HQ0858-20-R-0007 TN-Intelligence Consolidated QA 07.21.2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-20-R-0007
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This solicitation requests proposals for intelligence and counter-insider threat services to support the Missile Defense Agency. Key requirements include providing acquisition, technical, current and cyber intelligence support throughout the missile defense system life cycle as well as implementing insider threat policies. The cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract will have a two-year base period and two two-year options plus one six-month option. Proposals are due by September 21, 2020. Eligible offerors must be registered in SAM. The NAICS code is 541690. Questions are due by August 31 and shall be sent to the identified email addresses.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | Draft RFP Attachment L-05 Intelligence EPW 6-10-20 | Rates Tab | Row 27 and 28 | Row 28 specifies a Level III Technical Intelligence Engineer at Redstone Arsenal and Row 27 a Level IV Technical Engineer at Shriever AFB, CO. Please verify that the Level III Technical Intelligence Engineer will be located at Redstone Arsenal vice Schriever AFB, where it is on the current TEAMS Intelligence contract | Consider whether this was an error. | The Level III Technical Engineer is at Redstone Arsenal (ref: SOW page 37). | |
| 2 | Attachment J-05 & L-05 | The government is requesting pricing by government fiscal year but also requesting CLINs to be priced based on the periods of performance in Section B | Will the government allow offerers to propose based on the periods of performance instead of creating multiple rates and pricing to meet the GFY and PoP differences? This would allow complete traceability between the rates and the cost summary cost element spreadsheet | No, The CLIN Prices on the Cost Roll-up Worksheet should align to the Period of Performance. Blending Contractor Fiscal Year rates into Government Fiscal Year rates is only required on the Rates worksheet. | |||
| 3 | Attachment J-05 & L-05 | Due to the variety of colored cells and formulas in the spreadsheet can the government highlight areas for input or formula modifications in specific colors to make it clearer and reduce impact on the government formulas? | No. Offerors are expected to correct and modify the RFP EPW to match the offeror accounting system etc. The RFP EPW It is not a form to be filled out. Its an example of the utility the proposed EPW must provide. Unique to TEAMS Next RFPs -- the Level of Effort worksheet in the EPW also communicates the MDA requirement of Labor Category, Location, and number of hours. | ||||
| 4 | Attachment L-05 | The benchmark rate escalation formula appears to be incorrect. Please confirm that offerors may update the formula accurately represent their escalation rate. | Yes, update formulas as needed. The Direct Labor Benchmarks are for 2021. Offeror may propose any realistic labor escalation for the out years. RFP Section L addresses cost realism. | ||||
| 5 | Attachments J-11, J-12, J-13 | Please confirm these documents are being provided as an example of monthly reporting while the contract is under performance, and these attachments are not required for the proposal submission. | Correct. | ||||
| 6 | Section L | Page 21 | 11.1 | Proposing uncompensated overtime to meet the RFP requirements is prohibited. | Federal contractors with a policy requiring employees to record all hours worked are required by DCAA to consider all hours worked when developing direct labor cost estimates and when determining the allocation base for allocating indirect cost pools. Failure to do so often results in a finding of noncompliance with disclosed accounting practices, 48 CFR 9904.418, Allocation of Direct and Indirect Costs, 48 CFR 31.201-4, Determining Allocability, and potentially could serve as the basis for an allegation of defective pricing. The Government’s stated evaluation methodology of using direct labor rates for FLSA Exempt personnel based on a 40 hour work week gives the appearance of requiring an offeror to propose in direct contravention of its disclosed accounting practices and serves to overstate the proposal. Unless an individual works on only one activity during a reporting period, it is impossible to determine which effort was performed outside the standard 40-hour work week. While some hours in excess of 40 per week are attributable to direct effort, the remainder are attributable to indirect activities such as proposal development, training, and other activities which are charged to indirect expense pools such as overhead or G&A. Under Full / Total Time Accounting, it is all hours charged (direct, indirect, and paid absence) that determine the effective hourly rate for the resource and the allocation of base compensation expense to projects or indirect cost accounts. Would the Government consider allowing offerers to propose on the basis of their disclosed practices and DCAA approved rates and factors? | "Proposing" uncompensated overtime to meet the RFP requirements is prohibited. This is to prevent offeror from buying-in by proposing to work salary employees a unrealistic number of hours per year. Post award, Offerors should accumulate cost in accordance with their approved business systems. | |
