Final_RFP_Responses_to_Questions.pdf

Question # RFP Document Page Section Paragraph Text or Observation Question or Recommended Change Rationale Answer

1 HR001118R0001 12 I 52.244-2 Subcontracts (OCT 2010)

The referenced FAR Clause does not require that subcontractor consent packages be submitted for teaming arrangements under IDIQ Contracts. In addition, as this is an IDIQ contract and the awards for each Subcontractor will be based on future Task Order awards, there is not currently enough information to determine whether or not each Subcontract would fall into one of the categories that is subject to the consent to subcontract requirement. Please confirm subcontractor consent packages are not required.

The FAR clause does not require consent packages for IDIQ contracts.

Subcontractor consent packages are not required for this Solicitation. FAR Clause 52.244-2, like all others included in the Solicitation, will be applicable to any orders awarded off of a successful contractor's IDIQ contract. Any subcontractors included within a successful offeror's proposal will be listed within Paragraph J of the Clause exempting them from future subcontractor consent packages.

Any subcontractors added after an order has been awarded, that have not been evaluated during competition or negotiations, will be subject to the requirements contained in the Clause.

2 HR001118R0001 14 Section I Addition of DFARS Clause 252.226-7001 Utilization of Indian organizations, Indian-owned economic enterprises, and native Hawaiian small business concerns to Section I

Recommend adding this clause as it will increase the breadth and depth of small minority business participation in the program thereby helping DARPA further meet small business contracting goals.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/226_1.htm Clause has been added, see revised Solicitation

Section I.

3 HR001118R0001 16 Section I Clause 52.222-59 and 52.222-60 With the rescission of Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, Clauses 52.222-59 and 52.222-60 were removed from the FAR effective November 6, 2017. Request these clauses be removed from Section I.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/06/2017-23588/guidance-for-executive-order-13673-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces

Clauses have been removed, see revised Solicitation Section I.

4 HR001118R0001 32 Section I Clause 52.222-57 With the recession of Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, Clause 52.222.57 was removed from the FAR effective November 6, 2017.

Request this clause be removed from Section K.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/06/2017-23588/guidance-for-executive-order-13673-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces

Clauses have been removed, see revised Solicitation Section K.

5 HR001118R0001 32 K

52.222-57 Representation Regarding Compliance With Labor Laws (Executive Order

13673) Dec-16

Executive Order 13782, “Removal of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule,” signed on March, 27, 2017 effervicely overrules EO 13673, and removes 52.222-57 Representation Regarding Compliance With Labor Laws from the FAR. Are contractors still required to include this clause in their Reps and Certs? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/06/2017-23588/guidance-for-ex No.

6 HR001118R0001 35 L-1.5 5 Proposal Submission Requirements Question: As this is an electronic submission, are there any file size limitations that the offeror should be aware of?

There are no file size (Megabytes) limitations. Any offerors that have internal size limitations may submit their proposal in more than one email.

7 HR001118R0001 35 L-1.5 5

The proposal shall be formatted into a transmittal letter and five separate electronic folders by volume number and title as follows: ….

Please clarify that the reference to "electronic folders" refers to zipped files.

For example: For Volume V Price Proposal, does the Government intend that this volume will be submitted in two files (the narrative content in a .pdf file and the completed Attachment worksheet in .xlsx MS Excel 2016 format?

Clarify instructions on use of electronic folders and submission files.

Electronic folders means that each Volume needs to be separate from the other (i.e., do not send all volumes via one electronic document). Referring back to the example, the government will accept appropriately labeled separate files within Volume V Price proposal with the narrative being submitted as a .pdf file and the attachment worksheet in .xlsx MS

Excel format. The government will not accept an electronic file that includes both Volume IV and

Volume V.

8 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.7 2

Offeror shall provide either proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer within the proposal that can be executed upon IDIQ contract award to meet meeting requirements outlined in PWS paragraph 7.9.3.

Is the contingency lease required at time of IDIQ or task order award? Please clarify. Clarification

Per Section L-1.6.7, Offerors shall provide, within submission for this Solicitation, a contingency offer that can be executed upon IDIQ contract award.

9 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.7

The RFP states that "the offeror shall provide proof of existing facilities…" and Draft RFP Question Responses for #31 states the requirement as a lease agreement or other official document that clearly shows compliance…"

Recommend that, if the leasing agreement is the only proof of existing facilities, the government allow Offerors to submit the first page of the lease and signature page.

