Draft_RFP_QA_FBO_ITMA_8.22.16.pdf

Information Technology Management and Analysis Draft RFP

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

Section L L-11.1, p18 Section L-11.1 states, "the offeror shall clearly describe their approach and understanding, including a performance risk assessment, to execute ALL PWS requirements." (emphasis added). Given the page limitations on the Technical volume, would the Government concede that Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraphs 4-10 can be addressed in other areas of the proposal. Would the Government either revise Section L or provide specific guidance where each of these paragraphs should be addressed within the proposal?

In accordance with Section 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. Each response to each subfactor shall be self-contained. The Government will consider an increase in page count for the Technical Volume in the final Request for Proposal.

Section L L-10.1, p. 17 First reference defines major subcontractor in terms of "the proposed total price of the contract." Second reference defines it in terms of "hours as proposed by the offeror for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) combined, excluding Surge CLIN." Please clarify the definition of major subcontractor.

Paragraph L-1.2 defines "Major Subcontractor" for all instances except Cost/Price. For Cost/Price, the definition for "Major Subcontractor" appears in L-13.1.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Historical Hours Previous TEAMS solicitations have included a file entitled "Historical Hours by Stakeholder."

No such file is provided with the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP).11.2, L-11.3 and M-7.1, M-

7.2 and M-7.3, and Attachment L-09 Historical Information. Does the Government plan to update these and any other broken references in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP)? Please confirm that such a file will be provided as part of the final Request for Proposal (RFP) to facilitate competition by providing offerors historical context of spend rates.

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. This will be provided in the final Request for Proposal.

A Draft document is provided as an attachment with Question & Answer responses.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Attachment J-11 Attachment J-11 and Attachment L-07 "Labor Category" tab list a different set of labor categories. In addition, Attachment L-07 references Attachment L-10 for Government Labor Competency Level Descriptions which was not provided. Please clarify which attachment includes the correct labor categories. Also, please confirm that the missing Attachment L-10 will be provided as part of the final Request for Proposal (RFP) to facilitate pricing analysis.

The offerors must ensure the personnel they place in the labor competencies meet the experience requirements in Attachment L-10. Attachment L-10 will be provided as part of the final Request for Proposal. The final Request for Proposal will correct this reference issue.

5 Section L

L-2.10 & Attachment L-09 Last paragraph, 3rd sentence, p. 6

A table identifying annual historical hours by stakeholder for the Cybersecurity and Risk Management requirement is attached as Attachment L-09. Referenced information is missing from cited attachment. Please include table of information, preferably parsed by stakeholder organization and location in final Request for Proposal (RFP).

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. This will be provided in the final Request for Proposal.

A draft document is provided as an attachment with Question and Answer responses.

Approved for Public Release 16‐MDA‐8805 (15 August 16)

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

6 Section L

Section L Instructions and Attachment L-07 L- 13.4, "Labor Resources tab" paragraph, pg. 25 and L-07, "Labor Resources" tab

The proposed Labor Hours must be listed and identified by PWS, prime/subcontractor name, labor category, location, site, CLIN, and Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) level of detail.

Attachment L-07 shows allocation examples at the 2nd level PWS level (i.e., 3.X) only. Does this indicate that BoE resource justification at this level meets expectations? If 2nd level is the expectation, please confirm. If deeper granularity is expected, please indicate the level expected and modify Attachment L-07, "Labor Resources" tab, column B pull down menu items to indicate expected granularity. Offerors shall comply with the allocation provided in the final Request for Proposal, Attachment L-07.

PWS,

Attachment J-01 and Attachment

L-09

Attachment J-01 and

L-09 EXAMPLE: J-

01 paragraph 3.4.3

pg. 18 and L-09, Table "Performance Objective #4", pg. 6

PWS 3.4.3 has multiple sub paragraphs that include "historical" quantities for items that do not correlate to items in the corresponding Historical Information (L-09) citation. Please confirm that a complete Product to PWS historical items (product and quantity) mapping will be provided with final Request for Proposal (RFP) to facilitate understanding and response.