| 7 | In Section L, it appears that the FPRA, FPRR & FPRP are acceptable for direct and indirect rates. Attachment L-05 is asking for a detailed indirect rate build up. | Please confirm that this tab only needs to be completed by offerers that do not have an FPRA or FPRP to support their indirect rates since offerers with an FPRA or FPRP already have these extensive pool and base details on file with organizations such as DCAA and DCMA. | Yes, the Indirect Rate Build-up worksheet is not required if the proposed indirect rate are from an offeror's FPRA, FPRP or a DCAA/DCMA provisional rate agreement. See Section L Paragraph 11.5: "The Offeror, IWTAs, and all major subcontractor(s) must substantiate all indirect rates included in their proposals by providing one of the following: a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA), DCAA/DCMA provisional billing rate agreement in or attached to the cost narrative, or by providing an Indirect Build-up table showing rate history and projections of each indirect rate proposed. " | ||||
| 8 | The benchmark average labor rates are extremely inconsistent between each location for individual labor categories. For example, the difference between the benchmark rates for the Contract Technical Lead at Schriver AFB Colorado, and Redstone Arsenal, AL is only 3%. However, the difference between the benchmark rates for the CInT Area Lead in these two locations is 47%. | ||||||
| Generally, salary differentials for two cities are relatively similar for all positions. Location differentials that vary so significantly across the labor categories may be an indication that benchmark data is either understated or overstated. | Respectfully request that the government review and revise the benchmark data to ensure more consistency in the relativity of all data between particular cities, e.g. minimize the range of differences between salaries at Ft Belvoir and Restone Arsenal across all labor categories. | In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the benchmarks take into account the salaries of the predecessor workforce and MDA unique responsibilities and skills. Consequently some benchmarks may appear higher than mean direct labor rates found in labor surveys. |
| 9 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Level of Effort Tab | Given the current COVID-19 situation limiting some government-site performance, we respectfully recommend that a portion of this effort be priced at Contractor Site indirect rates, particularly if it is expected that any portion of this work be it in the base year or any other year, is expected to be performed at Contractor site or otherwise "not-Government-Site." | Incorporate Contractor Site into the Level of Effort tab and allocate a reasonable quantity of hours to be priced using Contractor Site rates; update the Indirect Rate Build-up tab to incporporate both government site and contractor site indirect rates. | No. The support locations are on-site in Government SCIFs. The Government is not requiring the offeror to have, nor will the Government sponsor, locating a SCIF in a contractor facility. | |
| 10 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Level of Effort Tab | Would the government provide offerors with the source ERI data that informed the benchmark rates in the Level of Effort Tab? Specifically, the ERI labor category and years of experience used. | No -- ERI is a subscription service that is available to the public. In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the benchmarks take into account the salaries of the predecessor workforce and MDA unique responsibilities and skills. Consequently, some benchmarks may; or may not, match the mean direct labor rates found in labor surveys. If the offeor believes any direct labor benchmark is too low, the MDA would consider industry feedback. | ||
| 11 | Draft Section L-L6-L7 and M | 29 | 11.6 | It is typical in most other Cost-type RFPs / proposals for key personnel to be bid at their actual current Direct Labor rates. In this RFP, it appears that offerors are to bid in accordance with the ERI DL ranges. This approach could lead to proposed prices that are less accurate and certainly come with less visibility into the true costs of contract performance. |
| We assume that the Government expects proposed direct labor rates to align to their key personnel, and that supporting data should demonstrate this alignment as a part of their direct labor substantiation in their cost volume. Additional clarity or confirmation of this assumption in the final RFP is recommended | No, and as long as the key personnel average direct labor rate proposed is equal to or great than the RFP Benchmarks no justification of the direct labor rate in required. | ||||||
| 12 | Draft Section L-L6-L7 and M | 29 | 11.6 | In order to promote cost realism, we assume the Government wants offerors to develop the most accurate cost proposal possible. While the government EPW wants one rate per labor category/ location and does not want names in the EPW, would it be acceptable for offerors to develop their direct labor rates based on the actual people they intend to deliver, and provide this information in the explanation of pricing and backup data supporting proposed costs? If this is correct, we suggest it be made clearer in the RFP. | No, and as long as the average direct labor rate proposed is equal to or great than the RFP Benchmarks no justification of the direct labor rate is required. | ||