Electronic file size limitations for proposal submissions Per Section L-3.4 there is no page limit for Volume I

Admin. In addition, please refer to Question 6 on electronic size limitations.

10 HR001118R0001 37

L-1.6.5

Accounting System

DARPA has historically used Cost Reimbursement style contracts for its advisory service support efforts.

Given the propensity of this contract structure it would make sense that a DCAA-approved Accounting System would need to be in place by time of award or at least shortly thereafter. Failure to have this in place will inhibit competition during TO procurements. To protect the government's interests we recommend that it require Offeror's that do not possess a DCAA-approved accounting system, in addition to the Attachment 6 Checklist, to provide proof that a DCAA Cost Accounting System Audit has been scheduled within 30 days of the proposal submission deadline. If the accounting system has not been reviewed and a report issued by an outside CPA/Consultant/Non-DoD Agency and a DCAA Audit has not been scheduled within the deadline then both the Offeror's Management Approach and Pricing should be deemed risky and rated accordingly (Marginal or Unacceptable).

Ensure adequate competition throughout the life of vehicle. No changes will be made to Section L-1.6.5.

11 HR001118R0001 38 L-1.6.3 3

The RFP states that "The Offeror shal acknowledge requirement for Non-Disclosure Agreement in format prescribed by Section J, Attachment 2 by including a copy within this Volume Submission

Should key personnel or IDIQ manager be responsible for signing this document to be included in proposal response? Clarification The government will accept a signature from the

IDIQ manager or the individual who has signed the Standard Form 33.

12 HR001118R0001 38

L-1.7

TECHNICAL

EXPERIENCE/

M-3.1

TECHNICAL

EXPERIENCE

1. This section shall be written to enable evaluators to make a thorough evaluation as to whether the Offeror has demonstrated experience and shall contain specific descriptions and examples of work performed to include value, complexity, and nature in the below areas (listed in order of importance) of the PWS.

2. Demonstrated experience specifically and directly related to the value, complexity, and nature to the S&T and R&D requirements of the PWS will be rated higher.

Would the Government please clarify what it means when it uses the term “nature?” Provide clarity so offerors may fulfill the requirement.

The government intends "nature" to keep its standard definition (i.e., basic or inherent features of).

13 HR001118R0001 38

L-1.7

TECHNICAL

EXPERIENCE

The RFP lists the title of Section C-7.1.2 as “Technical Experience/Subject Matter Expertise (SME).” However, Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement, page 5 lists the title of Section C-7.1.2 as “Technical Expertise/Subject Matter Expertise

(SME).”

Would the Government please clarify the correct title for Section C-7.1.2? Allow offerors to correctly reference Section 7.1.2 of the PWS.

Section C-7.1.2 is Technical Expertise, see revised

Section L-1.7.

14 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8 1

...The proposed Program Management Team will be considered Key Personnel at the IDIQ level and shall be added to Attachment 1A - Key Personnel requirement.

Is Attachment 1A intended to be part of the resulting IDIQ contract which would be filled out and executed upon award? Clarify instructions for Attachment 1A.

Yes Attachment 1A will be attached to any resulting IDIQ contract awards and shall be completed upon contract award, see revised Section L-1.8.

15 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8 4

The solicitation requires that we provide the historical average time to execute services subcontracts.

Is the intent of this requirement to understand the time required to get a resource on contract after the appropriate resource was identified? Or, is the intent of this requirement to understand how long after a Prime contract award that subcontracts are awarded?

Identifying the most compatible resource and getting that resource on contract are two separate actions. Once a subcontractor has been identified, a fully executed subcontract requires agreement on many terms and conditions and often requires negotiations. Since it is possible to allow a resource to begin their support to the client while those terms and conditions are being negotiated providing the number of days it takes to fully execute a subcontract may not accurately present the information needed.

The intent is for DARPA to evaluate historical average time(s) to execute the actual subcontract.

16 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8 3

The RFP states that "In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, the Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for all personnel who will work under the contract. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Note:

Total Compensation Plan submission will be evaluated under Factor 2 but shall only be included within Volume V submission and therefore does not have a page limit and does not count towards the allotted 10 pages for Management Approach."

The L-3.4 Page Limits table on page 44 indicates that the Total Compensation Plan is still within Volume III but excluded from the page count. Should the Offeror provide a reference in Volume III as to where the Total Compensation Plan is located in Volume V (e.g. section/appendix) to ensure compliance?