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. This will be provided in the final Request for Proposal.

A Draft document is provided as an attachment with Question and Answer responses.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Bidders Library Can government supply a Bidder's Library Table of Contents for early reference (prior to receipt of Bidders Library CD)? Without knowledge of Library contents, bidders cannot determine if sufficient information, such as examples or data item descriptions of the expected products, is available for evaluation and estimate

A "Bidders Library Disk" is under development and will be released upon request by interested offerors after final Request for Proposal release in Federal Business Opportunities.

9 Section L

Section L-2.10, page 6 Bidders' Document Library

"Requests for the Bidders' Documents CD may be submitted to TEAMS_ITMA@mda.mil."

The Bidder's document request email of TEAMS_ITMA@mda.mil has been returned as undeliverable, despite multiple efforts. Please advise when to expect the request email address will be activated and/or repaired.

The email address TEAMS_ITMA@mda.mil is activated and working since the release of the Draft Request for Proposal.

Approved for Public Release

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

Sections L & M Section L Instructions Section M Evaluation Criteria L-11.1 Technical Subfactor 1:

Technical Expertise Approach

M-7.1 Subfactor TS1: Technical Expertise/Approach

"Section L: The offeror shall clearly describe their approach and understanding, including a performance risk assessment to execute all PWS requirements. The offeror shall provide a written narrative demonstrating their approach to satisfying all PWS requirements. Section M:

This subfactor measures the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach exhibits a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and demonstrates the ability to satisfy all PWS requirements.

While the Government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s (inclusive of team members) understanding of the entire scope of work and approach to satisfying all PWS requirements."

Paragraph 3.0 and its sub paragraphs specifically address technical requirements. Is it the Government's intent to require Offerors to address PWS paragraphs 4.0 through 10.0 in the response to Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Expertise/Approach? OR Paragraph 3.0 and its sub paragraphs specifically address technical requirements. We respectfully request that the Government allows Offerors to address paragraphs 4.0 through 10.0 in Volumes III, V, and VIII, as appropriate.

In accordance with Section 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. Each response to each subfactor shall be self-contained. The Government will consider an increase in page count for the Technical Volume in the final Request for Proposal.

Section L Section L Instructions L-12.0, Per Table L-1: Proposal Organization, the reference for L-12.0 should be Volume VIII not Volume IX. Please clarify.

The final Request for Proposal will correct this reference issue.

Section L L-13.0, page 20 Per Table L-1: Proposal Organization, the reference for L-132.0 should be Volume IX not

Volume X. Please clarify. The final Request for Proposal will correct this reference issue.

Section L L-5.0, pages 13-14 Has the Government eliminated the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management Plan requirement for the IT Management & Analysis solicitation?

The government has eliminated the Organizational Conflict of Interest Management Plan evaluation factor. Offerors shall pay close attention to the requirements of Section L-1.5 Notice Regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest – Determination to Participate in This Acquisition (JAN 2015).

Attachments Exhibit A - A007 Section 16: Contract Title: Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Cybersecurity

Management / Computer Network Defense. The Contract Title seems to be an artifact from another solicitation. Please confirm or update as needed.

The final Request for Proposal will correct this reference issue.

15 L Attachments Attachment L-10

Is it acceptable to substitute years of experience for educational requirements? For example, may the Offeror substitute a BA/BS and a number of years of experience for a MA/MS degree.

This request applies to Engineer, Advanced; Analyst, Advanced; Specialist, Advanced; and Technician, Advanced.

The Government will provide an updated labor competency description attachment in the final Request for Proposal.

