Business_Operations_Response_to_Questions_29_May_2015.pdf

# Subject Question Answer

1 CDRL

The Initial and Annual Statement of Compliance (CDRL A004) “shall be provided using the Government provided format.” CDRL A004, however, states “Contractor report format is acceptable.” Please clarify. PWS has been updated, Contractor report will be used.

2 CDRL

CDRL A005 and CDRL A006 appear to be 2 slightly different version of the same document. Please clarify. These CDRLs will be corrected in the final RFP

3 Cyber Security

Requirements for the initial statement of compliance are stated as follows: “The initial statement of compliance shall also include procedures for protecting CUI from unauthorized access from both internal and external sources focusing on compliance with cybersecurity controls mandated in DFARS clause 252.204‐7012, Table 1, Minimum Security Controls.” These words are very similar to the requirement for the Cybersecurity Plan (Volume III) as stated in Section L, paragraph 7.0. Please clarify the requirement for the initial statement of compliance, other than a verification of the Cybersecurity Plan.

Section L, paragraph 7.0 is the actual plan and the statement in the PWS is the execution of the Cybersecurity Plan.

4 DD 254

Please clarify the statement "so that the access to the material by unauthorized individuals." Statement will be corrected.

5 DD 254

The Form DD254, Contract Security Classification Specification, indicates the requirement for Top Secret Facility Clearance. Are offerors required to have clearance prior to proposal submission? If not, will MDA act as sponsor for Top Secret clearance following contractor selection?

Yes, MDA will serve as the sponsor to the contractor awarded the contract if they did not currently have a Top Secret Clearance.

6 DRFP

CLIN 0304 is titled “Cost Estimating‐DP.” Option I CLIN 1304 is titled “Cost Estimating‐DP.” Option II CLIN 2304 is titled “Cost Estimating‐DP.” There is no CLINs for the individual DPL and DFF Stakeholders. Should this CLIN reflect “Cost Estimating‐DPL, DFF, or does it combine DPL and DFF support”? Yes, it combines DPL and DPF.

7 DRFP

CLIN 0405 is titled “Strategic Planning & Financial Mgmt‐DP.” Option I CLIN 1405 is titled “Strategic Planning & Financial Mgmt‐DP.” Option II CLIN 2405 is titled “Strategic Planning & Financial Mgmt‐DP.” There is no CLINs for the individual DPL and DFF Stakeholders. Should this CLIN reflect “Cost Estimating‐DPL, DFF, or does it combine DPL and DFF support”? Yes, it combines DPL and DPF.

8 DRFP

Section B uses the term "job" in referring to unit. Please clarify unit.

The term "job" is used to facilitate DFAS multiple billing for service contracts. It is not MDA's intention for offerors to complete the Quantity, Unit Price and CPFF.

9 DRFP Please consider modifying the term, 24 hours, to one business day This will be adjusted in the final RFP. 24 hours will be changed to two business days.

10 General

Given the tight timeframe between the date for questions to be submitted and the schedule release of the final RFP, does the Government anticipate providing answers to industry questions: (1) Providing answers to submitted questions prior to the release of the final RFP and (2) issues identified and submitted by industry incorporated into the final RFP?

Yes, answers to the questions will be provided prior to final RFP release and incorporated into the final RFP.

11 General

Does the Government anticipate any of the effort being conducted at a contractor’s facility? If so, can you clarify which PWS elements will be conducted at contractor facility?

Yes, the majority of the support for this effort is currently provided at Government locations. However, offerors can propose their most efficient technical approach.

HQ0147-15-R-0019

Business Operations

12 General

In each section the list of stakeholders is identified with the statement "Such As" which implies that the organizations listed are provided as examples and not an all‐inclusive set of stakeholders. Will a final list of stakeholders be provided with the final PWS? The Stakeholders are identified in the CLIN Structure.

13 General Please provide the Government's estimated level of effort by labor category for this requirement.

Please refer to Attachment L‐08. The Government has provided historical hours.

14 Historical Hours What is the man‐year that is used for the historical hours so that offerors may reconcile man‐hours to numbers of performing personnel? 1928 hours is used for a Man‐year.

15 Historical Hours Please identify if uncompensated overtime and/or extended workweeks are being used to deliver the identified hours by stakeholder. The Government does not have access to that information.

16 Historical Hours

Please provide a breakout of hours by Business Operations Labor Competencies in order to provide sufficient information to enable all offerors to develop a responsive solution relative to the current historical baseline of support.

Attachment L‐09 provides all historical information that the Government will provide.

17 Historical Hours & Product Tables

Is it the Governments expectation that the total number of work stations identified in the "Government Onsite Accommodations per Location" is the maximum number of personnel that can be proposed for the effort per location?

The Government does not have an expectation regarding the offeror's technical approach.

18 Historical Hours & Product Tables Is all support for this effort currently provided at the Government locations?

The majority of the historical hours include support at Government locations but the Government does not have an expectation regarding the offeror's technical approach.

19 Historical Hours & Product Tables Is the future support for this effort to be provided solely at the Government locations?