Clarification No.

17 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8 1

The RFP states that "The proposed Program Management Team will be considered Key Personnel at the IDIQ level and shall be added to Attachment 1A - Key Personnel requirement."

Is this attachment to be completed and submitted with the proposal as an Appendix that is outside the 10 page limitation to Volume III Factor 2 - Management Approach or completed upon contract award?

Clarification See response to question 14.

18 Attachment 1 - PWS 13 7.9 7.9.3

The RFP states that "The contractor’s conference room shall provide adequate security for up to Secret, level classified discussions. The conference room/area shall be equipped, at a minimum, with (a) writing boards, electronic overhead projection screens; (b) phone lines suitable for conference calls; and (c) data lines suitable for high speed computer data transmission; and (d) presentation computers with removable hard drives capable of unclassified and classified presentations."

Request that classified laptops that are properly stored be considered an alternative to removable hard drives. Recommend changing (d) language to the following: "equipment capable of presenting unclassified and classified presentations."

Offerors are required to follow NISPOM requirements.

Agree with recommended change, see updated

Attachment 1 - PWS.

19 Attachment 1 - PWS 13 7.9 7.9.3 Question: "Please clarify what the Government will accept as proof of existing facilities." Answer: "A lease agreement or other official document that clearly shows compliance with requirements with PWS paragraph 7.9.3."

A leasing agreement does not demonstrate compliance with PWS paragraph 7.9.3. Can Offerors submit a floor plan and picture requirement to validate compliance with conference room capability requirements?

Clarification No further documentation is required than is already contained within Solicitation.

20 Attachment 1 - PWS 13 7.9 7.9.3

Regarding the governments request for meeting capability, and the requirement for the contractor’s conference room capability shall be within 1 mile distance of DARPA, currently at 675 N. Randolph, Arlington, and shall hold up to 75 attendees with adequate security for up to Secret level classified discussions. It appears on the surface that the requirement gives an advantage to those companies that already have their own secure space within the 1 mile distance. This appears to give somewhat of a dissadvantage to companies that are not currently in the local vacinity of DARPA.

Can the government re-review this requirement and expand the qualifying scenario to areas outside of the 1 mile distance.

DARPA has determined there is a need for conference facilities within 1 mile distance and the requirements set for in this solicitation are necessary to satisfy this need. Therefore the suggested change will not be incorporated.

21 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Column A Line 38

Human Resources Database Specialist

The description states that the individual must be familiar, current and an expert in the software requirements: expert proficiency in MS Office suite - Microsoft Access, Excel, Word, Outlook, Power Point, Publisher, Adobe Acrobat, and document scanning equipment. Ability to work independently, with little supervision or oversight. Must have thorough knowledge of the Privacy Act and its application to the HR office functions and implication of misuse of data subject to the Privacy Act. Must be familiar with DARPA structure and processes and must be knowledgeable in the DARPA Privacy Program and associated DoD and DARPA laws, rules, regulations, and requirements

Can the government review this requirement to ensure the description matches the title/skills required? The job description does not seem to match the title. The description does not mention any database skills.

No changes are needed to the job description or skills required.

22 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet The final RFP eliminated entry level scientist/engineer LCATs

Is it DARPA’s intention to no longer have entry level staffing?

There are currently BS/BA scientist/engineering level staff with less than 2 years experience supporting DARPA.

It is not DARPA's intention to no longer have entry level staffing for any requirements covered by this PWS. Specifically for this Solicitation it is DARPA's intention to not have any entry level technical personnel. However, there are no restrictions, within Section G, that precludes the government from requesting additional labor categories not currently included within Attachment 3 when needed at the task order level.

23 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Question: May offerors amend Attachment 3 to include supporting data for the basis of the fully burdened rates?

No, offerors may not amend Attachment 3. Any supporting data shall be included elsewhere within the Volume V Price Proposal.

24 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8 3

VOLUME III: FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH, Recruitment and Retention, 2nd bullet

Does the historical turnover rate metric requested apply to only the Prime contractor employees or the entire team to include subcontractors supporting the contract?

Offerors shall ensure they are reviewing and responding to the most up-to-date Solicitation version. The solicitation released on January 2, 2018 does not include a requirement for historical turnover rates.

25 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8 4

Offeror shall include the historical average time(s) to execute services subcontracts

(i.e., not commodity purchases) for all contracts described in Technical Experience via Attachment 4.

