Responses_to_Draft_RFP_Questions.pdf

Question Number

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

1 HR001118R0001 Does the government intend to include one or more sample tasks with the IDIQ RFP? No.

2 HR001118R0001 2 B The repetition of the CLINs is confusing. Will the Government please clarify if this contract is a five-year contract or a base one-year plus four option years?

IDIQ contracts resulting from this solicitation will be for five years (i.e. will have a five year ordering period and will not have any options) . CLINs that could be confused for option years have been removed from solicitation.

3 HR001118R0001 12 G-1.2.1 1

Is the name and resume of the Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager required with the proposal? Are they considered Key Personnel? Are these the first two slots identified on Attachment 3 Labor LCAT Pricing? They are not identified as Key personnel on this attachment.

See revised Solicitation, particularly Section L-1.8. Offerors are required to propose a Program Management Team. Members of this team will be considered Key Personnel at the IDIQ contract level.

Offerors should identify the correct Labor Category required for members of the Program Management Team based on their Management Approach.

4 HR001118R0001 12 G-1.2.2 1 Is the Task Order Project Manager included in Attachment 3 Labor LCAT pricing? See revised Solicitation and response to Question 4.

5 HR001118R0001 12 G-1.2.2 1

Technical proposal stating how the Contractor proposes to accomplish the effort, including a description of the performing team member(s) and any requested key personnel (to always include at least a Task Order Project Manager).

There is no LCAT description for the Task Order Project Manager. Suggest the following:

Experience: Supports the Program Manager and is the single point of contact to manage all programmatic matters of a single or multiple task orders, is located onsite at DARPA, and is responsible for managing the day-to-day operation of task order(s). At least two (2) years with demonstrated experience in a supervisory capacity in planning, developing, and executing major research and development efforts for defense organizations. Experience in establishing strong working relationships with R&D program managers as well as organization leadership; tracking task order efforts to rapidly identify and resolve potential and new problems; and identifying and resolving administrative and contractual issues related to a support services contract is required.

Demonstrated creativity, foresight, initiative, and mature judgment in anticipating and solving unprecedented problems.

Education: At least a Bachelors degree with some management courses preferred. 2. Is this resume required at proposal submission or follow-on Task Order submission?

See revised Attachment 3.

6 HR001118R0001 11 G-1.1.3 1

The paragraph reads “In addition to providing technical direction, the Task Order GTR will…”

We believe the intent was to reference the Task Order COR. Appears to be a typo See updated Solicitation.

7 HR001118R0001 13 G-3.0 The last Section on page 12 is G-3.0 and the first section on page 12 is G-5.0. It appears that section G-4.0 is missing. Appears to be a typo G-4.0 updated, see updated Solicitation.

8 HR001118R0001 13 G-5.0 2

Paragraph states, "TOs will be issued on a Fixed Price, Labor Hours, or Cost- Reimbursable Basis (only Fixed Price for Small Business set-aside). Please clarify that there will be no SB set aside for the IDIQ and at the task order level. There will be no SB set asides for the IDIQ contract or at the task order level. See revised Solicitation.

9 HR001118R0001 14 G-5.2 3

It states that total "small business utilization for proposed task orders may be an evaluation factor…." Why is it not an evaluation factor for the IDIQ contract award?

G-5.4 references the task order evaluation process that will be followed after IDIQ contract awards.

Evaluation procedures referenced in G-5.4 do not apply to the overall IDIQ contract evaluation. See L-

1.8 Factor 2 Management Approach for instructions on submission requirements for "Small Business Participation" and M-3.2 on how the government will evaluate Small Business Participation.

10 HR001118R0001 14 G-5.3 3

In the Task Order Proposal section, the solicitation states that “Each proposal shall include…The percentage of the proposed total price for the task order that will go to small businesses either as the prime contractor or as the first tier subcontractor.”

Will second tier subcontractors be allowed? Yes, second tier subcontractors are allowed. See revised Solicitation.

11 HR001118R0001 17 I Neither FAR 52.222-41 or 52.222-42 are included in this Draft solicitation. Does the Government intend to include them in the final RFP along with the appropriate Wage Determination? Requesting clarification No, neither clause will be included in final Solicitation. The government does not anticipate resultant IDIQ contracts will be subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute.

12 HR001118R0001 18 I N/A

DFARS 252.216-7005 Award Fee is included in the list of applicable clauses for this solicitation, but there is no reference to an award fee type contract or an award fee plan in any other are of the solicitation.

Recommend removing this clause from the solicitation Appears to be a typo It is possible that task orders may include award fee (or other incentive arrangements), the clause is at the IDIQ contract level so it can be flowed down in those cases.

13 HR001118R0001 18 I N/A

DFARS 252.235-7011 Final Scientific or Technical Report is included in the list of applicable clauses for this solicitation, however, according to the prescription for this clause, it’s applicable in solicitations and contracts for research and development.