| 13 | Section L | Level of Effort Tab | Please confirm that offerors may modify the Indirect Rate Build-up tab, and any other related tabs, to introduce multiple indirect rates representing all participating cost centers an offeror may be proposing. | Yes, offerors must modify the Indirect Rate Build-up worksheets (if required), and any other related worksheets, to introduce multiple indirect rates representing all participating cost centers an offeror may be proposing. | |||
| 14 | Section L | Page 22 | 11.4 | The DRFP evaluation states that proposals will be evaluated for affordability, which is defined as “An affordable proposal does not force the Government to make unacceptable budget trade-offs.” | If the current incumbent has knowledge of the current budget for this program, recommend that the Government provide their budget amount in the final RFP, to assist offerors in preparing more competitive proposals and to help ensure that there is no misunderstanding with regard to the scope of the effort. | TEAMS-Next budget information is source selection information and is appropriately protected. | |
| 15 | Section L and Attachment L-05 | Offerors proposing average direct labor rates less than these benchmarks will receive an unfavorable assessment in the form of cost realism adjustments to the proposed direct labor rates up to the benchmarks. This adjustment will be reflected in the Offeror’s total evaluated price. | This could lead to offerors proposing direct labor rates that they are not able to actually produce or that company internal data does not support. As a cost-type contract, cost risk resides with the Government, whereby if the offeror cannot produce actual resources at the proposed rates, or aligned to the benchmark data provided, there is no financial penalty to the Contractor. |
Recommend that the final RFP require all offerors to substantiate their proposed direct labor rates, even if they are above the benchmark rates, to ensure that offerors are not blindly bidding DL rates aligned to the benchmark data without demonstrating that they can produce actual qualified resources at the proposed DL rates.
| No, and as long as the average direct labor rate proposed is equal to or greater than the RFP Benchmarks no justification of the direct labor rate is required. | |||
| 16 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Labor Category tab | The benchmark data is identical for a number of labor categories that have differning qualifications. This does not appear to be realistic or reasonable, as there should be different benchmark data when the years of experience increase or decrease, or when other requirements or skillsets change. |
For example, the following labor categories (with notable requirements in parenthesis) share the same benchmark DL rates despite significantly different experience and/or education requirements:
CInT Area Lead (BA/BS degree and 15 yrs Project Management Experience) Current Intel and Ops Support Analyst (Level IV) (10 years experience, no degree) Acquistion Intelligence Program Support Analyst 1 (10 years experience, no degree) Acquisition Intelligence Program Support Analyst 2 (6-10 years' experience, no degree) Acquisition Intelligence Program Support Analyst 3 (6-10 years' experience, no degree) Acquisition Intelligence Requirements (6-10 years' experience, no degree) Sensor and Data Management ANalyst (Level IV) (10+ years experience, no degree) Cyber Intelligence Analyst (Level IV) (7+ years experience, no degree) Counter Insider Threat Analyst 1 (BA/BS *or* 10 years experience) Counter Insider Threat Analyst 2 (BA/BS *or* 10 years experience) Counter Insider Threat Analyst 3 (MA/MS *or* 10 years experience)
| Counter Insider Threat Analyst 4 (MA/MS *or* 10 years experience) | Recommend that the benchmark data be reviewed and revised to better differentiate between experience requirements and skillsets. | The Government is not planning to revise benchmark data or position descriptions at this time. | |||||
| 17 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Labor Category tab | Many labor categories suggest that personnel fulfilling the labor category possess a degree or have experience (commonly, 10 years of experience). Please confirm that for these labor categories, the years of experience requirement applies only if the individuals performing these labor categories do not possess the required degree. In other words, the requirement is for a bachelor's degree + 0 years of experience, or no degree + 10 years of experience. Example labor categories include: | ||||
| Counter Insider Threat Analyst 1 - 4 (Level IV) | See revised CInT Analyst labor descriptions within the SOW. | ||||||
| 18 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Labor Category tab | Many of the labor categories do not require a degree. Would the government establish a general substitution for experience if personnel have a degree? For example, a BA/BS substitutes for 4 years of experience if no degree is required. | Establish a general substitution for experience if personnel have a degree above and beyond the labor category requirement | No, experience in lieu of education is tailored to the support required…not one size fits all. | ||
| 19 | Section L | 2 | 1.5 | The use of non-government personnel for acquisition support only refers to their prohibition for competing for these services. | Request the following be added "non-Government advisors will not be provided access to any proprietary cost or pricing information of respondents and will be prohibited under the NDA's from sharing any information to any parties outside of the PCO office during the course of the evaluation and subsequent contract performance." | The government requires this support from non-government advisors to conduct the source selection. Please follow the instructions in Section L paragraph 1.5 for processing non-disclosure agreements with the companies identified. MDA will be removing Lintech & CACI from Section L paragraph 1.5. | |