Approved for Public Release

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

16 Section L

Section L Instructions L-11.1, page 18, 19

Technical Subfactor: Technical Expertise/Approach. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) describes 5 "Performance Objectives", however, Section L-11.1, page 19 states that the offeror's shall: (1) demonstrate an understanding and approach for satisfying all PWS requirements, and (2) emphasize an understanding of the work and demonstrated approach in the following areas: Enterprise IT Architecture, Engineering & operations, Unified communications services and systems, and Regional IT, CIO and functional operations (i.e., performance objectives 1, 2, and 3). 1) Are these 3 performance objectives of equal importance to each other? If not, please indicate order of importance. 2) Are these 3 performance objectives considered to be significantly more important than the other 2 performance objectives (i.e., #4 Knowledge & Information Management and #5 Capital Planning & Investment Control)? 3) Is an understanding and approach to all 5 performance objectives required, or just for the first 3 performance objectives?

Offerors shall follow instructions in Section M-2.9 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions for the order of importance of the Technical Subfactors. Paragraph 3 states "Technical Subfactors TS1, “Technical Expertise/Approach” is more important than TS2, “Technical Staffing Approach.”

17 Request for Proposal (RFP)

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), page

46, Clauses Incorporated by full text

Clause 52.204-21 Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems. Will there be unclassified Controlled Technical Information (UCTI) provided to the contractor to be stored on Contractor information systems? Will contractors be developing any UCTI at contractor site, and subsequently on contractor information systems? How will all UCTI be accurately marked by Missile Defense Agency (MDA)? If no, is compliance with the new FAR Rule 52.204-21(b)(1) for contractor information systems adequate?

There may be times that the contractor will generate CUI data in the contractor's facilities.

The Government will provide MDA computers as GFP but the proposal should assume that not everyone on the team will have an MDA computer and must generate this data using company systems.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

General Advisory and Assistance (A&AS) support of this nature is difficult to quantify without historical data or workload indicator data. Will the government provide additional workload indicator data to assist the offeror in developing a basis of staffing estimate?

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. This will be provided in the final RFP. A Draft document is provided as an attachment with Q&A responses.

19 Section M M-6.2

Can the Government please explain how they will quantify dollar value in the context of relevancy? In other words, if a citation is below a certain dollar threshold, will it be deemed not relevant? If so, what is that dollar threshold? Relevancy of Past Performance will be determined in accordance with Section M-6.2

Relevancy Assessment and the level of relevancy for the offerors’ past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in TABLE M-5: Factor F4 Relevancy Definitions. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, Team Members, and Major Subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

Section M M-6.2 Can the Government please explain how they will quantify and define complexity in the context of relevancy? Reference answer 19.

Section M M-6.2 Can the Government please explain how they will quantify and define magnitude in the context of relevancy? Reference answer 19.

Approved for Public Release

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

Section M M-6.2 M-6.2 states, “In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, Team Members, and Major Subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated” That said, if an offeror has a specialized niche subcontractor who specializes in one particular area (i.e. PWS 3.2 Unified Communications Services), what relevancy rating would they receive if their citation only addressed one PWS two-level element?

This scenario assumes they meet other areas identified in M-6.2 (i.e. complexity, dollar value, contract type, etc.)

Reference answer 19. The Government cannot provide a complete response of how this offeror's Past Performance Information would be evaluated with respect to relevancy.

This is a subjective evaluation performed by the Government evaluation team.

Section L L-10.4 Section L-10.4 states that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) that do not correspond to submitted Past Performance Information (PPIs) might not be evaluated. Given the competitive nature of the competition and number of companies with similar experience and prime contractor customers, there may be instances where a company that performs work as a subcontractor may not be able to get a completed Past Performance reference from their Prime Contractor for relevant work they wish to cite (for either competition purposes or the Prime Contractor policy).

Also, it is likely the subcontractor would not have a direct relationship with the end Government customer given their role on that particular contract.

How would the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) view/assess an incomplete or non-responsive PPI questionnaire in this instance?

The Government will review all Past Performance Information submitted and in accordance with Section M 6.3, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will utilize ratings in assessing quality of performance relative to contract performance information obtained from other sources to include but not limited to: Past Performance Questionnaires, Past Performance Information Retrieval System , Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Procuring Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract management Agency.

Attachments The required forms Past Performance Information, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPI, PPQ, etc.) are in Adobe PDF. Would the Government consider providing Word versions in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) for consistency and to alleviate potential issues with conversion?