The Government does not have an expectation regarding the offeror's technical approach.

20 Historical Product Tables

For estimating purposes, is it correct for an offeror to assume an equal distribution of the products over each contract year? If not, will the Government please provide additional information on the frequency of the requirements to enable all offerors to accurately estimate the resources required to meet the requirements.

Attachment L‐09 provides all historical information that the Government will provide.

21 Historical Product Tables

Where an annual quantity is provided, e.g. 12, but multiple stakeholders are identified, is it correct to assume that the annual quantity is 12 and there are 17 stakeholders checked. Would this represent 12 briefings or 204 briefings?

Products listed are by stakeholder. In this example, the answer would be 204.

22 Historical Product Tables Can the Government provide any information regarding the variation of the level of effort for each product by stakeholder?

Attachment L‐09 provides all historical information that the Government will provide.

23 Historical Product Tables

Can the Government provide any insight (such as a range around the annual number) for the anticipated variation in transaction‐driven products where the number of products may change due to environmental constraints, such as incremental funding requirements?

Attachment L‐09 provides all historical information that the Government will provide.

24 Incentive Fee Plan When will incentives become effective (“XXth day after award”)?

The Government will update the Incentive Fee Plan in the final RFP to state 45 days.

25 Incentive Fee Plan Example of equally divided incentive fee between the two budget submissions is incorrectly referenced as the “Recon incentive pool.” Final RFP will be updated.

26 Incentive Fee Plan

Is this incentive plan based on software changes (“requirements/capabilities are completed by or in advance of MDA scheduled baselines”) or based on successful submission of the budget based on MDA internal schedule?

The Incentive Fee plan is based upon successful and timely submission of the budget. Software changes may or may not be required for successful submission. IAW Section 3.2.

27 Incentive Fee Plan

Attachment J‐16, Section 2.1, last paragraph references an Excel spreadsheet attachment to the Incentive Plan that includes detailed calculations and graphic illustrations for RIE, MIN and MAX fee, Optimistic and Pessimistic Costs for the base period and each option period; however, no attachment is provided in the solicitation documents. Will the attachment be provided prior to the release of the Final RFP or in the Final RFP?

Yes, the attachment to J‐16 will be included in the Final RFP.

28 Incentive Fee Plan We request the Government provide a copy of the Excel spreadsheet referenced on page 5 of the Plan. Yes, the attachment to J‐16 will be included in the Final RFP.

29 Incentive Fee Plan Is the Incentive anticipated to be the total fee for this effort or is the incentive in addition to a fixed fee bid on the contract?

The Incentive Fee is applied to the CLIN 500 series, all other CPFF CLINs are Fixed Fee.

30 Incentive Fee Plan What are the parameters of the fee, i.e., how much is the total fee pool against which the parameters will be assessed? Refer to Attachment J‐16.

31 Incentive Fee Plan What is the possible maximum fee and minimum fee ( as a percentage of cost or fee)?

The Government will provide the Incentive Fee Spreadsheet, which will determine, based upon the Contractor's input, the maximum and minimum fee.

32 Incentive Fee Plan Does the contractor need to deliver a set number of hours to obtain the cost incentive?

No, the incentive is based upon the Contractor's technical approach.

33 Incentive Fee Plan How does the Government plan to address changes in scope for the performance incentives?

This will be negotiated if necessary.

34 Incentive Fee Plan For the Recon Report, what if the number of discrepancies increases substantially from the anticipated baseline?

The Government does not anticipate the number of discrepancies to substantially increase from the baseline.

35 Incentive Fee Plan Will any adjustments be made to the contractor's ability to follow demand, particularly if this is driven by an external factor?

External factors have already been accounted for in the Incentive Fee Plan.

36 Incentive Fee Plan

What is the impact on incentive fee if changes to PRIDE are well beyond the current baseline for future budget submissions, e.g. will the Government re‐ negotiate incentive fee?

The Government does not anticipate the number to substantially increase from the baseline.

37 Joint Ventures

Clause H‐06 outlines and summarizes the types of insurance and coverage that must be carried by the Contractor. Does this apply to Joint Ventures? In other words, if all Members of the Joint Venture carry this level of insurance is that sufficient?

How H‐06 is applied to a Joint Venture depends on the structure of the JV. For a JV with a lead entity and contractually subordinate partners, the Government would expect the lead entity with whom it will have privity to meet H‐06 requirements.

If, however, the JV is a standalone legal entity made up of relatively co‐equal partners, the Government would expect the standalone JV legal entity with whom it will have privity to meet H‐06 requirements. An acceptable alternative would be for that JV to demonstrate each individual partner met H‐06 requirements AND they provided documentation showing the JV partners agreed amongst themselves to be jointly and severably liable for such risks.

38 Joint Ventures

For the purposes of PPI submission, in particular the requirement to submit prime contract experience as at least one of the ten PPIs, is the Joint Venture considered the Prime offeror or are the Joint Venture Team Members each considered a Prime offeror?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

39 Joint Ventures

The Draft RFP states that "Teaming agreements should be provided with a joint venture’s proposal along with its local SBA District Office point of contact and the SBA advisory opinion on the proposed joint venture." However, upon contacting the local SBA Office, we were advised to contact the Procuring Contracting Officer at MDA. What is your guidance for resolving this between the requirement that MDA has defined and informing and coordinating with SBA?