Historical data is not normally maintained at the fidelity requested. Would the Government consider removing this requirement and adding a requirement to the Management Approach volume that an offeror must address its approach to subcontracting in a timely manner?

Approach for offerors to address subcontracting approach and effectiveness.

No the government will not remove the requirement to provided historical data on executing services subcontracts. The requirement for offerors to "describe what subcontracting and hiring practices will be used and illustrate the process for filling vacancies for extremely technically advanced expertise in a timely manner" is already in Section L-1.8.

26 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.8

The proposed Program Management Team will be considered Key Personnel at the

IDIQ level and shall be added to Attachment 1A - Key Personnel Requirement Does the government want Offerors to provide Attachment 1A within the proposal? And if so, within which volume? See response to question 14.

27 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.9 3

Offerors may provide up to six (6) past performance information submissions, which at least half of the submissions must be from the prime contractor.

Will the government confirm that in order for a subcontractor to submit a past performance qualification, the subcontractor must have been the prime contractor on the contract in question?

If the above statement is not accurate, is it correct that for any Past Performance qualification, if the company offering the past performance reference was a subcontractor, the questionnaire needs to be completed by the Prime Contractor?

Only a Prime contractor has responsibility for delivery of services.

A Government COR does not have cognizance or privy of contract in order to fully complete Attachment 5.

Yes, subcontractor submissions for either CPARS or past performance questionnaire submissions should only include contracts where the subcontractor on this proposal was a prime contractor. This restriction also applies to prime contractors, all prime contractor submissions for CPARS or past performance questionnaires shall be as a prime contractor. See revised Section L-1.9.

28 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.9 4

VOLUME IV: FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The requirement states that when CPARS are not available, offerors are required to request that their customer submit past performance information on the Past Performance Questionnaire found at Attachment 5. The customer must then send the past performance information via email to HR0011-18-R-0001@darpa.mil by the proposal due date.

Question: Can the Government please clarify if offerors are also required to include the Past Performance Questionnaires sent to its customer(s) in our proposal submission, as part of the Volume IV submission? If required, please clarify if these are excepted from page count.

Per Section L-1.9, past performance questionnaires shall only be provided to the government from the customer.

29 1) Is there a specific site visit or industry day you encourage us to attend?

Contractors had an opportunity to meet with DARPA on November 20th and 21st. There are no other site visits or industry days scheduled at this time.

30 2) Is there a program website we should visit, or an intermediary that would help guide us through what DARPA is requiring here?

The RFP is publically posted on Federal Business Opportunities:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=f orm&id=83a064cdf4a59c279a51fb2d89931da0&ta b=core&_cview=1 General information about DARPA can be found on the public website at: www.darpa.mil

31 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.9 4

VOLUME IV: FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The requirement states: "All submissions shall relate to experience submitted within the Technical Experience Factor and shall only be for contracts or orders over $7 million for a non-IDIQ contract or at least $100,000 for a task order off an IDIQ contract."

Observation: The wording of the above requirement appears to allow only non-IDIQ contracts or individual task orders under IDIQ contracts as allowable Past Performance citations; however, it does not address the use of IDIQ-level contracts, either as a whole (all task orders included) or partial (aggregation of relevant task orders). Because DARPA TASS is an IDIQ contract, allowing at least one past performance citation to be an IDIQ contract with relevance to DARPA TASS could provide useful information to the Government in assessing overall scoring for Volume

IV.

Question: Will the Government allow one or more IDIQ contracts, either multiple award or single award, to be used as Past Performance citations, if there is either a CPAR for the overall IDIQ performance or an authorized POC who can complete a Past Performance Questionnaire for the entire contract?

Question: If overall IDIQ contracts are allowable, what should be the value basis for that contract (i.e. ceiling value, value of all awarded task orders, or value of an aggregation of relevant task orders)?

See Response to Draft RFP Questions, question 64.

Also see updated Section L-1.9.

32 HR001118R0001 40

L-1.7

TECHNICAL

EXPERIENCE

Minimum values are specified for non-IDIQ contracts and task orders off of IDIQ contracts for experience referenced in the Technical Experience section.

Would the Government please clarify that the stated values represent the current funded value of the contract / task order and not the ceiling / total potential value of the contract / task order?

Yes values listed are meant to represent obligations (i.e., funded value) and not ceiling or potential value of the contract or order. See updated Section L-1.9.