This clause appears to be applicable to solicitations for Performer support rather than SETA support. Recommend removing this clause from the solicitation Appears to be a typo Agreed, clause has been removed from the Solicitation.

14 HR001118R0001 27 I 1

252.216-7006: The Period of Performance is listed as June 1, 2018 – July 23, Should the POP end date be May 31, 2023? Appears to be a typo Date updated, see revised Solicitation.

15 HR001118R0001 35 L-1.1 7

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency / Contracts Management Office (DARPA/CMO) intends to award up to seven (7) multiple Indefinite- Delivery / Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts under a single full and open competition solicitation under North American Industry Classification System Code 541990 and Product Services Code R499.

Recommend structuring this vehicle to include an 8(a) small-business swim lane with the same number of awarded contracts, seven (7). The PWS requirements detail common support services in the areas of program management office (PMO) services, strategic planning and advisory services, budget and financial support services, record management, documentation development and management services, risk management services, meeting and event management services, strategic communication services, data analysis services, business process services, and development services, in addition to others that 8(a) small businesses are capable of providing that meet and exceed the Government’s requirements.

To encourage 8(a) small business participation as a prime vendor.

The government conducted extensive market research to inform the strategy released within the Draft Solicitation determining there were not two or more responsible small businesses for this requirement. In accordance with FAR 19.202-1 (d) small business participation, to include 8(a) participation, is encouraged through evaluating small business participation within Section M of the IDIQ Solicitation as well as within Section G for task order evaluations.

16 HR001118R0001 35 L-1.1 7

Section L-1.1 Overview states "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency / Contracts Management Office (DARPA/CMO) intends to award up to seven

(7) multiple Indefinite-Delivery / Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts under a single full and open competition solicitation under North American Industry Classification System Code 541990 and Product Services Code R499."

1. Does a proposer need to be able to provide services across the full breadth of the PWS (Attachment 1), or might a proposer be awarded an IDIQ contract focused on particular expertise (e.g., Legislative Affairs, Public Affairs, General Counsel, or Mission Support)?

2. Does the scope of potential work for DARPA Mission Services Office in the PWS (Attachment 1) include information technology support (i.e., IT infrastructure management, help desk support, or mobile device support), security services (i.e., security guards, Visitor Welcome Center staffing, badge office, SCIF management, program security representatives, etc.), records management (i.e., classified document repository, research support service (library)), multimedia support (i.e., graphics arts, graphics production, etc.) and/or supply center support?

3. Will the government provide clarification for post-award Task Order Procedures regarding intent to compete task orders by (1) supported office (e.g., single task orders per IDIQ contractor for support across all I2O), (2) a technology area (e.g., building-wide directed energy programs), (3) support function (e.g., program analysts (BFMs) across multiple technical offices), (4) individual DARPA Program Manager portfolio, or (5) other? The government’s intentions will significantly influence both the contractor’s proposed management structure and pricing considerations.

1. The government will select up to the 7 highest technically rated offerors with a fair and reasonable price. Several areas within Section M-3.0 provide clarification on the experiences, abilities, and past performance that will be rated higher. 2. Only requirements listed within Attachment 1 are included in the scope of this Solicitation. 3. Post award task order procedures are not restricted to any one method. Each unique requirement will dictate the acquisition strategy on how many task orders will be competed and how they will be organized to best support the requirements owner.

17 HR001118R0001 14 L-1.8

Page 14 of 52 top bullet; Page 40 of 52, L-1.8, 2nd bullet; and PWS para 6.1 and 6.2. For clarity and consistancy recommend using one term either Task Order Project Manager, or Task Lead.

Please review RFP language and use either Task Order Project Manager or Task Lead? If both are required will the Government please clarify the difference between the roles and if they are both considered key?

Clarity and consistancy Solicitation updated to use only Task Order Project Manager.

18 HR001118R0001 36 L-1.5 4

Proposal Submission Requirements: Requirements for Excel file submission are written as “MS Excel 2016 (.xls)”, however, the file .xls extension is from the MS 97-2003 release.

Will the Government please clarify the file extension required for submission of MS Excel files? Appears to be a typo See updated Solicitation.

19 HR001118R0001 36 L-1.5 2

L-1.5 = "Offerors must submit their proposal via email…”. L-3.5 = "Originals and copies shall be unbound and submitted in economical, three-ring binders"

Can the Government please clarify? Clarify submission method Only electronic submissions will be accepted. See updated Solicitation.

20 HR001118R0001 38 L-1.6.6 last Will the Government clarify the small business size standard as it relates to whether a Subcontracting Plan is required as part of Volume I: Administrative as the NAICS code will be determined at the task order level (Page 14 G-5.3)?

Subcontracting Plan is required for all business that do not qualify as small under NAICS code 541990.