| 20 | Section L | 4 | 1.6 | There is significant emphasis on actual, perceived, mitigation, assessment and resoultion of Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) to final course of action that should the prospectve awardee not meet the standard then the next highest rated awardee will be considered. | Recommend removal of the last sentence of 1.6d) on page 5. "The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interests of the United States." OCI is a critical component of the evaluation and this 'catch-all" statement would essentially dimish all the efforts made by firms to meet the MDA's criteria. It would seem that if such an accomdation can be made then either the citeria is too stringent or the evaluation is flawed and such could be protested. | IAW FAR 9.503, an Agency head may waive an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). | |
| 21 | Section L | 8 | 3.2 | This prohibits "alternative proposals" which are defined as those that "...deviate in any way from the solicitation terms and conditions...", yet paragraph 5.3 on page 13 permits taking "...exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions…" and providing rationale which implies that the Government will consider such. | Recommend removal of the prohibition to Alternative proposals on page 8 OR removal of paragraph 5.3 on page 13. | Paragraph 5.3 and Tab 3 Solicitation Exceptions Matrix is included to identify exceptions that are non-compliant with paragraph 3.2. | |
| 22 | 13 | 5.5 | How does the Government distinquish between a proposal with "ground rules and assumptions" as compared to "Contingent proposals" (3.2,page 8)? How does one identify a perfromance keasure or response procedure which is based on an assumption of either a Government action or operational environment and not have it construed as a "contingency"? As an example, a statement such as, "in the event of an emerging need for specialied service XXX will not proceed until receipt of a work order with appropriate funding so as not to incur a financial liability as can be recognized in proceeding with a notice absent such authorizations to period and ceiling." | Recommend removal of the prohibition on contingent proposals. | The Government does not see a conflict between a ban on contigent proposals and the opportunity to identify ground rules and assumptions. | ||
| 23 | SECTION L and Attachment L-05 EPW | 28 and FBLRs Tab | L-11.7 | Section L-11.7 requires Total Compensation plan requirements incuding Health Insurance Subsidization (Employee) of 70% and Vacation and Holidays and 401K matching - for prime and major subcontractors - yet Attachment L-05 lists a Fringe Benefit rate of 10% and this is unreasonable and impossible to accomplish based on historical costs. | Recommend updating of L-05 FBLRs Tab for Fringe Benefit to be a minimum of 35% and a maximum of 45% to ensure this factor does not create a barrier to entry of established companies with the benefits to hire and retain highly qualified staff. | No update is required. Other than Hours on the Level of Effort worksheet and Travel/ODC numbers on the Cost Roll-up worksheet, numbers in the EPW are placeholders and should not influence what the offeror proposes. | |
| 24 | Attachment L-05 EPW | FBLRs Tab | G&A Cost - Column K | The current G&A provided is 3% which is unreasonable based on current execution and contracts of this size, scope and complexity. | Recommend updating of L-05 FBLRs Tab for GNA to be a minimum of 12% and a maximum of 20% to ensure this factor does not create a barrier to entry of established companies. | No update is required. Other than Hours on the Level of Effort worksheet and Travel/ODC numbers on the Cost Roll-up worksheet, numbers in the EPW are placeholders and should not influence what the offeror proposes. | |
| 25 | Section L and Attachment L-05 EPW | FBLRs Tab and Labor Caegory Tab | Section L-11.5 and FBLRs Column E and Labor Category | Section L-11.5 states that “Offerors are encouraged to provide feedback to the Government if these benchmarks appear inappropriate before the last day for submitting questions.” - The current Base Labor Rates based on 2080 hours and with the requirements contained within the Labor Category tab are far below the current execution rates and are unrealistic when considering the current labor rate demand for staff with cyber experience (e.g. certifications at varying levels) and those with Top Secret and Top Secret SCI with and without poly. | Recommend updating of Base Labor Rates to be determined with an ERI range, vice one point. Use a range based on 90-125% percentiles. This will provide offerors with the ability to meet current execution rates and mitige the continued rise in salaries demanded by qualified staff within the cybersecurity, intelligence, engineering, and other highly technical disciplines where significant security clearances and certifications are required. Establishing very low benchmark rates will driver offerors to try and bid those rates versus actuals to ensure their overall price is competitive and if successful will result in significant personnel attrition and difficulty in hiring qualified staff based on the current and anticiapted job market. | Billing rates for this effort are based on 1880 Direct Productive Labor hours per FTE. The cost of Paid Time Off is recouped through indirect rates. The benchmark rates are used to establish cost realism, and may be exceeded. The Government believes the benchmark rates are adequate for the scope of work defined. |