Can you provide guidance on the information that we should include as part of this “advisory opinion” from SBA?

Section L‐1.2 will be revised in the final RFP. It should be noted that the requirement to provide an advisory opinion from the SBA will be removed.

40 Joint Ventures

Second paragraph says “Offerors shall include a “roadmap” describing all changes in the organization of the offeror and any teaming partners. Do we have to submit a roadmap for the formal JV and each member of the JV, or just for the members?

The roadmap should be for the formal Joint Venture and each member of the Joint Venture

41 Joint Ventures

Please clarify that in the case of an SBA Mentor‐Protégé Joint Venture submitting an offer as the Prime offeror, past performance citations of the mentor and/or the protégé are considered to be those of the “Prime offeror.”

If the Joint Venture is an SBA Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, the past performance of the mentor and/or protégé will be considered as long as the past performance of the mentor and/or protégé meets the past performance requirements of the

RFP.

42 Labor Competencies

The ERI Labor Competencies in Attachment L‐07, Labor Category tab, reference an experience level. Does ERI define those experience levels with years of experience and education minimums? If so, would the Government provide that information to Offerors?

Yes, ERI does define those experience levels with years of experience or education minimums. Updates to L‐07 and L‐10 will be provided prior to release of the Final RFP.

43 Labor Competencies

Some of the RFP labor categories include requirements for Clearances and education. Some of the education requirements include a Master’s Degree.

Personnel with Masters Degrees often have higher compensation than those who only have Bachelor’s Degrees. Where the RFP Labor Competencies require MA/MS in related field, do the ERI DL ranges presented for realism and reasonableness purposes account for the compensation costs of a population that has Masters Degrees?

The labor categories and range of rates selected in the ERI take into account all the education, experience and location requirements for each labor competency.

44 Labor Competencies

Many of the labor competencies include a Security Clearance requirement. The dataset of ERI includes(primarily) commercial firms that do not have personnel with security clearances. It is the policy of many firms to increase compensation for particular clearances. How is the Government adjusting the ERI DL rates to accommodate the increased market cost of security clearances?

The labor categories and range of rates selected in the ERI take into account all the education, experience and location requirements for each labor competency.

45 Labor Competencies What is the periodicity of the ERI Direct Labor rates? The periodicity of the ERI Direct Labor rates is annual.

46 Labor Competencies

The Labor Category tab states experience level. Example: CPM Experience Level

15. Is this experience level a combination of education and work experience? If so, would there be a supplied list of requirements to compare to?

Yes, ERI does define those experience levels with years of experience or education minimums. Updates to L‐07 and L‐10 will be provided prior to release of the Final RFP.

47 Past Performance

In item 2 on the Consent Letter it states "We understand the Government is placing great emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value source selections", but on page 6 of the Evaluation criteria document it states that Past Performance will be result in a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" and that if an offeror fails to submit a past performance it will be evaluated as "Acceptable" per the following statement: "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." Since the Consent Letter instructions and the Evaluation Criteria appear to be in conflict, can the Government please provide guidance as to the role past performance will play in evaluating the proposals for this procurement?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

48 Past Performance

The Draft RFP notes that Past Performance will be included in the Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors. Given the importance of the Business Operations function across the MDA Enterprise, would the Government consider evaluating Past Performance in a more critical manner than simply Acceptable/Unacceptable? For instance, would the Government consider evaluating Offerors' Past Performance with both an adjectival rating similar to those used in Table M‐8 and a confidence level rating: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral, or No Confidence?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

49 Past Performance

Section M‐8.0 indicates that the only way to receive an "Unacceptable" rating on an individual Past Performance evaluation is to receive an "Unacceptable" on the quality rating. In other words, if an Offeror submits, for any reason, a PPI that is deemed "not recent" or "not relevant," this particular PPI will not be evaluated further and will not result in an "Unacceptable" rating. This appears to completely dilute the value of an Offeror submitting highly relevant and recent Past Performance references. Is this the correct interpretation of Section M‐8.0?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

50 Past Performance

With respect to Past Performance Section M‐8.0 also says that “If no identified past performance examples are recent or relevant… the offeror’s Unknown Past Performance will result in an “Acceptable” rating.” This seems to indicate that an irrelevant and out of date past performance is equivalent to submitting one that is relevant and recent. Is that the intent?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

51 Past Performance

Past Performance Requirements are very confusing. As written, the guidance indicates that if Company A submits NO PAST PERFORMANCES, and if the government is unable to identify any examples, then Company A still gets an acceptable. If Company B submits 10 Past Performances, nine of which are superb and meet all requirements, but one that does not, then Company B can get a grade of unacceptable and be removed from any further consideration. If this is correct then it is hard to understand why any company would accept the risk of including ANY Past Performances since they are being incentivized to not submit one. Is this correct?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

52 Past Performance

If the Government provides Offerors the opportunity to submit up to 10 Past Performances for its Team to demonstrate recent and relevant experience to perform the work required under the Performance Work Statement, then why is the Government not planning to evaluate the Team’s past performance with an adjectival rating to differentiate the strength of Past Performance among Offerors?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

53 Past Performance

The DRFP states that "L‐10.3 Past Performance Information (PPI), Attachment (L‐ 01): A maximum of ten PPIs may be submitted for the entire team. The team consists of the Prime offeror, its proposed subcontractors and/or joint ventures.