See revised Solicitation clarifying small business size standards for task orders.

21 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6 1 Volume I, Administrative; Is it acceptable for offerors to prime and be a subcontractor? There are no restrictions at the IDIQ contract level on subcontractor or teaming arrangements.

22 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.1 1

The Government requires a document establishing the legally binding nature of the Prime and joint venture/teaming partners.

Is it acceptable to provide the fully executed signature pages of the agreements, or does the Government require the entire teaming agreement? Requesting clarification Fully executed signature pages of the agreements are acceptable.

23 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.1

Section L-1.6.1 entitled “Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements” states the Government encourages teaming however discourages the use of exclusive arrangements. Teaming is typically a strategic relationships and formal proposals are sufficient for supporting new business opportunities. Will an Offer be evaluated more favorable in the Government’s evaluation that has formal teaming arrangements with all potential subcontractors?

Only within Small Business Participation per Factor M-3.2, "Enforceable and in place commitments will be rated more highly."

24 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.1 1

Section L-1.6.1 states that "the Government discourages exclusive teaming arrangements."

Given that the government discourages exclusive teaming arrangements, would the government please clarify the impact that exclusive teaming arrangements will have on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal?

Exclusive teaming arrangements will only impact an offertory's proposal if the government finds non-compliance with requirements to not unduly restrict competition in accordance with Section I FAR provision 52.203-2(a)(3) and FAR clause 52.203-6.

25 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.1 1

Section L-1.6.1 states that "the Government discourages exclusive teaming arrangements."

Would the government find it acceptable if a limited number of teaming arrangements are exclusive? Yes, as long as conditions within question 24 are met.

26 HR001118R0001 37 L-1.6.1 1

Section L-1.6.1 states that "the Government discourages exclusive teaming arrangements."

Would the government find exclusive teaming arrangements acceptable for innovative companies with unique capabilities that are not currently supporting

DARPA?

Yes, as long as conditions within question 24 are met.

27 HR001118R0001 38 L-1.6.6 1

Subcontracting Plan: The Subcontracting Plan is required to be included in Volume I. This is usually provided as a separate Volume. The Subcontracting Plan is required to be included in Administrative Volume I. This is usually provided as a separate Volume. Additionally, there seems to be a duplication with the plan in the Management Approach Volume III.

Will the government consider breaking this out as a separate Volume so that it can more easily be incorporated into the resulting contract award? Requesting clarification

No the government will not change requirement to allow for the subcontracting plan to be provided as a separate volume. Also note that although the Subcontracting Plan must reflect the same small business participation as proposed in response to Factor 2, the two submissions are distinct and separate (i.e., any duplication should be consistent in order for the subcontracting plan to be considered compliant with the solicitation).

28 HR001118R0001 38 L-1.6.3 1

L-1.6.3 contains solicitation requirements regarding Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

Would the government please confirm that an Offeror or any affiliates providing direct support to an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) with a contractual relationship to DAPRA would represent a Conflict of Interest and that the Offeror would be required to submit an OCI mitigation plan with their proposal?

If a prospective Offeror believes that any conflict of interest exists, or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise), or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the Offeror should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending contract information and a summary of the potential conflict to the Contracting Officer before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan.

29 HR001118R0001 38 L-1.6.3 3

The Offeror shall acknowledge requirement for Non-Disclosure Agreement in format prescribed by Section J, Attachment 2 by including a copy within this Volume submission.”

Is the Offeror to provide this completed form for the Prime contractor only to represent the whole team, or does the Offeror need to provide a completed form for each member of the team

Clarify submission completeness

Submission at the IDIQ contract level is only required from the Prime Contractor as a representative for the whole contractor team. In addition, this Non-Disclosure agreement will be included in successful IDIQ contract awards and will be mandatory for each person working under task order awards (prime or sub employees).

30 HR001118R0001 38 L-1.6.5 5

Offeror shall provide proof of a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)-approved accounting system or must fill out the Accounting System Checklist at Attachment 6 and include it within this Volume submission. Offerors should note that if they are awarded an IDIQ contract without already having a DCAA-approved accounting system, they will not be eligible to submit proposals for task order requirements with Cost-Reimbursement Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) until a DCAA Cost Accounting System Audit is performed and approved after IDIQ award.

Recommend structuring this vehicle to include an 8(a) small-business swim lane, which would be exempt from the DCAA-approved accounting system requirement for FFP TO awards.

To encourage 8(a) small business participation as a prime vendor.

Based on market research completed, the government is not willing to change acquisition strategy with respect to small business set asides. See response to Question number 15.

31 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.6.7 1 States Offeror shall provide proof of existing facilities. Please clarify what the Government will accept as proof of existing facilities.

A lease agreement or other official document that clearly shows compliance with requirements with PWS paragraph 7.9.3.