33 HR001118R0001 41

L-1.9

PAST

PERFORMANC

E SUMMARY

(ii) Offeror Name (Company/Division)

(iii) Program Title

(iiii) Contract Specifics

(1) Contract Number

(2) Contract Type

(3) Period of Performance

(4) Original Contract Dollar Value

(5) Current Contract Dollar Value

(6) If the amounts in (4) and (5) above are different, provide a brief description of the reason

(iiv) Primary Government or industry points of contact. Provide the name, office, address and telephone number for the current Program Manager, Contracting Officer

(CO), Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), and Contracting Officer Representative/Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COR/COTR).

(iv) Identify if performed as prime or subcontractor and a brief description of the effort.

(ivi) Identify in specific detail for each contract listed, why or how this direct effort is considered relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation. (As a prime contractor do not claim past performance/experience performed by subcontractors.)

(ivii) Address adverse past performance, any technical, or other area about the program/contract considered unique.

Would the Government please correct numbering of the subparagraphs?

Extra "i" at the beginning of some subparagraph numbers creates odd sequential references in the proposal.

Numbering corrected, see revised Section L-1.9.

34 HR001118R0001 41

L-3.4 PAGE

LIMITS/

L-1.9 PAST

PERFORMANC

E

1. The table at L-3.4 provides a 13-page limit for Volume IV Past Performance, excluding CPARS submission(s), Questionnaire(s).

2. In the Past Performance Summary, offerors shall provide a two-page summary for each CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) submitted.

3. The Government’s response to question 89 in the “Response to Draft RFP Questions” attachment states that the required Table of Contents and Summary Page both count against the 13-page limit.

Would the Government please exempt the Volume IV Past Performance Table of Contents from the 13-page limit?

Preserve 12 pages for 6 Past Performance writeups, one page for Summary and one page for the Table of Contents.

See Section L-3.4 Page Limits - The page limits do not include tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossary.

35 HR001118R0001 42 L-2.0 2 "... shall include all elements of cost, and other data" Is the Offeror required to supply actual indirect rates (Fringe/Overhead/G&A) or merely the method that they are applied to direct labor? Clarification

Yes per Section L 2.0 offerors shall provide a "detailed breakdown and shall include all elements of cost, and other data as considered appropriate, to support the Offeror’s proposal."

36 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet N/A N/A In section L-2.0 the government has requested a detailed breakdown of all elements of cost but Attachment 3 only allows for offerors to enter their fully burden labor rate by category. Are offerors to submit rate builds supporting fully burden rates in attachment 3? If so, is the government going to provide a format/worksheet or are offerors developing their own?

Clarification See response to Question 33.

37 HR001118R0001 42 L-2.0 2 "… any pass through fees." Is the Offeror being asked to identify the Prime fee on direct labor? Clarification Yes.

38 HR001118R0001 42 L-2.0 2 "… any pass through fees." Is the Offeror being asked to identify the Prime fee and indirects on on subcontractor labor? Clarification Yes.

39 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Some of the Labor Categories appear to align with the Wage Determination Service Contract Act. such as Administrative Assistant Levels I & II, Graphic Artist/Web Designer I, and Technical Writer. Will the government please clarify if Wage Determination Service Contract Act applies?

Clarification No the Service Contract Act does not apply to this requirement.

40 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Will the government consider adding substitution language for education and experience? For example: One year of experience equals one year of education, One year of education equals one year of experience.

Suggestion No. Attachment 1 -Performance Work Statement

Section 3.1.5., provides the appropriate amount of flexibility to the government's requirement.

41 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet If a future task order requires a higher clearance level than the one associated with each LCAT in Attachment 3, will offerors be permitted to exceed the established ceiling rates for that particular task order?

Clarification

Any task order requirements that do not conform to Attachment 3 labor category descriptions, to include security clearance level, will be competed or negotiated at the task order level.

42 HR001118R0001 42 L-2.0 2

This Volume shall be a complete and detailed breakdown and shall include all elements of cost, and other data as considered appropriate, to support the Offeror’s proposal

Is the government requesting offerors to provide rate builds for each labor category? If yes, is the government providing a worksheet or should offerors develop their own?

Clarification Yes, per Section L 2.0, the government is requiring a detailed breakdown of rates to include all elements of cost (i.e., rate build). Offerors should provide this information in their own format within Volume V.