For those offerors that have prime contract experience, at least one of the maximum ten PPIs must reflect that past performance as a prime." Can a Prime submit no past performances even if the Prime has one prime past performance if it is not relevant?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

54 Past Performance

We assume that if submitted past performance(s) collectively (across a maximum of 10) represent the present / past performance effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes this solicitation requires, then the past performance will be evaluated as relevant and no risk adjustment will be applied. Is this correct?

The Government is currently reviewing the Past Performance requirement and in Sections L and M. Any changes will be reflected in the final RFP.

55 Past Performance

The RFP is unclear as to what constitutes a relevant past performance. Section M‐

8.2 states that “in determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of effort, being proposed by the offeror, Team Members, and Major Subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated”. This could suggest that a PPI would be determined relevant if that portion related to a single major area of Subfactor T1, such as Cost Estimating and Analysis. However, Table M‐4 suggests that in order to be relevant, each PPI must be of similar scope and complexity of the entire solicitation. We assume offerors PPIs that COLLECTIVELY & ADDITIVELY (but not individually) address the ENTIRE solicitation PWS, but do not have significant overlap with each other, would be considered relevant. Is this correct? Yes, these PPs would be considered relevant

56 Past Performance

As written, the Past Performance assessment can only be a Disadvantage to the companies, especially SBs, working on the current MiDAESS Task Orders. The Relevancy Assessment requires the offeror to have present or past performance effort of “similar scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities” of the solicitation in order to be graded “Relevant”. As written, a SB sub on the current MiDAESS DO Task Orders would not be judged “Relevant”. They would be “Not Relevant” because they would not meet the “and magnitude of effort and complexities” portion of the requirement. This SB, within the $15M NAICS restriction and with the relevant past performance on the current DO task orders would not be able to prime the Business Operations effort. Equally, if “similar magnitude and complexity” infers a $15M SB has demonstrated past performance on a $30M/year contract across all 6 DO functions, they are likely not going to be a $15M SB. On the flip side, a SB meeting the NAICS restrictions and no Business Operations past performance, relative to MDA or other agencies, and no knowledge of MDA can be judged “Acceptable”.

Recommendation: Do away with the qualitative verbiage… “similar scope and magnitude… and complexities..” requirement to be assessed as Relevant. As written, you are giving contractors with no proven experience an advantage over contractors that are executing the effort for the Agency today. A qualifying SB within the $15 NAICS would be disqualified from priming the Business Operations solicitation based on this verbiage and resultant rating.

The Government is reviewing the Past Performance requirement.

57 Past Performance

Subcontractor past performance is assessed by the contract Prime Contractor.

How will MDA ensure an unbiased assessment of relevant MiDAESS subcontract past performance if the MiDAESS prime contractor and subcontractor are competitors under TEAMS?

PPIs with completed Section I and II are submitted with the offeror's proposals. It is incumbent upon the prime and subcontractor to determine what PPIs are submitted for the team. Completed PPIs are submitted from the Government Assessor to the PCO in accordance with Attachment L‐02.

58 Past Performance

Are PPIs for major subcontractors submitted with the Prime's proposal or can the subcontractor submit the completed PPI directly to the Government?

Attachment L‐02 has been revised to state that only PPI's for the prime and subcontractor with complete Section I and II need to be submitted with the offeror's proposal

59 Pricing Spreadsheet

Draft RFP Item Numbers do not all match what is in the Section L‐07 Business Ops Pricing Workbook.xlsx file for CLIN numbers. For example Draft RFP has Item number 0307 as Cost Estimating‐DVM but the spreadsheet has the CLIN listed as "0307BaseGD‐3". Which Section L‐07 will be updated prior to Final RFP Release.

60 Pricing Spreadsheet

Under the paragraph labeled "Labor Resource Tab ‐ Subcontractors and IWTAs, a reference to a “next tier subcontractor.” What does this mean? Is this a subcontractor to a subcontractor (so‐called “second tier” subcontractor)?

Language will be updated in Section L to eliminated the term next tier subcontractor.

61 Pricing Spreadsheet

Are the Economic Research Institute (ERI) median and 90th percentile Direct Labor Rates addressed here and reflected in the Cost Proposal template represent Direct Labor only, Labor plus Fringe, or FBLRs?

Direct Labor Rate only.

62 Pricing Spreadsheet

TEAMS Labor Category descriptions are provided in Attachment L‐10 and do not reference minimum years of experience required to be eligible for a category, if any. Will the government provide minimum years of experience and educations requirements within the L‐10 documentation?