32 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.6.7 1

Conference Meeting Capability requirements are described in section L-1.6.7 as well as in the PWS section 7.9.3.

Is hosting a conference a direct charge, or is the conference facility assumed to be included in the contractor’s indirect rates?

Cost of having space available to meet Conference Meeting Capability referenced in Section L-1.6.7 should be included within contractor's indirect rates.

33 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.6.7 1

Conference Meeting Capability requirements are described in section L-1.6.7 as well as in the PWS section 7.9.3.

Will the government please clarify whether proof of existing conference facilities or proof of a contingency offer for conference facilities is required in the proposal or only upon IDIQ award?

Proof should be provided in proposal. See revised Solicitation.

34 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.6.7 1

Conference Meeting Capability requirements are described in section L-1.6.7 as well as in the PWS section 7.9.3.

Will an Offeror with existing conference facilities meeting the requirements in PWS section 7.9.3 be evaluated more favorably than an Offeror who does not currently have that capability?

Offerors that meet the requirement of Section L-1.6.7 through either proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer will be evaluated the same.

35 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.6.7

(L-1.6.7) Offeror shall either provide proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer upon IDIQ contract award to meet conference meeting requirements outlined in Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 7.9.3.

(L-1.6.9) \Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. By submission of its proposal, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

Recommend categorizing services into nine (9) functional areas (as defined in the PWS). Suggest identifying required functional areas to ensure a balanced offering, with the option to opt-out of one (1) or more areas so offerors can submit compliant proposals to provide services where they are suited vs. requiring all offerors to have a configured facility capable of holding 75 people within walking distance of the place of performance (requirement 7.9.3) of which only a handful may exist. Suggest pulling requirement 7.9.3 out of this IDIQ as a required qualifier and bidding that work as a separate contract independent of this vehicle to ensure active participation and a diverse pool of offerors.

To encourage a qualified and diverse pool of offerors.

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

36 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.6.7 and PWS Page 13 - 7.9.3. Meeting Capability The PWS requires “…conference room capability shall be within 15 minutes walking distance of DARPA…” This requirement favors incumbent contractors and as an IDIQ with multiple task orders planned, this is a cost all awardees will have to bear even if tasks are released without this meeting capability requirement. Recommend the Government remove requirement in L-1.6.7 at the IDIQ level.

See response to Question 35. In addition, the government has reduced barriers to competition by allowing offerors to provide a contingent offer for this requirement.

37 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.7 1

Volume II: Factor 1 – Technical Experience: Factor 1 requires offerors to provide technical experience as it relates only to Sections C-7.1.2, C-7.2.2, and C-7.9-1. It appears that a significant amount other PWS requirements missing from the drafts Evaluation Factors as the stated PWS sections only cover a portion of technical office support. The PWS elements cited for evaluation are quite limited and do not cover the scope of the DARPA Technical Front Offices or scope of supporting offices such as MSO, DIRO, and CMO.

Would the Government consider including additional PWS requirements to Factor 1 to better cover the anticipated scope of services required under this IDIQ?

No, the government feels the PWS requirements identified within Factor 1 adequately focus on the appropriate discriminators necessary to make a highest technically rated decision.

38 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.7 1

First paragraph, last sentence ends with:" …..of the PWS across the breadth of the technologies performed within technical offices identified in Paragraph 4 of the PWS:"

For clarity and to match with Section M-3-1 FACTOR 1, recommend using the similar languae (i.e., Biological Technology, Defense Science, Information Innovation, Microsystems Technology, Strategic Technology, and Tactical Technology).

For clarity and consistance Change made, see updated Solicitation.

39 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.7 1

(ref noted: p 47, M-31) The first sentence of L-1.7 requires the Offeror to “be specific, detailed, and complete as to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has the technical experience to accomplish requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).” In the next sentence, that requirement is narrowed to documenting “current, relevant experience as it relates to Sections C-7.1.2, C-7.2.2, C-7.9.1.”

Can the government clarify if they intend for industry to provide detailed response to all elements of the PWS (C-7.1 – C-7.9) or only to the three subsections listed (C-7.1.2, C-7.2.2, C-7.9.1)?

For Factor I, the government requires a detailed response to the three subsections listed (C-7.1.2, C- 7.2.2, and C-7.9.1).

40 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.7 1

Please confirm that the only areas the Contractor shall write to in Volume II is section C-7.1.2 Technical Experience, C-7.2.2 Program Financial Execution and C-

7.9.1 Event Assistance. Should these areas also carry through to past performance write-ups as well?

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."

41 HR001118R0001 39 L-1.7 5

Offerors shall document their current, relevant technical experience as it relates to Sections C-7.1.2, C-7.2.2, C-7.9.1 as noted below.

