TEAMS_International_Affairs_Industry_Questions_ _Responses_7.27.15.pdf

TEAMS International Affairs

Industry Questions and Responses

HQ0147-15-R-0024

Subject Location Reference Question Response

1 Section L Section L, Attachment

L-07

Section L, Attachment L-07 I wanted to let you know that attachment L-07 did not post. The excel pricing workbook is what is missing.

Attachment L-07 will be included in final RFP.

2 Draft RFP Section K, Pg. 63 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications

52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS (DEC 2014)

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330.

(2) The small business size standard is 1,000 employees.

Per the U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business

Size Standards (effective July 14, 2014) the size standard for

NAICS code 541330 is based on dollars ($15M or $38.5M respectively) however Section K of the Draft Solicitation identifies the size standard being determined based on employees. Please provide clarification soon as possible in order for us to make a determination of eligibility to bid as a prime contractor prior to investing significant time and financial resources into a contractual pursuit for which we are ineligible.

The NAICS code 541330 will be updated to reflect size standard of $15M in final RFP.

3 Section L L-2.10, p. 6 L-2.10, p. 6 Request a copy of the Bidder’s Documents CD for the draft TEAMS

International Affairs RFP, solicitation HQ0147-15-R-0024. As required in L-2.10 of the draft RFP, please see the requisite information below in support of our request.

Instructions for access to Bidders’ Documents CD will be provided in final RFP.

4 Section J Attachment J-10, Section 2.1, p. 4

Attachment J-10, Section 2.1, p. 4 Attachment J-10 International Affairs Incentive Plan HQ0147-15-R-

0024 states on page 5 Section 2.1 that “The Excel spreadsheet attachment to this Incentive Plan includes detailed calculations and graphic illustrations for RIE, MIN and MAX fee, and Optimistic and Pessimistic Costs for the base period and each option period.” I could not find any Excel attachment that meets this description. Is it in the package that was posted for the draft RFP?

The Excel Pricing Workbook will be included in final RFP.

5 Draft RFP Section K, Pg. 63 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications

Per clause 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS (DEC 2014) of the RFP, the NAICS is listed as

541330, however the size standard is listed as 1000 employees.

According to the Small Business Administration, the size standards associated with the 541330 NAICS code (including exceptions) are listed by corporate revenue, not number of employees. Did the USG intend for the size standard to be $38.5M instead?

The NAICS code 541330 will be updated to reflect size standard of $15M in final RFP.

HQ0147-15-R-0024

6 Section L Section L,-12.1, p. 19 252.227-7013: Rights in

Technical Data--Noncommercial

Items.

252.227-7014: Rights in

Noncommercial Computer

Software and Noncommercial

Computer Software

Documentation.

Per Sec. L Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Offerors, para. L-

12.1 (Subfactor TS1: Technical Expertise/Approach), the Offeror’s proposal should place emphasis on the “capability to perform and understanding of PWS requirements for technical data and computer software (CS), algorithms and related models (see DFARS 252.227-

7013 and 252.227-7014) to be produced or developed.” In reading the PWS, neither algorithms or models are addressed in Sec. 3

(Performance Objectives and Detailed Requirements). In addition, per Sec J, Attachment 01A (Int’l Affairs Key Product Table), there are no modeling or algorithm products to be developed. Can the

USG please elaborate on the needs for expertise with computer software, algorithms, and models for DI? In addition, can the USG please clarify to which PWS tasks this Sec. L requirement applies?

Offerors are expected to describe their proposed approach to identifying and applying contractor team capabilities in satisfying all PWS requirements, including any that involve technical data, computer software, algorithms, or related models.

7 Section L Section L-2.10, p. 6 Section L-2.10, p. 6 We respectfully request access to the Bidder’s Library for the

International Affairs portion of TEAMS.

Instructions for access to Bidders’ Documents CD will be provided in final RFP.