Years of Experience will be added to the Excel Pricing Workbook.

63 Pricing Spreadsheet

ERI Position Title and Experience Level in the “Labor Category” tab of the Excel Pricing Workbook (Attachment L‐07). ERI lists “experience level” represented as a single number. It is unclear if this number represents the minimum years of experience required, the maximum years of experience allowable, or if it represents a range? Can the government clarify the ERI experience level column?

The ERI experience level column will indicate a minimum experience level.

64 Pricing Spreadsheet

If an offeror can demonstrate a long history of successful, competitive performance with well‐populated labor categories that have direct cost above or below the Government’s best estimate, will the offeror be assigned a higher risk rating as a result of variance with the ERI salary assessor?

The offeror should provide justification if they have a direct cost that is higher or lower the range from the mean to the 90th percentile. Risk will be determined after the justification for the rates is evaluated.

65 Pricing Spreadsheet

DRFP states: “The Offeror must include proposed cost and fee, by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) and detailed by CLIN. The Offeror must define its CFY.” The RFP states that pricing must be proposed by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY). Attachment L‐07, Excel Pricing Workbook does not afford the opportunity to normalize rates across a non‐Contractor Fiscal Year.

Please clarify whether major subcontractors are to propose their cost and fee by their (Sub)Contractor Fiscal Year, or if they are to propose by their Prime’s Contractor Fiscal Year. Given the summaries and roll‐ups that accumulate data by Contractor Fiscal Year, it will be challenging to both estimate and develop the proposed level of effort and BOEs to accommodate multiple CFYs for pricing purposes, consolidate pricing (rates and hours) of the Prime and Multiple Major Subcontractors by CFY, if those companies’ CFYs are different, as there will not be a common CFY for the team.

The Government recommends the prime contractor require the subcontractor to propose their rates using the prime's fiscal year. The alternative is to use the EPW that will have additional columns for the conversion from subcontractor fiscal year to prime contractor year.

66 Pricing Spreadsheet

DRFP states: “The Offeror must include proposed cost and fee, by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) and detailed by CLIN. The Offeror must define its CFY.” The RFP states that pricing must be proposed by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY). Attachment L‐07, Excel Pricing Workbook does not afford the opportunity to normalize rates across a non‐Contractor Fiscal Year. If an offering team is to propose by the Prime contractor’s CFY, please adjust the Excel Pricing Workbook to accommodate normalization of direct and indirect rates to align a subcontractor’s CFY to the Prime’s CFY.

The Government recommends the prime contractor require the subcontractor to propose their rates using the prime's fiscal year. The alternative is to use the EPW that will have additional columns for the conversion from subcontractor fiscal year to prime contractor year.

67 Pricing Spreadsheet

DRFP states: “The Offeror must include proposed cost and fee, by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) and detailed by CLIN. The Offeror must define its CFY.”

The RFP states that pricing must be proposed by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY).

Attachment L‐07, Excel Pricing Workbook does not afford the opportunity to normalize rates across a non‐Contractor Fiscal Year.

In pricing by CFY, one Offeror’s alignment of labor hours in the Base Period may be vastly different than another Offeror’s alignment of hours to the Base Period, given an estimated start date of 20 January. For example, an offeror who has a March – Feb CFY would have a very short base period (~1 month), whereas another offeror who has a Feb – Jan CFY would have a very long base period. This could make comparison of offerors challenging. Would the Government consider requiring all offering teams to propose by a common Contract Fiscal Year?

The Government recommends the prime contractor require the subcontractor to propose their rates using the prime's fiscal year. The alternative is to use the EPW that will have additional columns for the conversion from subcontractor fiscal year to prime contractor year.

68 Pricing Spreadsheet What escalation rate was used to escalate / adjust the Direct Labor rates to align to the 2016‐2021 period of performance?

Each offeror will determine their own escalation rate. The Government will determine the realism and reasonableness of the proposed rates.

69 Pricing Spreadsheet

The timing of the Proposal submission could be such that an Offeror who had an FPRA or Approved Billing Rates in the previous Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) no longer has one due to a very recent submission of a new Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) to DCMA/DCAA which must be used for all proposal pricing purposes. Please confirm the Government will accept DCMA/DCAA Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR) or Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRR) in lieu of an FPRA and in lieu of populating the Indirect Build‐up table.

If the Offeror submits a DCMA/DCAA FPRR, the Indirect Build‐up table does not have to be populated.

70 Pricing Spreadsheet What is the expected escalation rate from CFY to CFY?

Each offeror will determine and propose their own escalation rate.

71 Pricing Spreadsheet

Is the ERI data inclusive of pay scale with regards to security clearance requirements?

The labor categories and rates selected in ERI take into account all the education, experience, and location requirements for each labor competency.

72 Pricing Spreadsheet

The offeror must include proposed cost and fee by "contractor Fiscal Year (CFY)".

If the CFY does not coincide with Government FY, does the Government still want the cost and fee proposed by CFY?