26 RFQ 52 Section K CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE does not include 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns.
Per 19.1309 Contract clauses. (b)
| (1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition. | Add 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns to list of CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE on page 52. | Concur. MDA will add 52.219-4 (Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns to list of CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE | |||||
| 27 | Combined Draft Section L & M | 15 | L.7.2 | MCS Elements 1 and 2 are named slightly different from Tasks 1 and 4 in the PWS (3.1 and 3.4, respectively). Please confirm that the government wishes for offerors to specifically address SOW Tasks 3.1 and 3.4 | Revise Section L to match SOW task titles. | Revised L & M MSC1 Elements’ titles to match SOW paragraphs: |
MCS1 Element #1 to Current Intelligence and Operations Support MCS1 Element #2 to Technical Intelligence Engineering MCS1 Element #3 remains Cyber Intelligence MCS1 Element #4 remains Counter Insider Threat (CInT)
28 Combined Draft Section L & M 16 8.1 Small Business Participation Plan. Paragraph 1 states that all offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan for evaluation. Paragraph 2 indicates that only large businesses are required to submit a small business Individual Subcontracting Plan.
Per FAR clause 52.219-9 and 19.708(b), neither a Small Business Subcontracting Plan or a Small Business Participation Plan shall be required for Small Business Offerors1 Update the solicitation to include FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
As prescribed in 19.708(b), insert the following clause:
Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Jun 2020)
| (a) This clause does not apply to small business concerns. | To facilitate compliance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated April 1, 2016, DFARS 215.304(c)(i), and DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B); all offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan for evaluation. As required by DoD Source Selection Procedures and DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the SSEB shall evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns. As required by DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B), proposals addressing the extent of small business performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9 and shall be structured to allow for consideration of offers from small businesses. | ||||
| 29 | Combined Draft Section L & M | 16 | 8.1 | Small Business Participation Plan. Paragraph 1 states that all offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan for evaluation. Paragraph 2 indicates that only large businesses are required to submit a small business Individual Subcontracting Plan. |
| Per FAR clause 52.219-9 and 19.708(b), neither a Small Business Subcontracting Plan or a Small Business Participation Plan shall be required for Small Business Offerors | Modify language in section L and M, Per FAR clause 52.219-9 and 19.708(b), that removes these requirements and states that neither a Small Business Subcontracting Plan or a Small Business Participation Plan shall be required for Small Business Offerors. | ||||||
| To facilitate compliance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated April 1, 2016, DFARS 215.304(c)(i), and DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B); all offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan for evaluation. As required by DoD Source Selection Procedures and DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the SSEB shall evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns. As required by DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B), proposals addressing the extent of small business performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans submitted pursuant to the clause at FAR 52.219-9 and shall be structured to allow for consideration of offers from small businesses. | |||||||
| 30 | TN Intel Combined Draft Section L - L6+L7 and M | 23 | 7 | RFP says a minimum realistic labor escalation is 2% per year. In Attachment L05, Rates tab, columns Q-X: an escalation of 2.5% had been hard coded into the formulas. | We request that the government change the escalation to an input with formulas that apply to each labor position each year, rather than using hard coded values? | No update is required. Other than Hours on the Level of Effort worksheet and Travel/ODC numbers on the Cost Roll-up worksheet, numbers in the EPW are placeholders and should not influence what the offeror proposes. | |
| 31 | PWS | 29 | 4.1.1 b | The draft PWS notes that one position will be embedded at NASIC at Wright Patterson AFB, OH. Can the Government clarify which Labor Category will perform this support, and under which PWS Task Area? | Embedded support at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) is no longer required. |
SOW updated to remove the reference to embedded support at WPAFB.