8 Section L Section L-2.10, p. 6 Section L-2.10, p. 6 Per the draft MDA TEAMS International Affairs RFP, requests a copy of the Bidder’s Document CD at your earliest convenience.

Instructions for access to Bidders’ Documents CD will be provided in final RFP.

9 Section L Attachment L-07 Attachment L-07 L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) (See Attachment L-07).

Attachment L-07 Excel Pricing Workbook appears to be missing from the list of attachments. Would the Government please post with a revised Draft RFP?

Attachment L-07 will be included in final RFP.

10 Section L Attachment L-07 Attachment L-07 L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) (See Attachment L-07).

Would the Government release the ERI Position Titles, Minimum

Experience Levels, Survey Mean and 90th percentile salary data with a revised Draft RFP?

The ERI Position Titles, Minimum Experience Levels, Survey Mean and 90th percentile salary data will be included in final RFP.

11 Section L Section L-14.5, p. 28 Section L-14.5, p. 28 Page 28, L-14.5 Cost and Price Volume Narrative (Word Doc).

Would the Government revise this section to state that a

DCMA/DCAA letter of system approval or audit report of the offeror’s respective estimating, purchasing, accounting systems and

CAS Disclosure Statements will satisfy subparagraphs 4) thru 7)?

No, these subparagraphs specify additional Government requirements.

HQ0147-15-R-0024

12 Section M Section M, Factor F2,

p. 4

252.204-7012 Safeguarding of

Unclassified Controlled Technical

Information.

Section M FACTOR F2: Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan includes the following: "The offeror shall address each of the NIST

800-53 Cybersecurity controls identified in DFARS clause 252.204-

7012, Table 1, Minimum Security Controls, provide a definition of all “organizationally-defined” cybersecurity controls in that table, and address remediation of shortfalls.

Section L VOLUME III: CYBERSECURITY RISK

MANAGEMENT PLAN also include the phrase "used by all contractors and subcontractors": 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.

Question: I am a small business. Per the DRPF, company staff supporting MDA tasks will be collocated with the Government client and use Government-furnished office space and IT equipment. In this case, what constitutes compliance with these DFARS and NIST cybersecurity controls if a small business does not own its corporate email and IT systems (e.g., those systems and functions are outsourced)? Must a small business define all “organizationally-defined” cybersecurity controls,” for IT systems and services I do not own?

The Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan evaluation criteria will be deleted from final RFP.

13 PWS Section 3.0, p. 4 Section 3.0, p. 4 Page 4, PWS Section 3.0, Table 3.0) Will the government provide any guidance on the amount of effort associated with each region

(NCR, DHL, HSV, COS)?

Yes, the Government will provide additional guidance in final RFP.

14 PWS Section 3.1a, p. 5 Section 3.1a, p. 5 Page 5, PWS Section 3.1a.1), 2nd Sentence: The sentence begins

“Assist in Prepare executive…” Is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to “Assist in preparing executive …” or “Prepare executive …”?

Yes, the contractor will assist in preparing executive level briefings.

15 PWS Section 3.1b, p. 6 Section 3.1b, p. 6 Page 6, PWS Section 3.1.b.4) 1st Sentence: “… represent the USG as needed”. It is presumed that the contractor will provide direction or make decisions on behalf of the USG. Would the Government please clarify this requirement?

The final RFP will be amended to reflect that the contractor will support the USG as needed by providing substantive and administrative assistance.

16 Draft RFP Section I, p. 47 52.215-10 Price Reduction for

Defective Certified Cost or Pricing

Data

RFP Section I, page 47: 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective

Certified Cost or Pricing Data Aug 2011, This solicitation is competitive; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required.

Please consider the deletion of this clause.

This clause will not be deleted as it would apply if only one proposal is received or the Government requires certified cost or pricing data during contract performance.