Question: Does the Government intend that only requirements 7.1.2, 7.2.2, and 7.9.1 will be evaluated out of the 49 listed in the PWS? If so, we recommend categorizing services into nine (9) functional areas (as defined in the PWS), and revising the technical experience requirements to reference and include all functional areas with the option for offerors to opt-out of one (1) or more areas.

To encourage a qualified and diverse pool of offerors.

Yes, Offerors need only to provide Technical Experience for the three subsections listed (C-7.1.2, C- 7.2.2, C-7.9.1). Also, see response to Question 37.

42 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.7 1

Section L-1.7 states “Any technical experience referenced must not have ended more than five (5) years prior to solicitation release (include month and year of contract end date to confirm) and must have a value over $7 million for a non- IDIQ contract or at least $100,000 for a task order off an IDIQ contract.”

Given the nature of DARPA programs, could the technical experience requirements be modified to focus on R&D /S&T contracts which emphasize complexity and need for expertise across multiple domain areas?

The Solicitation adequately addresses the nature of DARPA programs, per Section M-3.1, "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."

43 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.7 3

Minimum values are specified for experience referenced in the Technical Experience section.

Can the government clarify that the stated values represent the total value of the contract / task order?

Per Section L-1.7, "Any technical experience referenced must not have ended more than five (5) years prior to solicitation release (include month and year of contract end date to confirm) and must have a value over $7 million for a non-IDIQ contract or at least $100,000 for a task order off an IDIQ contract." Therefore, it's a minimum of $7M for a contract and $100K for a task order issued under an IDIQ contract.

44 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.7 3

Minimum values are specified for experience referenced in the Technical Experience section.

Would the government consider increasing the Task Order minimum value?

The government will not increase the task order minimum value, based on market research this is an adequate dollar amount to represent minimum requirements for a reference to be Somewhat Relevant.

45 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.7 2

“All past or current contract performance referenced in the technical capability shall be listed I Attachment 4…”

Can Offerors provide references in Attachment 4 that are not addressed within the Technical Experience section?

Clarify use of referenced contract performance

No.

46 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.7 1

Any technical experience referenced must not have ended more than five (5) years prior to solicitation release (include month and year of contract end date to confirm) and must have a value over $7 million for a non-IDIQ contract or at least $100,000 for a task order off an IDIQ contract.

Recommend lowering the total contract value threshold for non-IDIQ contracts to at least $4M.

To encourage 8(a) small business participation as a prime vendor.

The threshold in the draft solicitation was established based on the size and scope of contracts currently performing the same or similar requirements and therefore this threshold was determined appropriate to accurately assess relevancy of offerors past performance.

47 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 All It does not seem that 10 pages is enough to cover the IDIQ Management Plan, Recruitment and Retention, Training and Small Business Participation plan.

Will you consider a page increase?

No. The 10 page limit is adequate.

48 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 2

Volume III: Factor 2 – Management Approach: The Recruitment and Retention section requires the Offeror to provide historical turnover rates for all contracts described in Attachment 4.

None of the technical office contracts track this data. Given the fact that by design Office thrusts and/or Office leadership change periodically in order to successfully execute DARPA’s mission, SETA companies must periodically revamp staffing to align with these changing goals and expectations. Additionally, personnel turnover is expected in situations where Programs end or transition from DARPA. Because the technical office contracts did not track this information, backing into an accurate number would be difficult and would vary widely across Offerors depending on the estimating methodology applied that each applied.

The government agrees there are situations out of a contractors control that require changes in staffing and that it will be difficult to assess considering the variations for calculating turn over rate.

Therefore this requirement has been removed, see revised Solicitation.

49 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8

“Overall IDIQ Management

Plan” 1st paragraph (L and M); 2nd paragraph in

L-1.8, 2nd paragraph in

M-4.2

L-1.8 and M-4.2 describe Management Approach requirements and evaluation factors.

Would the government consider adding language that it will provide additional points for unique tools and innovative methods to accomplishing work to the benefit of DARPA PMs and their ability to efficiently transition programs?

No, the current evaluation criteria are adequate.

50 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8

“Recruitment and

Retention” 3rd paragraph (L and M); 6th paragraph in

L-1.8, 6th paragraph in

M-4.2

L-18 and M-4.2 describe requirements and evaluation factors related to Recruitment and Retention.

Would the government consider adding benefits trends as part of the government’s risk assessment and requiring Primes to provide a table showing their fringe benefit rate over the last three years?

Benefits are essential to the Prime’s ability to attract and retain talent.

No, the current evaluation of Recruitment and Retention and Evaluation of Compensation of Professional Employees under Factor 2 provide an adequate avenue for the government to assess offeror's ability to attract and retain quality personnel.

51 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8

“Overall IDIQ Management ” 2nd bullet

L-1.8 requires Offerors to provide resumes of the proposed Contract Program Manager and any proposed Task Lead(s).

Would the government consider specifying a minimum and maximum number of Task Leads to be included in the management approach? No, each offer or should decide the appropriate solution for meeting Factor 2 Management Approach.