43 HR001118R0001 42 L-2.0 2

Particular emphasis will be placed upon the reasonableness of applied fringe and burden of the labor rates, along with any pass through fees

Will the government please expand/clarify the emphasis on applied fringe and pass through fees? If an offerors fringe is an approved DCAA cost, what other supporting information is the government looking for? WRT pass through if an offeror applies an approved M&H, what additional information is the government requiring or is pass thru referring to fee on top of subcontract labor? Are offerors to illustrate this cost in their rates builds? Please clarify.

Clarification

The government will not provide any additional explanation for the emphasis placed on fringe and pass through fees. If an offeror has an "approved

DCAA cost" that should be represented as an element of cost. Yes, per Section L 2.0 offerors should provide a detailed breakdown of rates to include all elements of cost (i.e., rate build).

44 HR001118R0001 43 L-2.0 5

The most recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, Recommendation, and/or Agreement

(FPRA) for prime and major subcontractors (as available);

Will the government accept offeror's most recent DCAA Provisional Rates? Clarification

The government will review all information provided by offerors as necessary for making a determination of price reasonableness and responsibility as outlined in Section M-3.4.

45 HR001118R0001 43 L-2.0 5

the most recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, Recommendation, and/or Agreement

(FPRA) for prime and major subcontractors (as available);

What defines a major subcontractor and what additional information is required (builds/narrative/etc.)? Is the government only requiring indirect cost information? If yes, we assume this proprietary data will be submitted direct to the government. Please clarify.

Clarification The government is not requiring any subcontractor specific rates. See revised Section L-2.0.

46 HR001118R0001 44 L-3.4 3

The requirement states that page limits do not include tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossary. In the Section L instructions for each volume, tables of contents are stipulated for Volumes IV and V but not the other volumes.

Question: Except for the tables of contents in Volumes IV and V are items such as response matrices and glossaries to be provided in each volume at the discretion of the offeror?

Yes, response matrices and glossaries can be provided at the discretion of the offeror.

47 HR001118R0001 44 L-3.4 3

The RFP states that page limits do not include tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossary but does not address cover page exemption.

Question: Can the Government please confirm that the cover page is also excluded from page count in each volume?

Per Section L-3.4, tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossaries are the only items exempted from the page limits. Cover pages will count against page limits.

48 HR001118R0001 44 L-3.1 2

L-3.2 Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures should be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays should be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size.

L-3.1 Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. No foldout pages shall be used.

Please confirm that 11x17 inch page size is permitted as you state in L-3.2. Clarify conflict on page size between L-3.1 and L-3.2.

Page size is confirmed as 11x17, see revised Section

L-3.2.

49 HR001118R0001 44 L-3.4

The RFP states that "The page limits do not include tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossary"

Can the government please verify that tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossary will be excluded from the page limits? Draft RFP Question Responses for #89 referance page limitation for Volume IV: Factor 3 Past Performance states "The Table of Contents and Summary page count towards the 13 page limit".

Clarification Confirmed, per Section L-3.4 page limits do not include tables of contents, response matrix, index, and/or glossary.

50 HR001118R0001 44

L-3.2

ILLUSTRATION

S AND TABLES

Section L-3.1 TEXT and the Q&As state that foldout pages are not allowed. However, Section L-3.2 ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES still states that displays should be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size.

Would the Government please clarify whether foldouts may be used for Illustrations and Tables? If so, may an 11 x 17 inch sheet count as one page in this instance?

Deconflict sections in RFP and language in Q&As.

Per Section L-3.1, "No foldout pages shall be used."

Illustrations and tables may be included within offeror's proposal but will count within page limits (excluding tables of contents)and shall not be foldout pages.

51 HR001118R0001 44

L-3.3 FONT

SIZE

Print shall be of a minimum 10-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, Times New Roman) spacing including graphic presentations and tables.

Would the Government consider providing more flexibility in fonts for graphics and tables? Specifically, would the Government allow smaller text provided it is legible (i.e., 8 pt font or larger)? Further, would the Government permit font styles other than Times New Roman to be used in the graphics and tables?

Provide more flexibility in addressing extensive requirements within page limits. No.

52 HR001118R0001 45 L-5.0 2

Exceptions/ Assumptions: The RFP states that "Offerors are prohibited from modifying, in any way, shape, or form, any documents, printed or electronic, associated with this solicitation any amendment(s) thereto unless specifically authorized to do so."

Will the government please approve adding a first column on Attachment 4 - Technical Expertise Referenced Contracts so Offerors can number contract references?

Facilitates cross-referencing between Volume II Technical Approach and the Attachment 4.