HQ0147-15-R-0024

17 Draft RFP Section I, p. 47 52.215-11 Price Reduction for

Defective Certified Cost or Pricing

Data – Modification

RFP Section I, page 47: 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective

Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modification Aug 2011. This solicitation is competitive; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please consider the deletion of this clause.

This clause will not be deleted as it would apply if only one proposal is received or the Government requires certified cost or pricing data during contract performance.

18 Draft RFP Section I, p. 47 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified

Cost or Pricing Data

RFP Section I, page 47: 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or

Pricing Data Oct 2010. This solicitation is competitive; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please consider the deletion of this clause.

This clause will not be deleted as it would apply if only one proposal is received or the Government requires certified cost or pricing data during contract performance.

19 Draft RFP Section I, p. 47 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified

Cost or Pricing Data

RFP Section I, page 47: 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or

Pricing Data –Modifications Oct 2010. This solicitation is competitive; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required.

Please consider the deletion of this clause.

This clause will not be deleted as it would apply if only one proposal is received or the Government requires certified cost or pricing data during contract performance.

20 Draft RFP Section I, p. 47 52.215-21 Requirements for

Certified Cost or Pricing Data and

Data Other Than Certified Cost or

Pricing Data -- Modifications

RFP Section I, page 47: 52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

– Modifications Oct 2010. This solicitation is competitive;

therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please consider the deletion of this clause.

This clause will not be deleted as it would apply if only one proposal is received or the Government requires certified cost or pricing data during contract performance.

21 PWS Section 1.1, p. 2 Section 1.1, p. 2 Will the government provide any guidance on availability of onsite facilities? Onsite government facilities, especially in the NCR, are crowded and may not necessarily support contractor staffing requirements.

The Government will provide guidance on availability of onsite facilities in final RFP.

22 PWS Section 3.2, p. 8 Section 3.2, p. 8, Regional and

Global Policy Affairs Advice and

Assistance

Task 3.2 Regional and Global Policy Affairs Advice and Assistance:

Just a comment that the Guidance for the Development of the Force

(GDF), listed in the PWS, no longer exists. The GDF was combined with another now defunct document, the Joint Planning Guidance, and is now called the Defense Planning and Programming Guidance.

The Government will update the PWS to reflect the consolidated directive, Defense Planning and Programming

Guidance.

23 Section L Attachment L-10.1, p.

Attachment L-10.1, p. 17 Attachment L-01: Past Performance Information form

Will MDA permit bidders to modify the Past Performance

Information form in order to more effectively utilize the space? For instance, may bidders eliminate extra text embedded in the questions so long as all the required elements are retained in the PPI Form?

Offerors may modify the form to more effectively utilize space, but should not eliminate any original text.

HQ0147-15-R-0024

24 Section L Attachment L-09 p. 1 Attachment L-09 p. 1 Attachment L-09 identifies Annual Historical Hours by Stakeholder.

Within this table, five areas are called out with various Annual

Hours

Question: Is the IA RFP response to include all hours for all five

Stakeholders or should the proposal be specific to the IA Directorate of 7,398 hours?

Attachment L-09 will be revised to include historical hours for only four stakeholders. SN as a stakeholder will be removed from this Attachment in the final RFP. The

Offeror's proposal should include costs for those stakeholders identified as CLINs in Section B to perform the requirements of the PWS.

25 Draft RFP Section K, Pg. 69 52.219-1 Small Business Program

Representations

It is also noted that this is a small business set-aside.

Question: Will the usual cost considerations be given if a small business is located within a Hub Zone?

This acquisition is a small business set-aside competition;

there is no price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns.

26 Draft RFP Section, p. 63 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications

Section A (page 2) states the solicitation is a Small Business Set

Aside; Section K(a)(1) (page 63) states the NAICS Code is 541330 and (a)(2) states the size standard is 1,000 employees. The size standard is incorrect. Recommend using $15M as normally prescribed by this NAICS.

NAICS code 541330 will be updated to reflect size standard of $15M in final RFP.