32 Attachment L-05 FBLR Buildup The FBLR Buildup Sheet in the worksbook only lists thr four primary places of performance: Fort Belvoir, VA; Dahlgren, VA; Redstone Arsenal, AL; and Schreiver AFB, CO. For the one FTE embedded at Wright Patterson AFB, OH can the Government instruct offerors how they should allocated this Labor Category in the Worksheet? Embedded support at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) is no longer required.
| 33 | PWS | 45 | 9.1 c | The table in this section identifies the number of available workstations at various Government sites as 47 (41 for EII and 6 for C-InT). However, the staffing requirements equal 43 FTEs. Can the Government verify that the expected number of FTEs are 43 or 47? | Total FTE is 43. SOW table for 9.1.c updated accordingly. | |
| 34 | PWS | 34-37 | 4.3.1 f | In the Labor Category requirements description tables, there are fourteen (14) Labor Category descriptions that do not specify an educational degree. Can the Government verify that no degree is required for these positions? For example, on page 34, the Current Intelligence and Operations Support Analyst and the three Acquisition Intelligence Program Support Analysts (1-3) do not have a degree requirement listed. | The two positions without a degree requirement are: Cyber Intelligence Specialist and Intelligence Portal Site Management Specialist. | |
| 35 | Section L | 15 | 7.2 | Under MCS1: Technical Approach, Section L notes that offerors will be required to perform all the work under the PWS, but for proposal and evaluation purposes, they need to address the following tasks in their proposals: Current Intelligence; Technical Intelligence; Cyber Intelligence; and Counter-Insider Threat. These equate to PWS Tasks 1, 4, 6 and 9. Can the Government verify that offerors do not need to address the other PWS elements in their 30 page Technical Volume? | Yes, comply with the instructions in Section L, paragraph 7.2 | |
| 36 | PWS | 33 | 4.3.1. f | The Labor Category Description for the Contract Program Manager includes the following statement: "Also supports Sensor and Data Management IAW Sensor and Data Management Sections 3.2.2 and 3.5.3.a-f, h-j, l, n, q." However, Section 3.2.2 related to Task #2: Acquisition Intelligence Program Support. Can the Government clarify which task area(s) the Contract Program Manager is expected to support under this statement? | In addition to management duties, the CPM will serve as a portfolio manager to one 2-letter, in this case SN (Sensors). SOW table updated for clarity. | |
| 37 | Attachment L-05 | FBLR Buildup | Will Attachment L-05 in the Final RFP provide an individual breakout of each cost element to show the cost build-up for the total cost proposed for each Labor Category? | Yes the FBLR worksheet in the EPW provides an individual breakout of each cost element to show the cost build-up for the total cost proposed for each Labor Category. Offeror's must modify the FBLR worksheet and all worksheets to capture all costs. For example, if an offeror's business systems requires the inclusion of facilities capital cost of money in the FBLRs then that rate should be added to this worksheet similar to other indirect rates. | ||