Yes, see revised Attachment 4.

53 HR001118R0001 46

M-3.1

TECHNICAL

EXPERIENCE

Offerors will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating for Factor 1 as defined in Table

5.1.

There is not a Table 5.1. Would the Government please revise the Table 5.1 reference to Table 4.1? Allow offerors to correctly reference the table. Change made. See revised Section M-3.1

54 HR001118R0001 47

M-3.2

MANAGEMEN

T APPROACH

Note: Small business prime Offerors will receive highest consideration for this portion of the Management Approach.

Would the Government please clarify whether this statement means that, for small business prime Offerors, small business participation is more important than Overall IDIQ Management Plan, Recruitment and Retention and Training, or that the highest consideration for small business prime offerors is limited to the Small Business Participation Plan element?

The Government will assess the feasibility of the Offeror's proposed management approach for accomplishing the tasks delineated in the PWS and will consider how well the Offeror’s proposed solution meets or exceeds the PWS requirements in the areas listed on p. 48. While small business primes have the small business participation factor covered (so the risk of not meeting DARPA's goal for small business is very low), IDIQ Management, Recruitment and Retention and Training are all areas for which a small business prime can present significant risk to the Government. It seems that risk subfactors like IDIQ Management should have equal or more weight for a small business prime than small business participation.

The note means that small businesses will receive the highest consideration for Small Business Participation under Factor 2 Management

Approach.

55 HR001118R0001 47 M-3.2

1 on p. 47 and

Table 4.1 Offerors will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating for Factor 2 as defined in Table

4.1 below.

Should this read as Management/Risk on p. 47? Should the title of Table 4.1 be Combined Technical/Risk and Management/Risk Methodology? Otherwise, the language as stated implies Factors 1 and 2 will be rated together.

Per Section M-3.1 and Section M-3.2 offerors will receive a separate Technical/Risk rating for both

Factor 1 and Factor 2. "Technical/Risk rating" references the technical factors of Technical

Experience and Management Approach. Technical factors do not include Factor 3 Past Performance or

Factor 4 Price.

56 HR001118R0001 50

M-4.2.2

RELEVANCE

At the IDIQ level, for an offeror's past performance to be most relevant and to demonstrate its ability to manage a large, complex IDIQ opportunity such as this (contracting, subcontracting, staffing, task order coordination, etc.), the three or more references from the offeror should be as a Prime. Teammate references can be as a Prime or Sub as they demonstrate technical abilities/qualifications.

For an offeror's past performance to be rated Relevant or Very Relevant, the offeror's citations must have been performed as a Prime. Teammate past performances submitted for efforts where the teammate performed as either a Prime or Sub may be evaluated as Relevant or Very Relevant.

Demonstrate the ability of the prime offeror to manage a large complex effort. See response to Question 27.

57 HR001118R0001 50

M-4.2.2

RELEVANCE

Table 4.2.2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, describes Very Relevant as, “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort (at least $25 million for a non-IDIQ contract or at least $1 million for a task order off an IDIQ contract during the past performance effort) and the same complexities this solicitation requires.”

Would the Government please clarify throughout the table that threshold values are for funded values of contracts and not ceiling or potential values? Demonstrate the ability of the offeror to manage a large complex effort. See response to Question 32.

58 HR001118R0001 50

M-4.2.2

RELEVANCE

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method subsection.

Please incorporate the language regarding C-7.1.2, C-7.2.2, and C-7.9.1 in M-4.2.2 to make the PWS areas against which Past Performance will be evaluated clear.

The Government's Answers to DRFP Questions 40 and 90 indicate that "For Volume II Factor I offerors are only required to provide technical experience on the three subsections listed (C-7.1.2, C-7.2.2, and C-7.9.1). Yes, these areas should also carry through to past performance. Section L-1.9 states, "All submissions (past performance) shall relate to experience submitted within the Technical Experience Factor and shall only be for contracts or orders over $7M for a non-IDIQ contract or at least $100,000 for a task order off an IDIQ contract." and "the past performance submission should focus on the sections C-7.1.2 Technical Experience, C-7.2.2

Program Financial Execution and C-7.9.1 Event Assistance."

Further clarification is not required.

59 HR001118R0001 41; 53 L-1.9; M-3.3 8

PPQ Submission; Factor 3: PP: The Offeror's Customers must send past performance information to… The government will evaluate the Offeror based on CPARS evaluations, PPQs, and any other information sources."