Attachment L-01 Past Performance Information and Attachment L-02 Past Performance Questionnaire will be provided in Word format and made available upon release of the final Request for Proposal. The provided word documents are provided for ease of use but shall not be reformatted.

25 Section L L-13.5 #10 BOE Would the Government please confirm that this is only for Key Personnel proposed, or is the expectation to provide rationale for all labor category rates?

L-13.5#10 is for all proposed labor category hours inclusive of Key Personnel and all other personnel being proposed on this solicitation. The aforementioned section does not pertain to rates.

Section L L-2.10 Bidders' Document Library

Will the Government consider releasing a list of available documents on the Bidders Library CD to allow requests for additional items (i.e. SLAs, Updated Portfolio Information, etc.) to be presented and added prior to Final Request for Proposal (RFP)?

A "Bidders Library Disk" is under development and will be released upon request following the release of the final Request for Proposal.

Approved for Public Release

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

Section L L-3.2 Does this section mean that the prime is allowed to submit two “distinct” proposals? And is the submission restricted solely to differing technical and/or management solutions and not pricing?

As stated in Section L 3.2, alternate and contingent proposals are not allowed.

If an offeror elects to submit two proposals, each proposal shall be separate, discretely priced, and fully compliant with all stated terms, conditions, and performance requirements set forth in this solicitation. Page limits and all other proposal preparation instructions in this Request for Proposal apply to each separate proposal. The submission of more than one proposal is simply an opportunity to propose differing technical and/or management solutions to accomplish the Performance Work Statement requirements.

Section L L-12.1 Does the Government have an anticipated number of "key personnel" identified or is it up to the Prime to identify the number and key personnel proposed?

It is up to each offeror to propose their unique Technical Staffing approach and the number of key personnel is determined by the offeror.

Sections L & M L-12.2 & M-8.2 Is there a limit on the number of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that may be proposed as "Key

Personnel?" There is no Limit to the number of Subject Matter Expert's that may be proposed

Section M M-7.1 The Government indicates all Performance Work Statement (PWS) areas will be assessed and evaluated for technical merit. However, in this section the Government indicates that three (3) areas will have more emphasis placed in the evaluation than others; can the Government please provide guidance on how these three areas are weighted vs each other? Offerors shall follow instructions in Section M-2.9 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and

Conditions for the order of importance of the Technical Subfactors. Paragraph 3 states "Technical Subfactors TS1, “Technical Expertise/Approach” is more important than TS2, “Technical Staffing Approach.”

31 PWS Para 7.0

Does the Government have an estimate of the number of trips, personnel required and location for travel vs “expect to travel 10% - 25% of the time to various locations”…which include both Continental United States (CONUS)/Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) locations?

The Government has established the specified dollar amounts for Travel based on the factors mentioned. The amounts can be found in Section L, paragraph L-13.4 of the Request for Proposal. The Prime Offerors Section B must reflect these amounts.

Attachments L-09 Historical Information

We noted that the product tables provided in Attachment L-09, Historical Information, have been cross walked to the performance objectives in the new TEAMS Information Technology Management & Analysis (ITM&A) Performance Work Statement, but that the PWS numbers within the tables still reference the MiDAESS Task Order IC-01-14 PWS. Should we assume that the product tables provided in Attachment L-09 will be the product tables for the TEAMS ITM&A effort or will the Government be providing product tables specifically for the TEAMS ITM&A procurement? If new product tables are to be provided, when will those be made available to potential offerors to review and comment on?

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. Draft document provided as an attachment with Question & Answer (Q&A) responses and will be an attachment in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). The Government will update and provide Attachment J-01a Historical Key Product Tables and update the PWS specifically for the TEAMS ITMA procurement in the final Request for Proposal (RFP).

Attachments L-09 Historical Information

The Work Product Information does not provide an estimated timeframe to complete each report. What are the specific report requirements and historical metrics regarding a timeline to complete specific reporting requirements? Are there unclassified copies of each report type in the Bidder’s Library, if so please specify? If not, when will the government provide sample reports for modeling purposes?