Yes.

73 Pricing Spreadsheet

Please confirm second‐tier subcontracting is allowed by MDA. (“Prime offerors, IWTAs and major subcontractors must include minor subcontractor prices in the Excel Pricing Workbook Formats.”)

Second‐tier subcontracting is allowed by MDA.

74 PWS

Section 7.0(a) of the Performance Work Statement provides travel data indication that 250 trips were requested primarily in three performance objectives. Over what time frame do the 250 trips represent.

These trips were as needed over the entire Period of Performance.

75 PWS

For PWS 3.1.1.f, in what format should the "analysis on various alternatives" be provided and how often should this analysis be presented?

The formats vary but are within the Microsoft Office Suite of products and will be presented as needed.

76 PWS

For PWS 3.1.1.i, does this review require interface from contractors representing both the core programs and elements? How are disconnects adjudicated?

This review requires interface from contractors and Government representing both core programs and elements. Disconnects are adjudicated through consensus with Government personnel.

77 PWS

For PWS 3.1.1.n, to ensure level playing field across all competitors, please provide information on format and frequency of these requests and reports. This paragraph will be removed from the PWS in the final RFP.

78 PWS

For PWS 3.1.2.c, can the Government provide any additional information on the extent of these reviews (frequency and level of detail)? Refer to Attachment L‐11 Historical Product Table.

79 PWS

For PWS 3.1.2.d, the Government's requirement is to "Support the program offices in preparing requests for changes to financial execution controls, as frequently as weekly." Are these requests for exceptions to control requirements, rather than changes to the controls themselves? This paragraph refers to the execution controls themselves.

80 PWS

For PWS 3.2.3.b, in what format is the cost library to be maintained? Is it completely in electronic format (e.g. folder, online database) a physical library, or both? Is user access approval and control (physical and/or electronic) also part of library maintenance?

The cost library will be electronic and as well as hard copy. User access approval and control is part of library maintenance.

81 PWS

For PWS 3.2.3.d what is the estimated frequency with which the DOC handbook will be updated? The DOC handbook will be updated as needed.

82 PWS

For PWS 3.2.3.e what existing databases are to be maintained under the scope of this PWS?

These databases contain rates or other cost estimating related parameters for analysis needs.

83 PWS

For PWS 3.3.1.c, please provide further details into the Excel‐based software tool used by the Agency. To promote effective competition and avoid unfair competitive advantage to performing incumbent contractors, we request the tool currently used by MDA and the capabilities that reside in this tool. This information is required to enable all offerors to be in a position to "recommend database design operations and functionality changes or upgrades."

A product sample will be provided in the final RFP.

84 PWS

For PWS 3.3.1.f, does MDA desire a separate database to be created for each contract, or is it MDA's intent for the contractor to maintain an individual EVM record for each contract with earned value in the internal tracking database referenced in 3.3.1.c.

MDA's intent is for the contractor to maintain an individual EVM record for each contract.

85 PWS

For PWS 3.3.1.h, how does MDA define the contractor role in this process, WRT the inherently governmental functions associated with contract surveillance and assessment against the corrective action plans?

The contractor's role is to assist the Government in performing EVM surveillance and assessment.

86 PWS

For PWS 3.3.1.i, is this an MDA specific report? What are the required data fields determined by the Agency? A product sample is provided.

87 PWS

For PWS 3.3.1.j, is this a separate database from the database referenced in 3.3.1.c? If so, can the contractor integrate these databases as part of an innovative approach? This PWS paragraph will be corrected in the final RFP.

88 PWS

For PWS 3.3.3c‐d, how many databases does DOV use and/or anticipate the contractor will use to manage and track Earned Value? There is only one Excel‐driven database per contract.

89 PWS

For PWS 3.4.1.h, please clarify the content requirement for these data calls and what/how the results should be reported and whether there is an official MDA report format? The results reported are based upon an OSD report format.

90 PWS

For PWS 3.4.4.b, does the Government have any NULOs already beyond these periods (i.e., is there a reconciliation backlog?) and what is the contractor's anticipated requirement in ensuring completion of NULO's and UMD's that are beyond current timelines/standards?

The Contractor will be required to assist the Government in any and all NULOs.

91 PWS

For PWS 3.4.4.h, what is the triage process for these inquiries and how do inquiries escalate, based on the content and type? What is the level of interaction required by contractors for this task order and contractors/owners of transactions related to other contracts?

The Government triages the inquiries and the Contractor will assist in reconciliation.

92 PWS

For PWS 3.4.4.i, in order to support a level playing field across all bidders, can the Government provide the anticipated volume/workload of this effort?

Attachment L‐09 provides all historical information that the Government will provide.

93 PWS

Does MDA's fully integrated business systems strategy include integration of DAI with WAWF? Does MDA have an interface that updates expenditures and lines of accounting throughout each system to alleviate the repetitive nature of updating obligation and expenditure information in numerous databases? DAI and WAWF have a file interchange.

94 PWS

Are all program offices required to maintain their 1‐N list in Ccar or is it up to the discretion of the BFM?