52 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 3

The Program Management Teams is defined as the overall Contract Program Manager and any proposed Task Leads. It is difficult to identify what Task Leads are needed without more information on the Tasks. Is the entire PWS consider the Task? Are the Task Leads identified on Attachment 3 Pricing?

See revised Solicitation. Each offer or shall identify the appropriate Program Management Team construct required to successfully manage an IDIQ contract of this size and complexity.

53 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 3

The solicitation requests a total compensation plan with “salaries and fringe benefits proposed for all personnel who will work under this contract”.

Will the Government clarify the request.?

As direct salaries and fringe benefits are business proprietary;

subcontractor information will not be included in the Compensation Plan.

The government is only requesting a total compensation plan from the prime contractor and is not requesting any proprietary subcontractor information to be provided.

54 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 6

A total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits is proposed all personnel on the contract? Is this for all 66 FTEs identified in the Attachment 3c Pricing?

Yes Compensation Plan should address all FTEs.

55 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 3

Section L-1.8 requires that contractors submit a total compensation plan as part of Volume III, Management Approach while Section L-2.0 advises that “All information relating to the proposed cost/price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as Volume V Cost/Price Proposal. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal unless specifically stated otherwise.”

Will the Government please confirm that the total compensation plan is to be submitted within Volume III? Requesting clarification Total Compensation Plan will be evaluated as a part of the Management Approach but should be submitted along with Volume V. See revised Solicitation.

56 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 8

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.

Recommend the Government remove the salary requirement from the “Total Compensation Plan” as a detailed rate structure should be included in the price volume.

To eliminate the risk of potential discrepancies.

See response to Question 55.

57 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8 3

The Recruitment and Retention section of the Management Approach requirements states that “the Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for all personnel who will work under the contract.”

Would the government consider including compensation levels for each LCAT in the Cost Volume Narrative rather than in the Management Volume? See response to Question 55.

58 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.8

(ref p 48, M-2) L-1.8 requires Offerors to provide resumes of the proposed Contract Program Manager and any proposed Task Lead(s).

Would the government please explain how the number of Task Lead resumes submitted will contribute to the Management Approach evaluation? See response to Question 53.

59 HR001118R0001 40 L-1.9 3 Volume 4: FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE;Will the Government please provide the dollar threshold value for an IDIQ?

See Section L-9, "All submissions 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. Offerors shall submit Contractor Past Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) evaluations if they are available."

60 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.8 2

It states that the "Small Business Participation Plan is separate from the sub-contracting plan." Where is the requirement to submit a sub-contracting plan?

Which volume should address the sub-contracting/teaming/joint venture plan?

See L-1.6.6. Sub-contracting plan should be submitted within Volume I. Also see Section L-1.6.1 requiring Joint Venture / Teaming Arrangements to be submitted via Volume I.

61 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.8 11

States the Small Business Participation Plan should list the extent of participation of small business "in terms of value of the total acquisition."

However, the cost volume requires labor rates only.

Please clarify what the Government would like Offerors to use as the "value of the total acquisition" for purposes of the Small Business Participation Plan. The total ceiling value of the IDIQ contract should be used to estimate (i.e., $850M).

62 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9

The requirements for past performance submission seems to be overly lenient ($100,000 for a TO under an IDIQ) and could very possibly allow for hundreds of proposals to be submitted. Will the Government consider revising to a minimum of $500,000 per TO under an IDIQ?

No, only 6 past performance submissions are allowed. Offerors should pick those submissions that are recent and most relevant to this requirement. See response to Question 44.

63 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9 2

States the Summary Page for Volume 4: Factor 3 - Past Performance shall describe the role of the Offeror and each teaming partner.

Please clarify if the summary page should include all subcontractors and consultants bid at the IDIQ level, or only those from whom a past performance is required.

Summary should only include those contractors for which past performance is being submitted.

64 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9 1

The solicitation requirements contain dollar value limits for non-IDIQ contracts and for Task Orders on IDIQ contracts.

Will the government please clarify that IDIQ-level contracts cannot be used as Past Performance and that only Task Orders under an IDIQ will qualify for Past Performance?

IDIQ-level contracts with task orders exceeding thresholds, individual task orders issued under IDIQ contracts, and any other contracts that meet the dollar value limits can all be used for past performance.

65 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9 3

If CPARS evaluations are not available, Offerors may request their customers submit past performance questionnaires (PPQ) following instructions below.

Can the government confirm that if CPARS are available for a past performance that the Government does not want a PPQ submitted for that same past performance and will not review it?

CPARS are occassionally not very specific and may not be of assistance to the government in determining how well a performer completed a previous assignment

Correct, if CPARS are available questionnaires should not be submitted. Per L-1.9, if the government does not feel the CPARS submission is sufficient we reserve the right to contact the cognizant government customer point of contact to obtain additional information.