The Government will provide an updated Information Technology Management and Analysis Performance Work Statement and associated key product tables which will address specific report requirements. The Government is currently assessing the feasibility of providing sanitized versions of sample reports for this effort. If feasible, sample reports will be included on the Bidder's Library CD.

Approved for Public Release

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

Attachments L-09 Historical Information

Performance Objective No. 1 states that it is required to provide a quarterly IT Asset and Configuration Management Report. Will MDA will provide government furnished automated toolsets that monitor and report changes to the network or attached devises? If no, is it the government expectation that the Contractor will provide those toolsets? What specific automated support tools will the Government provide?

The final Request for Proposal for the TEAMS Information Technology Management and Analysis requirement will clarify whether or not Government Furnished Equipment will be provided for the purposes of IT Asset Configuration Management.

Section L Instructions, Conditions, and

Notices to Offerors, Page 30 states that Attachment 11 is the Bidders’ Documents Library Index. However, Attachment 11 in the DRFP package is the MDA OCI Policy Memo 51 14 Oct. 2015. Please clarify if the Attachment 11 information listed in Section L is incorrect or the Amendment 11 that is provided is incorrect.

The final Request for Proposal will correct this reference issue.

General General

If contractors have previously provided Organizational Conflict of Interest OCI Disclosure Forms to the Government in relation to other MDA TEAMS Request for Proposals RFPs, do they need to resubmit the OCI Disclosure Forms again specifically for MDA TEAMS IT Management and Analysis RFP?

If an offeror has already submitted Organizational Conflict of Interest Disclosure forms to Missile Defense Agency, another submission to receive a preliminary, written advisory approval to participate in this acquisition is not required. However, offerors shall pay close attention to the requirements in Section L-1.5 Notice Regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) – Determination to Participate in This Acquisition (JAN 2015) and submit the required information with their proposals.

Section L L2.10, Bidders' Documents Library, “A table identifying annual historical hours by stakeholder for the Cybersecurity and Risk Management requirement is attached as Attachment L-09; also provided is the Historical Product tables for the Cybersecurity and Risk Management requirement as Attachment L-11.”

Should this state IT Management and Analysis instead of Cybersecurity and Risk Management? Additionally, Attachment 11 that is provided with the DRFP package is the MDA OCI Policy Memo not the Historical Product tables. Attachment L-09 appears to provide historical product tables information. Please clarify if Attachment L-09 is supposed to provide annual historical hours by stakeholder and Attachment L-11 is supposed to provide historical product information.

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. This will be provided in the final Request for Proposal.

A Draft document is provided as an attachment with Question & Answer responses.

Section L Labor Category Tab

The Labor Category Tab Section it lists years of experience for positions. Will the government provide the years of experience in Attachment L-10 for the labor categories?

The Government will provide an updated labor competency description attachment in the final Request for Proposal.

Section L Historical Hours

Will the Government provide an updated Draft RFP to include annual historical hours by stakeholder prior to the RFP release?

The Government will revise Attachment L-09_Historical Information which will contain Historical hours by Stakeholders. Draft document provided as an attachment with Question & Answer responses.

General General The FedBizOpps announcement assigns a NAICS of 541712 with a Small Business Size Standard of 1,250 employees. NAICS 541712 normally includes a size standard of 1,000 employees, unless work to be performed is in Aircraft, Engine, and Parts or Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles or their Propulsion Units and Parts. Work to be ordered under this opportunity is defined as a “broad array of Information Technology areas” that do not include intimate knowledge of Aircraft, Engines, Parts or Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles or Propulsion Units/Parts. Will the Government revise the size standard to 1,000 to accurately reflect the size standard of the work to be performed?

NAICS 541712 includes a sub-industry, “Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles, their Propulsion Units and Propulsion Parts.” For this sub-industry, which is widely used within Missile Defense Agency for the acquisition of services, the size standard, i.e., threshold, for categorizing a business entity as a small business is 1,250.