All program offices are required to maintain their 1‐N list in

CCAR.

95 PWS

Does MDA own the technical data rights to Ccar, DAI, PRIDE, etc. or will the developers of these programs remain as core integration members to any changes suggested by other companies?

MDA owns the data rights to PRIDE. CCAR is a commercial system, and DAI is centrally managed by the DLA Program Management Office. The Contractor will not be required to maintain CCAR and DAI.

96 PWS

The requirement for submission of a Quarterly Self‐Assessment has been incorporated into the PWS but has no corresponding CDRL. The PWS will be updated upon release of the final RFP.

97 PWS

Title of this PWS section duplicates Para 8.3. It appears Para 8.4 should be titled Government Furnished Property (GFP). PWS will be corrected when the Final RFP is released.

98 PWS Paragraph 8.4 appears to be misnamed. PWS will be corrected when the Final RFP is released.

99 PWS

PWS 3.1.1.k notes that MDA presently utilizes the PRIDE Manpower System to support management of manpower resources. In PWS 3.1.1.l, MDA's requirement is to "ensure internal manpower and personnel databases are synchronized." Is this referring solely to the reconciliation of PRIDE to FMTS or are there additional databases that must be reconciled? If so, what are they?

PWS will be corrected when the Final RFP is released.

100 RFP

The DRFP states that "The Contractor shall provide all necessary materials, labor, equipment, and facilities incidental to the performance of this requirement."

Please clarify the last sentence on page 63 or 131 in the RFP, Section C‐01.

Should it state:

"The Contractor shall provide all necessary materials, labor, equipment, and facilities incidental to the performance of this requirement when performed at the contractor facility."

This statement is used across all MDA Contracts.

101 RFP

H‐TEAMS states the fixed fee shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed. Please provide the process and who is responsible for determination of percentage of work completed. Will the percentage of work completed be assessed monthly prior to the submission on the invoice?

The fixed fee shall be incurred as a percentage of Costs invoiced each month. There is no process or individual that determines the percentage of work completed.

102 RFP

Since MDA has support requirements at various locations, please define non‐ local Travel.

Non local travel is defined as "travel within the local area or base of assignment to attend meetings, conferences, seminars or perform work shall be considered a cost of doing business and shall not be separately reimbursed as a travel expense. Local area travel is defined as a 30 mile radius around the base of assignment or designated place of performance." This update will be added to the final RFP PWS in Section 7.0.

103 Section F

Estimated start date described in Section L‐14.0 page 21 indicates estimated start date of January 20, 2016 while the POP Delivery Dates in Section F ‐ Delivery Information on page 68 indicates start date as Jul 21, 2016. Should the July 21, 2016 estimated start date be the same for both sections?

The Period of Performance will be corrected in the release of the final RFP.

104 Section F

Section F states a period of performance that starts July 21, 2016. Section L states that, for proposal purposes, the estimated start date is 20 January 2016. If this 6‐month disparity is accurate, it will create challenges for firms to deliver cost within the target that they set with their proposal. Recommend that the start date for proposal purposes be as accurate as possible, and align to the CLIN Performance dates in section F.

Section L will be corrected in the Final RFP.

105 Section L

The last sentence says the estimated start date is 20 January with a three year base and two 1‐year options. This appears to be inconsistent with contract being phased in by expiration of MiDAESS Task Orders. Section F shows a phased implementation of the initial CLINs – 21 Jul 16, 29 Jul 16, 31 Jul 16, 7 Sep 16. Is there an inconsistency between Sections L and F. Section L will be corrected in the Final RFP.

106 Section L

Please clarify the footnote to make clear that for purposes of compliance with the Limitation on Subcontracting and completing Table L‐3 that the “50% rule” applies and that, in the case of SBA Mentor‐Protégé Joint Ventures exempt from affiliation under 13 CFR Section 121.103(h)(3), the cooperative effort of the joint venture member companies can be used to meet the 50% requirement. Table L‐3 will be updated prior to Final RFP release.

107 Section L

Can you please define "efficient competition" as used in L‐2.3 for this solicitation? Is there a specific number of proposals you envision as allowing "efficient competition"?

The Government will conduct an initial evaluation of all proposals in accordance with Section M. For efficiency, the PCO may decide to limit offerors to include in the competitive range using all volumes and evaluation factors as stated in RFP Section M.

108 Section L

Concerning the "experience" referred to in the criteria for Earned Value Management. Is EVM experience supporting MDA required? If not, can either the prime or a subcontractor have experience in EVM as a prime or a subcontractor with another government or commercial contract qualify as experience?

Experience with another government or commercial contract would qualify.

109 Section L

In both the Section L and Section M paragraphs cited, there is a distinct difference in the description for Strategic Planning, Manpower, and Financial Management from the descriptions for the other 4 functional areas. The phrase "Capability to perform" is used in the description for Strategic Planning, Manpower, and Financial Management while the phrase "Experience with" is used to describe the other 4. Does this difference in wording reflect a lesser or different level of experience required for Strategic Planning, Manpower and Financial Management? Can the Government please clarify if there is an inconsistent description for the functional areas? Sections L and M will be corrected in the Final RFP.