Attachment 1A - Additional

Requirements 1 (b) (1) 1

“The Contractor shall be ineligible to participate (in any capacity) in any DARPA procurements other than those for Scientific, Engineering, Technical and Administrative (SETA) support services. A DARPA SETA contractor cannot simultaneously be a DARPA performer on other, non-SETA efforts. “

Does the statement that the "Contractor shall be ineligible to participate (in any capacity) in any DARPA procurements…" apply only to the Prime contractor?

2. Will this be enforced at the vehicle level or shall determinations be made at the Task Order level?

No this clause does not only apply to the prime contractor, per Paragraph (b) of referenced clause this restriction applies to subcontractors as well. This clause will be enforced at the IDIQ contract level.

Attachment 1A - Additional

Requirements 1 table Table to be completed to identify Offeror Key Personnel

Does the Government want Offerors to identify Key Personnel within the proposal? If yes, can the Government please specify where this information should be included? Clarify submission of key personnel

See revised Solicitation Section L-1.8. The proposed Program Management Team will be considered Key Personnel at the IDIQ level and shall be added to Attachment IA - Key Personnel Requirement. Any task order level key personnel requirements will be outlined in the task order request for proposal.

Attachment 1A - Additional

Requirements 2 ( c )

The statement "The Contractor shall include this requirement, including this paragraph, in subcontracts of any tier." It is not clear which "this" requirement is considered. Is it everything on the previous page and this page?

It is everything within the Organizational Conflict of Interest requirement.

Attachment 1A -

Additional Requirements

3 These requirements are for Universities and Non-profits. Can the Government clarify if Universities and Non-profits are eligible to bid this?

Yes, they are eligible as long as they do not have any Organizational Conflicts of Interest per Section L- 1.6.3.

Attachment 1A - Additional

Requirements 3 Travel There are several referenced to “Performers” in this Section. We assume the

Government remove these references in the final RFP? Appears to be a typo This is a DARPA Contract Management Office requirement meant to fit all solicitations. For profit business under this requirement would be considered non-university / for-profit performer.

71 Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

Are the labor categories SCA? Assuming this question is asking if labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Act the answer is no.

Attachment 3 -

Pricing Spreadsheet

Recommend opening labor qualifications where specific DoD or DARPA experience is referenced, such that specific experience is not necessarily required, but highly desirable.

To encourage a qualified and diverse pool of offerors. To encourage 8(a) small business participation as a prime vendor.

The government has the discretion to determine its needs and the best method to accommodate them. DARPA has determined there is a legitimate need for the types of experience listed within the labor category descriptions.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet The LCAT descriptions for the Travel Coordinator and Travel Specialist are very similar. See revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

The System Technology Offices (STO, TTO) system engineers are substantially different from the engineer/scientists in the Science Technology Offices (DSO, BTO, MTO). They are required to have more broad experience, and specific experience at the system level and wirh system integration. Often, DARPA program experience is required, which is not always the case in the Science Offices, who more often are looking just for experts in he latest narrow discipline of current interest. For this reason, system engineer salary rages are substantially higher than the science office scientists and engineers, as borne out by current DARPA contracts. In addition, industry salary tracking data consistently shows significantly higher salary ranges for systems engineers compared, for example, to chemists. Putting all scientists and engineers in the same Labor Categories would create a wide disparity between costs and make it difficult to provide scientist/engineer cost levels reasonable across all DARPA offices.

To accommodate the type of Systems/Engineer staff used by the systems offices, we suggest including the following LCATs:

Lead Systems Engineer Experience: Fifteen (15) years’ experience (or 13 years with a Master’s degree) in systems engineering support such as: Technology Analysis and Assessment, Design Definition, Development of Systems Specification, Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems/Equipment Integration, Test & Evaluation Criteria, and Logistics support of Department of Defense (DoD) programs requirements. Individual is recognized as an expert in their field of study or technology.

Education: At least a Bachelors or Master’s degree in Electrical, Mechanical, Aerospace or Systems Engineering.

Senior Systems Engineer Experience: Ten (10) years’ experience (or 8 years with a MS degree) in systems engineering support such as: Technology Analysis and Assessment, Design Definition, Development of Systems Specification, Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems/Equipment Integration, Test & Evaluation Criteria, and Logistics support of Department of Defense (DoD) programs requirements. Five (5) years of technical experience in support of research and development (R&D) DoD programs.

Education: Bachelors or Master’s degree in Electrical, Mechanical, Aerospace or Systems Engineering.

Systems Engineer Experience: Six (6) years of experience in technology assessment for military systems applications such as:

Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems/Equipment Support, Test and Evaluation, and Logistics support of Department of Defense (DoD) programs requirements. Three (3) years of technical experience in support of research and development (R&D) DoD programs.