Approved for Public Release

August 22, 2016

Request for Proposal (RFP)

/ Attachment

Page #, Paragraph Reference Question / Comment Response

Attachments Labor Category The Contract Program Manager labor category description states that a Top Secret security clearance is required, although there are no specific PWS requirements related to the CPM at the top secret level. With the DoD initiative to reduce the number of clearances as well as the existing backlog of clearance requests, requiring a TS for a position that historically has not required access to TS materials seems counter to DoD’s initiative and would be hampered by the backlog of clearance requests. Could the Government relook at the requirement for a TS clearance and instead make it TS eligible?

The final Request for Proposal will contain an updated Performance Work statement, Labor Competencies and the historical data which will identify the clearance requirements.

Section L L2.10, Bidders' Documents Library, Section L.2-10 Bidders’ Documents Library refers to the Cybersecurity and Risk Management requirement rather than the IT Management and Analysis requirement. In this section, the L- 09 attachment is said to be annual historical hours. The L-09 provided is Key Product Tables.

Section L.2-10 referred to L-11 as the Bidder’s Document Library Index. The L-11 provided with the DRFP is the OCI Policy Memo. (Section L-14.0 also lists L-11 as the Bidder’s Document Library Index). Will the Government be providing the L-11 Bidder’s Document Library Index?

Section L-09 Historical Information is posted with the Federal Business Opportunities announcement. The original Section L Attachments were replaced with revised Section L Attachments on the same day. The revised attachments can be accessed via the link.

Section L-2.10 Bidders’ Documents Library defines the process to request the Bidder's Document library.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Section G Due to the contract being funded by multiple agency customers and multiple lines of accounting, on other MDA contracts, we have seen the wording in Section G, CLAUSES

INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT, 252.204-0002, LINE ITEM SPECIFIC: SEQUENTIAL

ACRN ORER. (SEP 2009), be replaced with “PGI 204.7108(d)(12) -- Pursuant to PGI 204.7108(d)(12) Other, the payment office shall make payment in accordance with the contractor’s invoice, (e.g., by specific CLIN and by specific ACRN) due to the Missile Defense Agency’s funds allocation methodology. This Contract will be funded by multiple Agency customers and multiple lines of accounting (LOA), therefore, the payment instructions set forth in 252.204-0002 LINE ITEM SPECIFIC: SEQUETIAL ACRN ORDER (SEP2009) and PGI 204.1708(d)(1) through (d)(11) are not appropriate.” We recommend the Government consider making this change in the final RFP.

The Missile Defense Agency plans on using DFARs clause 252.204-0002 LINE ITEM SPECIFIC: SEQUENTIAL ACRN ORDER. (SEP 2009) in the resultant ITMA contract.

Attachments L-07 We are assuming this is a draft document and the final will be aligned with the PoP and labor categories specific to this RFP. All Contract Line Item Numbers in Attachment L-07 will be aligned with the solicitations Period of Performance and provided with the final Request for Proposal.

45 Section L L-12.0, page 19 The Management volumes are misnumbered. It should be VIII rather than IX. Likewise in Section L-13.0, the Cost/Price volume should be IX rather than X.

The Government will review and any corrections will be made in the final Request for Proposal.

FBO

Announcement

Per the FBO announcement, it specifically states “As you review the Draft RFP you will see an opportunity to submit a request for an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) determination.

Please reference Attachments L-05, L-11 and J-12. Requests should be sent to TEAMS_OCI@mda.mil. Requests are due no later than July 22, 2016.” If a company have previously submitted the OCI forms in regards to a previous MDA TEAMS RFP, do we need to submit the OCI forms again specifically for the MDA TEAMS IT Management and Analysis opportunity.

If an offeror has already submitted Organizational Conflict of Interest Disclosure forms to Missile Defense Agency, another submission to receive a preliminary, written advisory approval to participate in this acquisition is not required. However, offerors shall pay close attention to the requirements in Section L-1.5 Notice Regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest – Determination to Participate in This Acquisition (JAN 2015) and submit the required information with their proposals.

Approved for Public Release