27 Section L Section L-1.5, p. 2 Section L-1.5, p. 2 Section L-1.5.e(1) states “An offeror which has already submitted the OCI Disclosure Form(s) to the contracting officer and received an OCI advisory letter does not have to re-submit the forms with its proposal.” Will the Government accept submission of the OCI advisory letters for the Prime and each subcontractor in the proposal submission in lieu of following paragraph L-1.5.e? The ambiguity is with proposal submission requirements if an offeror received a satisfactory advisory letter.

Offerors are not required to submit OCI advisory letters received from MDA with their proposals, but must comply with all procedures of paragraph L-1.5.

28 Section M Attachment L-07 Attachment L-07 Attachment L-07 was not released with the DRAFT RFP.

Recommend releasing Attachment L-07 as soon as possible and allowing potential offerors to make comments and ask questions.

Attachment L-07 will be included in final RFP.

29 Section M Section M-8.3, p. 7 Section M-8.3, p. 7 Paragraphs M-8.3 states “A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.” Should this be revised to state “A single quality rating will be assessed for each recent and relevant PPI, but will not be assessed for each PPI found not recent or not relevant?”

This sentence will not be revised as M-8.3 already states quality is only assessed against recent and relevant contracts; this sentence emphasizes there will be only one quality rating for each such contract.

30 Section M Section M-8.3, p. 7 Section M-8.3, p. 7 Paragraphs M-8.3 states “A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.” Should this be revised to state “A single quality rating will be assessed for each recent and relevant PPI, but will not be assessed for each PPI found not recent or not relevant?”

This sentence will not be revised as M-8.3 already states quality is only assessed against recent and relevant contracts; this sentence emphasizes there will be only one quality rating for each such contract.

HQ0147-15-R-0024

31 Section M Section M-8.0, p. 5 Section M-8.0, p. 5 We are trying to evaluate the contracts for which we will provide

Past Performance Information. If a quality assessment is not performed (due to lack of relevancy or recency) will this result in an unacceptable rating of the example, and therefore, result in

“Unacceptable” at the overall factor level? Or will ‘not relevant’ examples be excluded from the acceptable/unacceptable quality assessment – and therefore not affect the factor level determination?

Past performance information that is not relevant or recent will not receive a quality assessment, therefore it will not be evaluated.

32 Section M Section M-4.0, p. 4 Section M-4.0, p. 4 Paragraph M-4.0 states the government will evaluate “adequacy of its procedures for complying with MDA OCI Manual 5013.78-M.”

We requested a copy of the Bidders’ Documents Library on the day of DRAFT RFP Release and have still not received the CD (as of 19

June). Is the MDA OCI Manual included in the Bidders’ Documents

Library?

The MDA OCI Manual will be included in Bidders’

Documents CD in final RFP.

33 Section M Section M-4.0, p. 4 MDA OCI Manual 5013-78-M Since the MDA OCI Manual is not yet available and preliminary

OCI Disclosure forms are due to the Government 01 July, we recommend either publishing the manual as soon as possible or extending the due date for preliminary assessment on OCI disclosure forms and supporting documentation.

The MDA OCI Manual will be included in Bidders’

Documents CD and final RFP will establish a new due date.

34 PWS PWS PWS Will the contractor (Prime and/or Sub) be required to obtain and maintain Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) to support the

PWS?

Only the prime contractor will be required to obtain and maintain a TAA.

35 Draft RFP Section J -

Attachments

Section J, Attachment 01 Section J, Exhibit A was not included. Please release Exhibit A as soon as possible.

Exhibit A will be included in final RFP.

36 Draft RFP Section D, D-01, p. 23 Section D, D-01, p. 23 Will the government accept third party deliveries of proposals?

Please provide third party delivery instructions for commercial delivery (FedEX, UPS, etc.).

Instructions for delivery of hand carried proposals will be provided in final RFP.