Education: Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Mechanical, Aerospace or Systems Engineering.

See revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet There are 2 financial analysts and 2 Sr. Financial analysts in the draft RFP LCAT listing. Appears to be a typo See revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

Some Labor Categories are listed twice, e.g. Senior Financial Analyst (see rows 25 and 44) and Senior Financial Analyst (rows 24 and 45), with different qualification requirements. Please clarify similarly named Labor Categories

Clarify similarly named Labor Categories to eliminate confusion See revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

The Scientist/Engineering LCATs that are provided in the attachment don’t include biological sciences which will be needed to cover work in Biological Technologies Office. We recommend adding biological sciences to the types of degrees in the Scientists/Engineer LCATS. See revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet All

There are twelve (12) LCATS designated as Key Personnel in this attachment.

We assume this key personnel designation will be removed in the final solicitation. Appears to be a typo

Key personnel designations within revised Attachment 3 have been removed. Any key personnel requirements will be specified at the IDIQ Contract and / or task order level within Attachment 1A Key Personnel requirement.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet 4 and 5

Labor Category Title

The Attachement 3 LCAT descriptions list Executive Briefing Coordinator, Senior Military Ops Specialist, Sr Customer /Service Advocate, Sr Human Resources Specialist, Sr Human Resource Hiring/Staffing Specialist, Sr Public Affairs Specialist, Task Lead Property Records Management, Task Lead Research Services, and Travel Coordinator are listed as Key Personnel

The RFP does not specify key personnel at the IDIQ level and mentions that they should be identified at the TO level and include the Task Order Project manager (G-5.3). Can the government confirm if these roles are indeed key at the IDIQ level and update the RFP to reflect that or update Attachment 3 to remove the indication that these are key personnel.

Key personnel identification is inconsistant between the HR001118R0001 and Attachment 3.

See revised Section L-1.8.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet Will the Government consider standardizing the various levels (Jr., Lead, Senior, etc) with regards to years of experience, degrees and certifications?

No, the Government does not believe that all labor category requirements lend themselves to the same levels of experience and education. However, requirements have been standardized to the maximum extent possible, see revised Attachment 3 .

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

A number of the labor categories are classified as “Key”. Are offerors required to tie these particular labor categories to specific personnel identified in the offerors response?

See response to Question 78.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet Some Labor Categories are labled as “Key”. Was the "Key" label intentional, and if so, is this IDIQ wide, or Task Order specific?

Clarify the significance of "Key" in certain Labor Category Titles See response to Question 78.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet 4,5 N/A

There are 11 Key personnel identified. Are these required resumes? Why is the Program Manager, Assistant Program Manager and Task Order Project Managers not Key Personnel?

See response to Question 78.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

RFP: Section L-1.8 states “Offerors shall provide resumes of proposed Program Management Team”

Question: Are the 12 identified Key Personnel LCATs correct as shown in the DRFP? Please confirm the following positions are not considered Key Personnel:

Sr. Program Manager, Program Manager, and Senior Technical Positions. See response to Question 78.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet

RFP; Section G (G-1.2.1 Program Manager \ G-1.2.2 Task Order Project Manager ) identifies a Program Manager and a Task Order Project Manager Is the Task Order Project Manager’s LCAT the same as Program Manager identified in Attachment 3, cell H5 “Program Manager”? No these are separate labor categories, see revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet All N/A

There are no FTEs tied to TS/SCI clearances

Positions requiring TS/SCI or SAP will be specified at the Task Order Level.

Attachment 3 - Pricing

Spreadsheet Travel Coordinator and Travel Specialist (rows 68 and 69) have essentially the same qualifications. Could the Government clarify the difference between these two labor categories?

Clarify seemingly similar Labor Categories See revised Attachment 3.

Attachment 5 -

PPQ

Titled "Attachment 3" on the document, although file name is "Attachment 5." Please clarify whether the PPQ is Attachment 3 or Attachment 5.

Titled: Attachment 5, Corrected.

89 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9 1 Does the 13 Pg limit for the past performance volume count the Table of Contents, Summary Page, and organizational Change History?

The Table of Contents and Summary Page count towards the 13 Pg limit. As per the note at the bottom of the Organizational Structure Change History, Pg 41, 1st paragraph, the "roadmap" describing all organizational changes within the past 7 years does not count towards the 13 page limit.

90 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9 All It states that the past performance submissions shall relate to experience in the Technical experience factor . Does this mean 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?

Yes.

91 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9

L-1.9 Volume 4 Past Performance L-3.5 Volume IV Past Performance

Recommend changing title of L-1.9 from "Volume 4" to "Volume IV" for consistancy Inconsistant volume numbering Corrected.

92 HR001118R0001 41 L-1.9 3

Past Performance Continuation Submission; All submissions shall relate to experience submitted within the Technical Experience Factor and shall only be for…