Labor Category tab included in the Excel Pricing Workbook includes a description of each RFP labor

Category along with the median direct labor rate from the ERI Salary Assessor by location. Please confirm that the reference to the "Labor Category Tab" in L-14.3 is the Tab "Direct Labor Benchmarks" in Attachment L-07?

Response: The Direct Labor Benchmark Tab in Attachment L-07 will be renamed “Labor Category Tab.”

46. Proposal Cover Letter dated March 23, 2015, Excel Pricing Workbook, Cost Reasonableness and

Realism L-07//L-14.3 The ERI median and 90th percentile direct labor rates (give or take one dollar per hour) serves as the benchmarks between Government will accept the proposed direct labor rates as reasonable and realistic without any further justification from the Offeror. We recommend the Government provide the average incumbent labor rates for all

Government Labor Competency Levels, in an effort to ensure the compensation proposed is realistic and to remove the potential of any offer proposing a level that is detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

Response : In order to increase competition and create a more level playing field, the Government has provided the average annual hours by Stakeholder for this effort. Due to the fact that the current

MiDAESS task orders were awarded in a different competitive environment, the average labor rates may not be representative of what is expected for the TEAMS competitions, and will not be provided.

47. Excel Pricing Workbook, Cost

Reasonableness and Realism

Atch L-07, L-14.3 The ERI median and 90th percentile direct labor rates (give or take one dollar per hour) serves as the benchmarks between which the Government will accept the proposed direct labor rates as reasonable and realistic without any further justification from the Offeror. How has the government addressed, the fact that salaries reported by ERI for the labor categories include employees without security clearances? We recommend the government include a clearance premium in addition to the ERI direct labor rates, because 100% of the positions listed in the

Government Labor Competency Level Descriptions require clearances.

Response: The ERI salary data will be reviewed and adjustments, if any, will be included in the final RFP.

48. Cost Reasonableness and Realism L-14.3 The following is a discussion of the benchmark the Government will employ to assess the realism of fringe benefit costs. The benchmark chosen to serve, as minimum acceptable and realistic fringe benefit cost, is the

$3.71 per hour prevailing health and welfare fringe benefits under the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act

(SCA). While this acquisition is not covered by the SCA, the prevailing health and welfare fringe benefits will serve as the absolute minimum acceptable fringe benefit cost. Fringe cost less than this benchmark is not compliant with these instructions and by default is unrealistic. Please clarify if the "brief description" is satisfied by the stakeholder/CLIN combination along with the associated cost by CFY. If not, does the Government have a preference where to add a column for this information?

Response: The final RFP will be updated to clarify what will be requested.

49. Instructions for EPW pricing Tabs L-14.2 Subcontracts Tab. If the Offeror is proposing the use of any next tier Subcontractor(s), then the Offeror must identify the subcontractor and provide a brief description of the subcontractor’s contribution to the effort using at least one row per Stakeholder/CLIN combination along with the associated cost by CFY on that row. Please clarify if the "brief description" is satisfied by the stakeholder/CLIN combination along with the associated cost by CFY. If not, does the Government have a preference where to add a column for this information?

Response: The EPW will be updated in the final RFP to clarify what will be requested.

50. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements;

Instructions for EPW pricing Tabs; Cost

Format "A" Cost Worksheets

L-14.4 The Cost Format A worksheet is a cost summary by cost element showing the proposed labor hours, labor rates and cost, indirect rates and costs; and proposed fee by CFY as shown in Attachment L-07, the EPW. Are the stakeholder Tab AB through Tab FMS in Attachment L-07 the "Cost Format 'A' Cost worksheets?"

Response: The EPW will be updated in the final RFP to include a roll-up worksheet in lieu of the Cost

Format A Worksheet.

51. Instructions for EPW pricing and Excel Pricing Workbook

L-14.4 Subcontracts Tab. The subcontracted efforts listed on this tab must reconcile to the resources proposed by the

Prime Offeror in the Contract Staffing Summary. Please clarify the last sentence in the instructions under the bullet "Subcontracts tab" with regard to "reconcile to the resources" given the "Subcontracts" Tab in Attachment

L-07 is a dollar figure and the "Contract Staffing Summary" is hours only. Please consider adding a tab for

Subcontracts Labor Resource to contain only hours for Subcontractors.