With the non-exclusive teaming arrangements preferred by DARPA and the requirement for subcontractor past performance, there will be non-exclusive subcontractors who may submit PPQs referencing their work for a prime contractor. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, could the government confirm that offerors can use the government end-user if their prime is a company that may be bidding on this IDIQ.

This approach will enable the government to get unbiased feedback on offeror past performance, without injecting conflicted parties into the process. It will also shield offerors from having their PP strategy exposed to competing teams.

Per Section L-3.0, Offerors may provide up to six (6) past performance information submissions, which at least half of the submissions must be from the prime…". There is no requirement that subcontractor past performance be submitted. If a prime or subcontractor plans on using a past performance questionnaire, per Section L-3.0, "the offeror shall request that their customer submit past performance information...". Customer is meant to be government customer, therefore it is not only permitted but necessary that subcontractor questionnaire submissions come from the government end user.

60 HR001118R0001 50; 53 M-3.1; M-3.3 5

Factor 1: Technical Experience; Factor 3: PP The DoD S&T and R&E community is comprised of a government and contractor workforce that moves from organization to organization over the span of their career. There are companies that have Key Personnel with extensive DARPA experience, and S&T/R&E corporate experience, but no corporate past performance directly with DARPA.

Please confirm that it is permitted to reference the experience of an Offeror's bid IDIQ "Program Management Team" Key Personnel (KP) experience in Volume II Technical Experience, even if the work was not performed while working for their current employer.

Permitting the references to the extensive DARPA experience of KP gives the government information about the KP's ability to manage the IDIQ and resulting Task

Orders.

There is no restriction in the Solicitation that Key Personnel experience only includes performance for a current employer.

61 HR001118R0001 This is a multiple award IDIQ with Task Orders to support the DARPA staff? Yes per Section L-1.1.

62 HR001118R0001

This opportunity appears to be a staffing solution to support the various operations in DARPA.

Yes per Attachment 1 PWS paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4.

63 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Program Manager

A minimum of ten (10) years of experience as a program manager providing support to contracts of a similar size, scope and complexity is highly desirable.

Would the Government confirm that both industry and government experience as a program manager providing support to contracts of a similar size, scope and complexity may be used to meet this requirement?

Broadens Government access to highly qualified PMs.

There is no restriction in the Solicitation that experience be from either industry or the government.

64 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Program Manager

At least five (5) years demonstrated experience in a supervisory capacity in planning, developing, and executing major research and development efforts for defense organizations. A minimum of ten (10) years of experience as a program manager providing support to contracts of a similar size, scope and complexity is highly desirable.

Would the Government consider revising the requirement to require the PM to have at least 10 years of relevant professional experience, including at least five years in DoD R&D programs and managing large professional services programs?

Broadens Government access to highly qualified PMs. No.

65 HR001118R0001

Based on the offices listed requiring support can we find out the skill/education levels required? It appears mostly personnel services, but I am making an assumption that possibly some of the technical skill set could require up to a PhD

See Attachment 3 of the Solicitation for skill and education levels required.

66 HR001118R0001

Would I be correct in believing that once hired the staff would be “firewalled off” from the company for OCI concerns?

See revised Section I for clause FAR 52.203-16;

Attachment 1a Organizational Conflict of Interest;

and PWS paragraph 3.1 Personnel.

67 HR001118R0001 Can DARPA provide a capability matrix of necessary professional skills? See Attachment 3 of the Solicitation

68 HR001118R0001

Questions 89 and 126 Conflict between answer to question 89 and 126 Please clarify if the Table of Contents counts toward the Volume IV: Past Performance 13 page limit.

See response to question 49.

69 Attachment 3 - Pricing Spreadsheet Master Sheet

Columns K thru O

The Pricing Template provides space to input rates from YR1 thru YR10, while page 25 of the RFP would indicates the need for prices only thru YR5.

Please clarify if prices are needed for 5 or 10 years.

Per Solicitation Attachment 3, prices are required for 10 years. Although the ordering period under

DFARS Clause 252.216-7006 is only five years, orders per FAR 52.216-22 may extended up to five years past the ordering period PoP end date.

There may be a possible Government shut down by February 8, 2018. In regards to the to the DARPA TASS solicitation, solicitation number: HR0011-18- R-0001, will the Government be able to confirm receipt of proposal on February 8th if need be

Yes the government will be able to both receive and confirm receipt of proposals.

Master