110 Section L

On page one a “Major Subcontractor is defined as one whose proposed effort provides at least 10% of the proposed total price of the contract AND/OR a subcontractor that performs a critical function in performance of the contract, AND/OR have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the offeror’s proposal. On page 21, a “Major Subcontractor” is defined as any subcontractor that contributes more that 10% of the hours proposed.

Recommend consistency in definitions. Please refer to the footnote on Page 1 of Section L.

111 Section L

We assume that if a team had a single PPI that met all requirements across the board, that submitting a single PPI would be considered adequate and that there is no minimum number of PPI that must be submitted. Is this correct? There is no minimum number of PPI's that must be submitted.

112 Section L Can a lack of PPIs be used to determine that a prime is not a responsible contractor?

Please refer to Section L 2‐11, Contracting Officer's Responsibility Determination.

113 Section L How will the government ensure that the evaluation for the Transition Plan is competition friendly?

The Transition Plan will be evaluated in accordance with Section M 10‐3.

114 Section L

We understand that there are six incumbent contractors; do each of their contracts end on the same date? If not, would the government consider providing those end dates to support the development of the transition plan?

The contracts do not end on the same date. The ends dates can be determined via Section F of the DRFP. Section L‐14.0 will be updated in the final RFP.

115 Section L Will the government consider not evaluating transition costs to encourage competition?

The Government will evaluate all costs that are applicable to the Contract execution.

116 Section L

We assume when the prime offeror has no prior "Prime" past performance, it is fully acceptable that all other PPI references come from subcontractors and the proposal will not receive a negative risk rating. Is this correct?

For offerors with no prime experience, the decision to submit PPI is up to the company; however, for those instances where no PPI is submitted, we refer you to section M‐8.0. The Government will actively research available resources for past performance in those instances where no PPI is submitted. If a subcontractor's PPI is determined to be unacceptable, then the overall Past Performance Factor will be assessed as unacceptable. This is the case whether the prime submits a PPI or not. Also note that PPI will be evaluated against the portion of work in the PPI. Therefore, if the subcontractor PPI represents a portion of the total contract, it will be evaluated for relevancy to that portion of the contract scope. Regardless of whether it's a prime or subcontractor PPI, a single PPI rated as unacceptable automatically results in an unacceptable rating at the factor level.

117 Section L

We assume when the prime offeror has no prior "Prime" past performance, potentially all other PPI references may come from one or more subcontractors to the prime and still receive a rating of "acceptable." Is this correct?

For offerors with no prime experience, the decision to submit PPI is up to the company; however, for those instances where no PPI is submitted, we refer you to section M‐8.0. The Government will actively research available resources for past performance in those instances where no PPI is submitted. If a subcontractor's PPI is determined to be unacceptable, then the overall Past Performance Factor will be assessed as unacceptable. This is the case whether the prime submits a PPI or not. Also note that PPI will be evaluated against the portion of work in the PPI. Therefore, if the subcontractor PPI represents a portion of the total contract, it will be evaluated for relevancy to that portion of the contract scope. Regardless of whether it's a prime or subcontractor PPI, a single PPI rated as unacceptable automatically results in an unacceptable rating at the factor level.

118 Section L

In order to promote cost realism, would the Government permit offerors to propose non‐key, named personnel at their actual Direct Labor Rates (substantiated by payroll data), in their cost proposals? In some cases, this may mean multiple personnel and multiple rates per location and labor category.

Using actual, non‐key personnel would provide a greater degree of accuracy and realism to direct labor rates for this Cost‐Type proposal.

Offeror's shall not propose names for non‐key personnel.

119 Section L

For key personnel, would the Government accept payroll records to substantiate and determine the realism and reasonableness of the individual’s DL costs, even if the individual’s DL rate is higher or lower than the ranges established by the ERI data?

If needed, the Government can request offeror's to provide payroll records.

120 Section L

There is reference to “Evaluation will also be done at the task order level on a case‐by‐case basis. This appears to be old MiDAESS language. TEAMs contracts are not expected to be Task Order contracts. Please clarify.

Correction to Section L‐1.5 will be made before release of the final RFP.

121 Section L

The Government intends to award a single small business set‐aside, cost plus fixed fee. Should include cost plus incentive fee also be included in this language in view of CLINS associated with Financial Systems support?

The final RFP will be updated.

122 Section L Third paragraph that says …”historical hours by stakeholder for the Safety requirement”… Should “Safety” be replaced with “Business Operations”?. The final RFP will be updated.

123 Section L This paragraph calls out using Microsoft Office 2007. This is a fairly outdated version of MS Office. Is that the version the government wants to use? The reference to Microsoft Office 2007 is correct.

124 Section L

“With the exception of the Cost and Price Volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any other volume. Is it correct to assume this does not apply to the required data in the Small Business Plan (Volume V)?

Yes, that is correct.

125 Section L

The TEAMS Business Operations permits offerors to submit a maximum of two…