Response: The revised EPW to be included in the final RFP will show hours and dollars.

52. Excel Pricing Workbook Basis of Estimate (BOE) . Will the Government release a standard Basis of Estimate (BOE) format for all bidders to use. If so, will the Government accept additional questions pertaining to that file when that file is released?

Response: The revised EPW will include a standard Basis Of Estimate (BOE) format for all Offerors to use.

53. Cost or Pricing Data

Requirements; Instructions for EPW pricing Tabs The overall evaluated proposed price of CLIN 0001 will be the bottom line cost of this amount of direct travel expenses after any indirect cost applicable to travel expenses are added. Please confirm that the Government will provide values for CLIN 0001 travel worksheet, CLIN 0002 ODC worksheet, and CLIN 0003 Surge NTE worksheet.

Response: The Government will provide the values in the final RFP.

54. Cost or Pricing

Data Requirements

L-14.4 Along with Instructions for EPW pricing Tabs; Labor Resources Tab; Subcontracts Tab, and Contract Staffing

Summary Tab. The proposed Labor Hours must be listed and identified by the Labor Category, CLIN Number, Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY), PWS, Site, location and Stakeholder level of detail. The BOE must also be referenced. The Labor Resources Tab, Subcontracts Tab, and Contract Staffing Summary Tab within Attachment

L-07 Excel Pricing Workbook currently does not include a column for the BOE reference. Please provide the location and format for the BOE reference.

Response: The revised EPW to be included in the final RFP will include a standard Basis Of

Estimate (BOE) format for all Offerors to use.

55. Proposal Cover Letter dated March 23, 2015, Excel Pricing Workbook, Direct Labor Benchmarks Tab

Atch L-07

#1 We recommend MDA change the ERI Position Description used to determine compensation rates for the

Analyst Labor Competency Levels from Systems Analyst to Data Analyst. Our rationale is that the Systems

Analyst description addresses exclusively computer and IT systems. The QMA Performance Work Statement

(PWS) requires personnel provide Quality Assurance and Mission Assurance support tasks providing for the continuous assessment of the engineering, technology, processes, production, and programmatic practices used to develop and operate the BMDS such that high risk attributes can be identified and addressed to increase confidence in achieving mission success. Analysts will examine program data quality and capture, document and communicate risk data to provide familiarity with issues and events affecting these systems. These responsibilities are much better represented by the Data Analyst description in ERI.

#2 We also recommend MDA change the ERI Position Description used to determine compensation rates for the

Engineer Labor Competency Levels from Engineer Test to Engineer Aeronautical. Our rationale is that the

Engineer Test description addresses exclusively design and performance of test regimes, test equipment and controls. While QMA PWS includes support to BMDS test events, a larger predominance of the engineering work applies to system design and development. The responsibilities to meet PWS requirements include tasking to assess design and development approaches and documentation to determine compliance with MDA quality and mission assurance requirements. Responsibilities of these engineers include the application of engineering principles and techniques while participating in systems requirements development, Technical Interchange

Meetings and systems design reviews of missiles (interceptors and targets), land and space based sensors, command and control systems and other related systems such as ground systems.

Response: MDA will review the ERI Labor Categories to ensure that the selected categories match MDA requirements as closely as possible. Updates, if any, will be provided in the final RFP. Please note that

56. Excel Pricing Workbook, Cost Reasonableness and Realism

Attachment L-07 & L-14.3 Direct Labor Benchmark Tab, 91. The ERI median and 90th percentile direct labor rates (give or take one dollar per hour) serves as the benchmark between which the Government will accept the proposed direct labor rates as reasonable and realistic without any further justification from the Offeror. The Direct Labor Benchmarks tab provides for ERI data at the survey mean. Please clarify if the range should start at the mean (Attachment L-07) or median point (L-14.3).

Response: The range will start at the median point. Attachment L-07 will be corrected in the final RFP.

57. Government Labor Competency

Level Descriptions Attachment L-07, Tab: Direct Labor Benchmarks, Attachment L-10 Engineer, Analyst, Specialist and Contract Program Manager Government Labor Competency Level Descriptions.

Will the Government clarify the language in the Government Labor Competency Level Descriptions to place an emphasis on the QMA discipline as opposed to safety?

Response: Yes. This was an error and will be corrected in the final RFP.