| 38 | Attachment L-05 | FBLR Buildup | "GFY 1 Composite FBLR Less Prime Fee" will the Government please clarify where Offerors are to propose direct labor rates in Attachment L-05 as is required by Section L 11.4? | Please list the proposed direct labor rates on the "Rates" worksheet. The FBLR worksheet must be linked to the Rates Worksheet and the Labor Resources worksheet is linked to the FBLR worksheet. | ||
| 39 | Attachment L-05 | FBLR Buildup | Will the Government please clarify where in Attachment L -05 indirect rates are to be proposed as required by Section L 11.4? | Please list the proposed indirect rates on the "Rates" worksheet. The FBLR worksheet must be linked to the Rates Worksheet and the Labor Resources worksheet is linked to the FBLR worksheet. | ||
| 40 | Section L | 22 | 11.4 | "The Labor Category worksheet in the EPW includes a description of each RFP Labor Category along with the hourly benchmark direct labor rate…" Will the Government please confirm that the final EPW will include the labor cateogory hourly benchmark direct labor rates as referenced in Section L 11.4? | Yes, the EPW includes the labor category hourly benchmark direct labor rates as referenced in Section L 11.4. | |
| 41 | Draft Section L | 8 | ||||
| 12 | L.3.3 | |||||
| L.5.2 | Under L.3.3, Offerors are instructed "with the exception of the Cost and Price Volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any other volume." | |||||
| Under L.5.2, it is requested for Offerors to populate the B-tables (Section B). | Eliminate the requirement in L.5.2 to populate Section B, and keep all cost and pricing information resident in the Cost and Price Volume. | Section L paragraph 3.3 was updated to specify all cost and pricing information should be in the cost and price volume with exception of Section B. | ||||
| 42 | Draft Section L | 9-10 |
19 Table L-1 L.5.6
| L. 10.0 | Under L.5.6, Offerors are instructed to include an OCI Management Plan in Volume I under Tab 6. | ||||||
| Under L.10.0, Offerors are instructed to include an OCI Management Plan as a separate volume (Volume IV). | The OCI Management Plan requirement should be in either Volume I or Volume IV, but not both. Also, depending on decision, remove or reword the asterisk under Table L-1. | Section L.5.6 is referencing an OCI Mitigation Plan (if required). The OCI Management Plan is a separate document. | |||||
| 43 | Draft Section L | 12 | L.5.2 | Under L.5.2, Offerors are instructed to provide a complete copy of this RFP (including Section L and Section M, less other attachments, with any amendments). | Eliminate the requirement in L.5.2 to provide a complete copy of the RFP; instead, have Offerors submit a completed and signed SF33, completed and signed copies of any SF30s issued via amendments, and their completed Section K. | Follow the instructions as specified in Section L. | |
| 44 | Draft Section L | 5 |
12-13 L.2.7 Table L-1 L.5.2 Under L.2.7, there is a reference to incomplete proposal submission that includes the statement (e.g., missing Volumes in hard copy and electronic format).
In Table L-1, while there is a column that references hard copies, all the values for each volume show as 0 (zero).
| Under L.5.2, Section K instructions include the statement that a hardcopy shall be included in the Contract Documentation volume. | Eliminate any references to a hard copy submittal (from Table L-1, L.2.7, and L.5.2) and have Section L be clear that this is an electronic-only submittal. | Section L & M updated to remove hard copy requirement. | |||||
| 45 | Draft Section L | 8 | |||||
| 16 | Table L-1 | ||||||
| L.8.1 | In Table L-1, Volume IV (Small Business Participation) is given a 15 page limit. | ||||||
| Under L.8.1, large business Offerors are required to submit a small business Individual Subcontracting Plan. There does not appear to have been allowances made for page count for the Individual Subcontracting Plan portion of Volume IV. | Suggest making the Small Business Participation Plan be Tab 1 (with 15 page limit) and the Individual Subcontracting Plan (for large businesses only) be Tab 2 (with no page limit). | Section L updated as recommended. | |||||
| 46 | Draft Section L | 1 | L.1.3 | L.1.3 states that "FCLs must be in place prior to contract award." | Recommend rewording L.1.3 to state "FCLs must be in place by the date of proposal submission." This reduces Government risk of delaying award/performance start to an Offeror that may be waiting on an FCL to be granted. | Section L is correct as stated. | |
| 47 | Draft Section L | 1-2 | Attch L-07 | Under the TEAMS Next Contracts listed in the table, there is not a listing for the Intelligence and Counter-Insider Threat Contract. | Add a row for the Intelligence and Counter-Insider Threat Contract. | Attachment updated to include Intelligence and Counter-Insider Threat as part of the table. | |
| 48 | Draft SOW | ||||||
| Attch L-05 | 29 | ||||||
| Var. tabs | C.4.1.1.b. | C.4.1.1.b. states that "One position will support the Intelligence Division from an embedded position with the Intelligence Community at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), Wright Patterson AFB, OH." | |||||
| Offeror does not find the corresponding position/labor category for Wright Patterson AFB in Attch L-05 (EPW). | Please reference the position labor category/level of the embedded position at Wright Patterson AFB, OH in Attch L-05 (EPW) to allow accurate pricing. | Embedded support at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) is no longer required. |
| 49 | Draft SOW | 34-35 | Analyst Table | Note 1 at the end of the Analyst labor category qualifications table states "The Government will consider a BA/BS from an accredited institution of higher learning in a related field with 20 years in lieu of the MA/MS degree requirement." | |
| The table shows the experience requirement for CInT Analyst 3 and 4 as 10 years with a MA/MS. | Recommend reducing the 20 years in lieu of the MA/MS degree requirement to BA/BS with 14 years. | Changed 20 years to 15 years. |
SOW updated accordingly.
| 50 | Attch J-18 | 3 | Mission Essential Contractor Services | Under Item #4, Intelligence MEF Positions, Under Level IV Analysts, there is a Counter-InT Analyst 2 listed and under Level III Analysts, there is a Current Intel and Ops Support Analyst 1 as well as an Analyst 2 listed. | Revisit the listing of Mission Essential Personnel and ensure the analysts noted line up with the corresponding Level IV and Level III analysts. | Attachment J-18, Mission Essential List, updated to reflect the correct mission essential (analyst) positions and their locations in the SOW. |
| 51 | Attch L-05 | Var. tabs | Recommend the government consider raising the floor DL rates by 10% across the board. It is likely that market research done to date did not account for a future upward salary trend in the intel community driven by the DIA SIA 3 vehicle beginning to award task orders at (or higher in some cases) their vehicle floor rates and could affect MDA retainability in the future. We can provide additional information at the request of MDA. | No adjustment was made to direct labor rates, escalation is built into the EPW. | ||
| 52 | H-16, J-06, J-07; SOW 2.2 | PPBE | Remove PPBE requirements. | Updated to remove scope, clauses, and attachments. Removed H-16, J-07. Updated J-06. Updated SOW para 2.2 | J-06 updated to remove PPBE language. Clause H-16 removed. Attachment J-07 removed |
SOW updated.
| 53 | DRFP Attachment L-07 | 4 | 5 | DRFP Attachment L-07 OCI Disclosure Form requires “any significant business relationship with any MDA development contractors.” | Please provide a list of MDA Development contractors. | No comprehensive list of MDA development contractors exist. Each offeror must determine for themselves if their subcontractors or partners are doing work for MDA. |
| 54 | Combined Draft Section L & M | 6 | 1.6 c(1) | DRFP Section L 1.6 requires L-07 OCI Disclosure forms for “MDS-related contracts or subcontracts.” | Please define this further as this could be an extremely large list of contracts. | Definition is correct as stated. |
| 55 | Combined Draft Section L & M | 6 | 1.6 c(1) | DRFP Section L 1.6 requires L-07 OCI Disclosure forms for “all of the team’s MDA-funded.” | Please define “team’s.” Is this the offeror and all subcontractors? Or rather, is this meant to be TEAMS. | Team refers to the offeror and subcontractors. |
| 56 | Combined Draft Section L & M | 6 | 1.6 c(1) | DRFP Section L 1.6 requires L-07 OCI Disclosure forms for “any significant, non-MDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of MDA". | Please provide further definition of this requirement. | For TEAMS-Next significant is considered to be greater than 45% of revenues. Section L.1.6 is updated. |
Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10554 (18 Aug 20)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .