Questions_(Without_colored_Background).pdf

Question Answer

1 Description of the solicitation includes “The contractor shall provide the level of language transcription, translation, and interpretation services.” Please correct.

Please see the revised Past Performance Questionnaire posted to FedBizOpps on 10 Apr 2015.

2 Item 11(1(2)) appears to indicate a requirement that staff be cleared to the TS level although the Base IDIQ states the requirement only for Secret. Please clarify.

The contract requires the Contractor to have and maintain a Top Secret Facility Clearance.

Contractor Employees will have varying security classifications from Secret to Top Secret/SCI as the requirements dictate.

The Task Order indicates a much narrower timeframe for business hours under which the contractor can work – 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. instead of the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. stated by the Base IDIQ. It is unclear why the Base IDIQ would need to indicate specific work hours rather than relegate work schedule decisions to the issuers of task orders, based on their needs. Please clarify.

The Base IDIQ provides the perimeters of the work schedule for all potential task orders to provide the Contractors a general scope of the time period that their employees may have to work. However, each individual task order PWS may limit the hours to meet the missions of the individual directorate who is requiring support.

Why is Government-provided space available only during integration, testing, and deployment activities? We anticipate needing space to support other intermittent PM support activities and to be available to DSS staff at the Government site between meetings. Please clarify.

Please see Amendment 0001.

5 The cited paragraph, “Program Support Services”, has no content. That is correct, this is the heading for the associated tasks listed in Section 5.

The RFP states “All processes shall be performed and maintained at a quality assurance level based upon SEI/CMMI (specifically includes a minimum of a Level II certification), ITIL, or ISO” (page 17) and “The Offeror must have a SEI/CMMI level II or above or comparable ISO certification” (page 24). Is an ISO 9001:2008 certification comparable to an SEI CMMI Level II and does it meet both these requirements?

Please see Amendment 0001.

It is not clear if the task order is intended to support BE/PI only, or if it will also support the other Agency operational elements named. Does it include the OCIO? If the TO is to support additional elements, how can offerors predict the volume of “projects of mutual interest” that might arise? Will the level of support for those projects be equivalent to that described for BE directly? If so, please provide a means to estimate that level of effort.

Please see Amendment 0001.

8 Our understanding is that business trends analysis is in the purview of the DSS Strategic Management Office.

Would the contractor be supporting them in this?

No, The support required under Task Order 0001 is for the Business Enterprise Program Integration Office only.

9 Our understanding is that EVM is not currently used. What is the contractor’s anticipated role with respect to EVM?

EVM is used for Acquisitions of $20M and above for cost-type contracts. We are looking for some program management support to the Government EVM specialist for DSS contracts that exceed the $20M value.

10 The requirement is for an “alternate [Program Manager] who shall act for the Offeror when the manager is absent”.

Does DSS require or prefer that the alternate be another key position, e.g., the/a Project Manager? Yes, as long as they meet the qualifications of the key personnel (Project Manager).

Are we correct in assuming that the Project Manager identified as “key” in paragraph 1.6.8 is the same position as that listed as “Project Management Support” in paragraph 1.6.8.6 and “Program Management Support” in the matrix at paragraph L .5.5.3?

Please see Amendment 0001.

12 Is only one proposed Project Manager key or are all proposed Project Managers key? That is, do you need only one résumé, or one for each proposed Project Manager?

All Project Managers proposed under this solicitation and utilized on subsequent Task Orders are considered Key Personnel and shall be treated as such.

Requirement states that “The Offeror shall provide a draft transition plan with proposal submission for review.”

Sections and L and M do not define where this plan should be provided or in what context it will be evaluated.

Please clarify.

Please see Amendment 0001.

Requirement states that “The transition plan shall detail the plan the Offeror will employ during contract phase-in/phase-out process. The Government will monitor the transition plan during performance of the phase-in/phase out period…” Phase-in and Phase-out are two different processes and two different periods that may be separated by as much as 5 years. While Phase-out is important, it is not clear why the Government wishes to see a draft plan for a far future event. Please advise.

The Government requires this information for planning purposes.

All sections purporting to define which items and services are Government-provided and which are contractor-provided refer the reader to “See Base IDIQ PWS”—but the corresponding parts of the Base IDIQ PWS do not provide a substantial level of detail as to what equipment and facilities the Government will provide. Please provide specific information regarding this task order.

The Solicitation is clear as to what is to be provided by the Government and what is to be provided by the Contractor for the Base IDIQ and Task Order 0001.

16 The cited paragraph, “Program/Project Management Support”, has no content. That is correct, this is the heading for the associated tasks listed in Section 5.

This task listing describes a broad range of support services but does not provide workload measures to support a staffing plan. While the types of skills needed overall are clear, the relative distribution of work and the number nature of ongoing projects and tasks is not described. Could DSS provide some workload measures or other indicators that would allow vendors to estimate the number of staff required?

Please see Amendment 0001.

This requirement describes an interaction with other contractors. There are a few places this work can be expected to require interactions with other contractors. Does DSS have a means to define the specific responsibilities of each contractor to avoid conflicts?

Yes, these definitions will be provided upon receipt of contract award at the contract kick-off meeting.

19 Please provide some guidance on the expected requirement, size, and scope for BPR efforts. Is this work expected to be provided for other operational elements at BE’s direction?

BPR efforts are generally for larger, tier one projects. It is possible but is not known at the time and will be defined in future task orders.

Throughout paragraph L.4 the injunction against too many pages is repeated thrice:

• L.4.a: “Pages that exceed the margin, font or total page limit will not be evaluated.”

• L.4.b, “Page Count”, top of page 80: “Those pages that exceed the page counts in Table 1 for each volume or attachment will not be evaluated.”

• Two sentences later: “Those pages that exceed the page count in the table for each volume or attachment will not be evaluated.

Then, at the end of the same paragraph: “If Offerors include additional pages above the page limitations, their proposal shall be considered technically unacceptable and they shall not be considered for award.”

Please correct this discrepancy.

Please see Amendment 0001.

The instructions regarding proposal structure in paragraphs L.4, L.5, and L.6 are confusing and seem to be in conflict:

• Paragraph L.5.2.c instructs: “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents and Summary Section.

The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.” By contrast, paragraph L.5.1.2 and the matrix at Paragraph L.6 call for a single “Proposal Summary” as its own file in Volume 1. Please clarify.

• The L.6 matrix does not allow for any of the required contents of Volume 1 as enumerated in Table 1 of paragraph L.4.b: Solicitation, Offer and Award; Document and Section K, Representations and Certificates [sic]; Quality Control Plan; and Management Plan. Please clarify.

• The L.6 matrix lists a separate file for Volume 2, “PWS Technical Matrix.docx”, described as “Offeror’s PWS Technical Proposal File Matrix & requirements crosswalk”. We understand a requirements crosswalk to be a compliance matrix showing where all proposal requirements are met in our submission; but the RFP contains no other reference to or instruction for a “PWS Technical Proposal File Matrix.” Please define this requirement.

• The L.6 matrix seems to specify every file to be submitted as either a Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel file;

whereas paragraph L.4.d explicitly allows PDF files.

Please see Amendment 0001.

The table on page 79 advises that Volume II is limited to 40 pages. However, the instructions for Volume II (page

82) state that only Subfactor 1.1, Offeror Qualifications and Experience, and Subfactor 1.2, Key Personnel, are to be included in this volume; and the evaluation criteria (page 93) confirm that only those two subfactors will be evaluated.

Subfactor 1 is limited to 16 pages per Paragraph L.5.3.1.1, and Subfactor 2 is limited to 6 pages (2 pages for each of 3 key personnel resumes). There is no discussion in Section L of what additional content might fill the remaining 18 pages (of the allowed 40).

It is also highly unusual to expect “offeror qualifications” and “key personnel resumes” to “demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements and risk in implementing those requirements”—as the beginning of Paragraph L.5.3 advises this volume must do.

Can you please clarify what offerors should include in Volume II?

Please see Amendment 0001.

Paragraph L.4.g advises that “The proposal shall … specifically describe the means of accomplish[ing the Government’s requirements]. The proposal in its entirety should … demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the solicitation requirements… providing examples of past performance as a response to a task, while helpful, does not indicate an offeror’s approach to performing a task.”

Paragraph L.5.3, “VOLUME II – TECHNICAL VOLUME” also instructs offerors to “demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements and risk in implementing those requirements. This will include the Offeror’s plans to meet all technical requirements, and the thoroughness in which the proposal addresses each technical requirement.”

Yet all other instructions for Volume II—including paragraphs L.5.3.1 and subs, the matrix at paragraph L.6, and the Evaluation Criteria at M.3.1—state that “Offeror Qualifications and Experience” and “Key Personnel” make up the entirety of the Technical Capability Volume, which will be evaluated solely upon those two subfactors. Those subfactors comprise “Relevant Project Summaries” and resumes, respectively. As currently configured, the RFP allows for no section that meets the “technical approach” requirements cited above—nor does it propose to evaluate such a section. Please clarify.

Please see Amendment 0001.

The description of the required content for Volume II, Subfactor 2 in Section L (i.e., submission of resumes) does not align with the evaluation criteria in Section M. Section M applies to a staffing plan and staffing approach, but not to a review of resumes. Please clarify.

Please see Amendment 0001.

25 The pricing tables for TO 0001 do not allow for any indication of the number of hours in each labor category at all, although the requirement is to provide that information by prime and subcontractor. Please correct or clarify.

Since Task Order 0001 is Firm Fixed Price, the tables are only provided to capture the Rates being proposed. Offeror shall provide the information regarding proposed labor hours and labor categories in the narrative section of the Pricing Volume.

The file naming schema—(Insert Offeror Name)- [file name].EXT—does not anywhere include the volume number to which each file belongs. Offerors who follow the matrix instruction will submit discs with all files in alpha order by title. Please reconsider the wisdom of this.

Please see Amendment 0001.

Use of LPTA for the kind of work described in the basic PWS and Task Order 0001 presents an extremely high risk for not being able to obtain staff with the expertise and qualifications DSS needs. Low price will hamstring the winning contractor by eliminating their flexibility to meet DSS’s requirements as they shift over the coming years.

DSS’s requirements cannot be fully defined, especially in the future, even with regard to the skill and experience level of contractor staff. This makes LPTA an inappropriate choice for assuring a contracting arrangement beneficial to DSS.

In particular, the acceptability criteria are too limited since they will not assess offeror's experience and past performance of work of the nature and volume defined in this RFP—and with the same skill level of staff. To show themselves in the best light, offerors are likely to present work done by much more highly skilled and experienced project management staff than they intend to provide to DSS (or can afford to provide given the low price they bid).

This very limited basis for review does not lend itself to a valid technical evaluation: there is no assurance that staff who meet the position requirements will be capable of performing the high level support work DSS demands.

In short, the RFP as issued is extremely risky and likely to serve DSS poorly for the duration of the issued contract.

We strenuously advise that DSS reconsider the basis of award and opt for a more flexible best value trade-off approach.

The Government's use of the LPTA was chosen after considerable Market Research ad Coordination with the Customer and the Contracting Professionals. We thank you for your words of caution, but the RFP Strategy will not be changed.

28 What is the historic level of effort (LOE) for each task? This is a new requirement for DSS and the Historic Level of Effort for previous acquisitions, similar to this requirement, do not apply to this current requirement.

29 Can the Government provide expected staffing/labor mix (% level of experience) for each task? Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

30 Can the Government provide a specific number and type of deliverables required for each task? Please see Amendment 0001.

31 Does the Government require resumes for all staff positions listed or for key personnel only? Resumes are required for all Key Personnel Positions.

32 Does the Government require staff to be at primary location (Quantico, Russell Knox Building) to perform work on this engagement? Can work be performed off site? Please review Section 1.6.3. of the Base IDIQ PWS on page 9.

33 Does the Resume Appendix count as part of the page limitations? Yes, Resumes are included in the Page Count for Volume II.

34 Does the Government expect the proposed key personnel to meet minimum qualification requirements for software development (SDLC)? Please see Amendment 0001.

35 Will the government allow key personnel minimum qualification requirements to be substituted with other comparable qualifications (PMP)? Please follow PWS for Task Order 0001 - 1.6.8.

36 How critical does the Government view Earned Value Management in achieving success with this engagement? Please see the Government's response to Question 9 above.

37 How critical does the Government view Software Development Lifecycle in achieving success with this engagement?

The offeror's personnel need to be familiar with this process, the offeror's employees are to provide support to the Government's Program Managers.

38 Can the Government provide a list of the technologies or methodologies currently being used? The offeror needs to be able to complete the tasks identified in the PWS' and also provide the information contained in the CDRL's.

39 When does the Government expect to award the contract? Award is expected no later than 15 Jun 2015.

40 Can the Government provide the names of any sub-contractors that are currently supporting or have supported Abacus in the past? The Government does not have this information to provide.

41 Will the Government consider adding a HUBZone preference or set-aside to this procurement? The Government's set aside decision and determination is based on initial Market Research and the Government will not be adding a HUBZone preference or set aside for HUBZone.

In reference to the above mention solicitation, paragraph 1.6.1 - Security Requirements - indicates that "...company must possess Top Secret Facility Security Clearance...", at time of proposal submission. This requirement disadvantages many small companies as Security Requirements are downgraded if not currently performing in a specific security category. Many of us have had the TS Facility clearance in the past but may not have it currently because of required downgrade due to no fault of our own but because of established rules. As you are aware, the TS Clearance can be easily reinstated based on current work requirements. Please consider modifying this requirement so as to allow more qualified small businesses to compete for this requirement. After all, competition is supposed to be one of the governments key tenants in contracting. Thanks for your consideration.

The requirement for a Top-Secret Facility Clearance is based on the need for the Contractor to begin work immediately upon award. Any delays may cause undue harm to the Government, therefore the requirement to have a TS Facility Clearance is a requirement upon proposal submission.

43 For Solicitation Number HS0021-15R0010, hours of operation on page 9 of the solicitation indicates 6am-6pm;

however page 22 indicates hours of operation to be 8am-4:30pm. Please clarify actual hours of operation. Please see the Government's response to Question 3 above.

44 For Solicitation Number HS002115R0010, on page 5 of the solicitation, it states the contract is IDIQ with FFP Task orders; however, page 89 states the task order can be Cost Plus; which is it, or is it both? Please see Amendment 0001.

45 Will the government please clarify the specific content that offerors should include as part of both the Draft Management Plan and Draft Quality Control Plan? Please see Amendment 0001.

Within Section L.5.3 offerors must “…demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements and risk in implementing those requirements. This will include the Offeror’s plans to meet all technical requirements, and the thoroughness in which the proposal addresses each technical requirement.” Is the intent for offerors to demonstrate our L.5.3 within the two subfactors for evaluation: 1. Offeror Qualifications and Experience; and 2. Key Personnel through relevancy of experience with other contracts?

Please see the Government's responses to Questions 22 and 23 above.

In the proposal summary, two of the requirements are “Proposed start and finish dates including critical project tasks, sub tasks and milestones” and “Deliverables and Schedules.” However, no specific instruction is provided as to expectation of the scope or detail of these items.

Question 1: Will the Government please clarify the specific level of detail necessary to gain an acceptable rating?

Questions 2: These two items appear as though they would impact the evaluation of an offeror, however neither are mentioned as part of the evaluation criteria in Section M. Can the government please clarify if these items will be evaluated and, if they are evaluated, what the evaluation criteria will be?

Please see Amendment 0001.

It is stated in Table 1 that the page limitation for Volume II is 40 pages. However, Section L. 5.3.1 states that Volume II shall consists of the Offeror Qualifications and Experience as well as Key Personnel Subfactors which have page limitations of 16 pages and 6 pages (2 pages per resume; 3 key personnel positions) respectively.

Question: Can the government please clarify the expectation for the additional 18 pages?

Please see the Government's response to Question 22 above.

The table provides for specific file naming conventions to be used when preparing proposals for submission.

Question 1: The file names provided for Volume 2 includes a file titled “PWS Technical Matrix” with a description of “Offeror’s PWS Technical Proposal File Matrix & Requirements Crosswalk.” This matrix is not mentioned anywhere else Sections L or M nor is any description provided as to what it shall contain. Can the government please confirm that this matrix is a requirement and if yes, please provide a description of what the matrix should contain.

Question 2: The table identifies Volume I as the proposal summary, however Section L identifies Volume I as “Solicitation Offeror and Award Document…” and the proposal summary in Section L.5.1.2 is not identified as part of any volume. Can the government please clarify the volume numbering as these two sections seemingly contradict each other?

Question 3: The table, under PWS Past Performance, only identifies two files to be included “Master Project List” and “Relevant Summaries.” However Section L.5.4.4 also requires a “Past Performance Questionnaire” discussion which can contain “performance recognition documents received within the last three (3) years such as awards, award fee determination, customer letters of commendation and any other forms of performance recognition.” What should the file name be for the section identified in Section L.5.4.4 but not listed in the table in Section L.5?

Please see the Government's responses to Questions 21 and 143 above.

It is stated in this Section that “The offeror shall create and submit a draft transition plan with their proposal.”

However a draft transition plan is not mentioned in any part of Section L as a proposal requirement.

Question: Can the government please clarify if a draft transition plan is required as part of the proposal and it yes, please clarify both where it should be included and the specific elements that will be evaluated?

Please see the Government's response to Question 13 above.

It is stated in this section that “Award will be made to the technically acceptable, responsible offeror with the lowest evaluated price…”. However it is later stated in Section M.3.1 (pg. 93) that Technical Capability will be determined based upon “a roll up of the ratings for subfactors 1.1 and 1.2” and that “subfactor 1.1 and 1.2 are of equal importance.”

Question: A roll-up of ratings and the statement of importance of subfactors implies that an adjectival evaluation system would be utilized which contradicts earlier statements of “Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable” as the evaluation methodology. Can the government please clarify the evaluation methodology that will be used?

Please see the Government's response to Question 23 above.

52 This section provides the requirements for Project Management Support. Are these the requirements to be applied to the Project Manager key personnel position identified in section L.5.3.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel? Please see the Government's response to Question 11 above.

53 Is this a new requirement or a re-compete contract requirement? Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

54 Is this work currently being performed by the Government/DSS or by a contractor(s)? Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

55 Who is/are the incumbent contractor(s)? Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

56 Was the current contract awarded under a GWAC; what GWAC was it awarded under? Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

57 What is the current Contract Number? Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

58 When does the Government anticipate awarding this contract? Please see the Government's response to Question 39 above.

59 Page 25 of 96; paragraph 1.6.15 Transition. Is the Draft Transition Plan excluded from the proposal page count? Please see the Government's response to Question 13 above.

60 Section B; since the Government has determined that this is Firm Fixed Price Level-of-Effort (FFP-LOE) Task Order; what is the Government estimated LOE for Task Order 1?

Task Order 0001 is a Firm Fixed Price Order. The Government does not have a proposed Level of Effort for this Order.

61 Please clarify, Section L.5.4.4; are you requesting that offerors insert DSS Solicitation Number “HS0021-15-R- 0010” to our PPQ Reference POC list; please explain?

No, we are looking for the Solicitation Number that goes with each Past Performance submission submitted by the Offeror.

62 Is the remarks section of the CDRLs requiring delivery within 30 days of contract award accurate for all CDRLs? Please see the revised CDRL's listed with Amendment 0001 to the RFP.

Page 9, PWS Section 1.6.3 states that the primary place of performance will be the “offeror’s facility.” Page 14, Section 3.2 of the PWS states that the Government will provide workspace for the Offer’s staff to provide the support outlined in the PWS. Please clarify the primary work location and who is responsible for providing office, computers, phones, etc. to support the contract. If that is to be determined on a Task Order basis, how should we price the bid, using an on-site (at DSS) or off-site (at the contractor facility)? Likewise, Page 14, Section 3.1.1 states that “DSS will provide all the necessary equipment to perform this requirement.” That appears to be inconsistent with work being performed at a contractor site.

The primary place of performance is the contractors site, however during the performance of the contract, the contractor may have to perform work at DSS facilities. Additionally, depending on the type of Program Support being provided, Government furnished materials may be provided or required. DSS will provide the necessary equipment when performance is required in DSS spaces.

Page 20, PWS Task Order 0001, Section 1.1. This paragraph requires the Offeror to provide all equipment, supplies, facilities, etc. not otherwise provided by the Government. But the place of performance is identified as “(See Base IDIQ PWS)”. In order to properly price this Task Order, please clarify the place of performance to be used and what the Government will provide.

Please see the Government's response to Question 63 above.

Page 15, PWS Section 4.3 requires the contractor to maintain a Top Secret facility clearance.

a. Are there special requirements for the required contractor facility such as storage of classified materials or systems and equipment for the generation and reproduction of classified information?

b. Or will any such classified processing be performed exclusively at DSS sites using Government ADP equipment?

c. If there are special requirements for the contractor site that might be required by Task Orders, would you please specify and indicate where those requirements should be priced in our cost proposal?

a. No

b. All Classified requirements will be conducted and completed in DSS Spaces.

c. Those requirements should be built into your loaded labor categories pricing.

Page 15, PWS Section 4.3 requires the contractor to maintain a Top Secret facility clearance, yet the highest requirement for contractor staff under the contract is Secret. Please clarify if we are supposed to have at least some staff cleared to Top Secret.

Please see the Government's responses to Questions 2 and 42 above.

As there is an incumbent contractor performing this work, will the Government provide how many existing staff are assigned to each of the PWS areas identified. Are any of the PWS areas new requirements not currently being performed?

Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

Page 20. Task Order 0001 PWS. Will the Government identify how many of the incumbent staff are performing the functions called for in Task Order 0001? Or will the Government identify the number of positions required for Task Order 0001? The level of effort is difficult to ascertain from the Task Order PWS requirements as it lacks specificity as to the number of programs in the portfolio, strategic process improvement plans to be undertaken, number of reviews, number of PWS or Requirements documents to be developed/coordinated/reviewed per quarter, etc.

Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

Page 17, PWS Section 6.6 Information Assurance Workforce Certification states that “Offeror staff members performing work under this PWS, and performing functions specified in DoD 8570.1-M, shall be included in the Agency's Information Assurance Workforce and shall possess or obtain the certification at the appropriate level, as determined by the Government's Senior Information Assurance Officer (SIAO), within 6 months of award. In addition, those Offeror staff members performing work under this PWS, and performing functions specified in DoD 8570.1-M.” Will this requirement be specified at the Task Order level and will it apply to the entire Offeror’s staff or just those performing specific PWS tasks. If the latter, will the Government indicate which PWS tasks for Task Order 0001, if any, are applicable under this certification requirement?

Please see Amendment 0001.

Page 22, TASK Order 0001, Section 1.6.5 Security Requirements. This calls for a TS/SCI facility requirement at the time of proposal submission which is greater than that required in the Base IDIQ contract for either the facility or the staff? Please clarify which requirement takes precedence.

Please see the Government's response to Question 2 above.

Page 22, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.8. Personnel considered as key personnel by the government include Project Manager. However, on pages 23 and 24, which list the qualifications for each labor category, the Project Manager LCAT is absent. Does the Project Management Support LCAT on page 24, section 1.6.8.6 constitute the minimum requirements for the Project Manager?

Please see the Government's response to Question 11 above.

Page 23, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.8.1. The minimum requirements lists “3 years’ experience with the DoD Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) processes as they relate to the Deputy Chief Manager Office (DCMO), the DoD Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the Investment Review Board (IRB)”. This is very narrow and specific experience taking it down to the specific office level and likely limiting the qualified individual(s) to only the incumbent staff, especially for the Program Manager level while the PWS requirements in the Task Order do not mention either of those offices or the Investment Review Board as needing to be supported. Regarding the PWS requirements for Requirement Planning, Strategic Process Improvement, Program/project portfolio management and Analysis and Quality Assurance, these are typical strategic business processes for which there are many highly experienced and well qualified program managers with DoD experience that can and have led and managed these functions for a number of DoD strategic organizations. Likewise, there is no mention of software development of lifecycle management in the Task order PWS requirements. Therefore is 5 years of Software Development Life Cycle management an actual minimum requirement for this task order for the PM? A search of the entire RFP only finds SDLC mentioned in these position descriptions. Could this be a legacy from a prior contract? Would DSS consider deleting these apparently unnecessarily restrictive minimum requirements?

Yes. In regards to SDLC, please see the Government's response to Question 35 above. No.

No.

Page 23, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.8.2. Requirements Analyst. As with the Program Manager, there is a minimum requirement for 5 years of intermediate knowledge of Software Development Life Cycle management without an obvious PWS requirements. Please confirm this is a hard requirement for this Task Order.

Yes, Please see the Government's response to Question 35 above.

Page 23, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.8.4. Technical Writer. As with the prior positions, there is a minimum requirement for 5 years of experience creating of Software Development Life Cycle documents without an obvious PWS requirements. Please confirm this is a hard requirement for this Task Order.

Please see the Government's response to Question 73 above.

Page 24, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.8.6. Project Management Support. As with the prior positions, there is a minimum requirement for 3 years of experience creating of Software Development Life Cycle documents without an obvious PWS requirements. Please confirm this is a hard requirement for this Task Order.

Please see the Government's response to Question 73 above.

Page 24, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.13. Given the nature of the work which appears to include no software development, is the SEI/CMMI level II or ISO certification a realistic requirement. Most small business who perform strategic business management services do not maintain that level of certification. The submission of a satisfactory, fully compliant QCP able to address all the contract requirement combined with past performance citations should be sufficient for the Government to confirm the ability of the offeror to provide effective quality control without also requiring such certifications

Please see the Government's response to Question 6 above.

Page 25, Task Order 0001, Section 1.6.15.3. Does the current incumbent have Phase-out requirements under the current contract to support the efficient and orderly transfer of knowledge and responsibilities or will the offerors have to plan for a scenario where they receive little or no cooperation, to include timely access to incumbent staff

Please see the Government's response to Question 28 above.

Page 54, Section H, FAR 52.216.1 Type of Contract. The Government contemplates either FFP or FFP-LOE type task orders. However, on page 89, L.5.5.5, the RFP states that task orders will be issued on a cost plus fixed fee basis and furthermore requires the corresponding DCAA audit documentation. Will the government clarify the task order contract type and the requirement for DCAA audit records, as this requirement would disqualify the vast majority of small businesses and severely limit competition?

Please see the Government's response to Question 44 above.

79 Page 82, Section L.5.3.1. The RFP requires us to “meet each subfactor requirements.” Please clarify if this is the requirements in the Task Order or against the basis IDIQ requirements, or both? Please see the Government's responses to Questions 22 and 23 above.

Page 82, Section L.5.3.2. The last sentence says, “Letters of Commitment should be included as separate documents within the management approach and will not be included in the page count for the technical volume.” We could not find where a management approach is required within the technical volume. Can the letters of commitment follow the resumes?

Please see Amendment 0001.

Page 84, Section L.5.4.5. In the last sentence it states, “A major subcontractor is defined as one who will be providing program support services or whose subcontract is for more than 15% of the total proposed price.” Are we to use the participation of subcontractors on Task Order 0001 to determine the 15% requirement for a major subcontractor or can that be an expected use of the subcontractor across all TOs, even if they would have more or less on Task Order 0001?

The Offeror is to use the participation percentage for Task Order 0001, as currently the Government has not identified other requirements that will be issued against this IDIQ.

Page 85, Section L.5.5.3. In the latter part of this paragraph, the RFP states “The total price for Task Order 0001 for the base period and all option periods will be evaluated for award purposes.” However, there is no level of effort for each labor category associated with Task Order 0001. To ensure a level playing field, will the government consider providing a level of effort for each labor category associated with Task Order 0001?

Please see the Government's response to Question 60 above.

1.6.3 Place of Performance. (Please clarify … this section indicates primary place of performance is contractor facility within 40 miles of Russell-Knox Building in Quantico, VA. However 3.2 Facilities: indicates the Government will provide necessary workspace.)

Please see the Government's response to Question 63 above.

L.5.2 VOLUME I – SOLICITATION, OFFER and AWARD DOCUMENT AND SECTION K, REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATES, … Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33) Solicitation, Offer and Award (Should this read STANDARD FORM 1449?)

Please Amendment 0001 to the RFP, this has been revised to read SF 1449

85 L.5.3.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel … 2. Project Manager (Please identify or clarify section 1.6.8 Key Personnel (pages 22, 23, and 24) qualifications for this position. Please see the Government's response to Question 11 above.

86 L.6. MATRIX FORMAT and L.5 PROPOSAL CONTENT (These two sections have significant disparity; please clarify.) Please see the Government's responses to Questions 21 and 143 above.

Section 1.6.3 indicates that the Offeror’s facility will serve as the primary place of performance and 3.2 indicates that the government will provide all necessary facilities and workspaces to perform services. Can the government confirm that all work to be performed for this effort will be provided at DSS provided facilities?

Please see the Government's response to Question 63 above.

Section 1.6.3 indicates the Offeror’s facility will serve as the primary place of performance and should be located within a 40 mile radius of the Russell-Knox Building located at 27130 Telegraph Road in Quantico, VA. Is this requirement applicable to any proposed subcontractors included in the Prime Offeror’s proposal? If this is required of proposed subcontractors, will DSS consider expanding this radius to ensure offeror’s are able to provide the best technical solution for the government?

The 40 mile radius is required of the Prime Contractor, the Government does not anticipate increasing the radius, as it was chosen so the contractor could be available in a timely fashion.

Section 1.6.4 states that the IDIQ and all task orders will be Firm Fixed Price and Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort.

Section L5.5.5 however, indicates that task orders will be issued on a “cost plus fixed fee” basis. Please confirm that CPFF is not applicable to the IDIQ and task order and all orders will be FFP and FFPLOE.

Please see the Government's response to Question 44 above.

Section 1.6.8 references a Project Manager as one of the three key personnel positions. Are the qualifications listed in Section 1.6.8.6 under Project Management Support the same qualifications for the Project Manager position listed in 1.6.8?

Please see the Government's response to Question 11 above.

Section 1.6.13 indicates the Offeror “must have a SEI/CMII level II or above or comparable ISO certification. Is this also required of any proposed subcontractors? If so, will DSS provide clarification on what will be considered as comparable ISO certification?

Please see the Government's response to Question 6 above.

This section indicates that no more than four recent examples will be considered. Each example of corporate experience shall not exceed four pages. Please confirm the four-page limit (16 pages total) only applies to specific corporate experience examples and is not inclusive of relevant Offeror qualifications that are also required for evaluation of this section.

The page limitation is inclusive of Offeror Qualifications and Corporate Experience.

Does the use of LPTA violate government guidance?

Does DSS know that the Defense Department has a policy statement providing guidance on when to use LPTA evaluation criteria instead of the best-value approach that trades off cost and non-cost factors. Appendix A of the DoD’s Source Selection Procedure contains the policy and states that “LPTA may be used in situations where the government would not realize any value from a proposal exceeding the government’s minimum technical or performance requirements, often for acquisitions of commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly defined and expected to be low risk.”

If your services are complex (which they are) or if poor performance could expose the agency to unacceptable risk (which it will), then using the LPTA evaluation criteria would be inappropriate.

FAR 15.101-2 (a) provides a similar statement for LPTA bids, “The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.”

When using LPTA, the government must accept that there is no benefit from an offeror exceeding a contract requirement rather than just barely meeting it. Consequently, the only judgment an evaluator can render is that the offer meets the minimum requirements or it doesn’t. This means the government must accept a marginally capable bidder and grant that bidder the same standing as the best, most innovative firms in the industry. This is often an unacceptable position when the government strives to achieve service or technical excellence.

No, please see the Government's response to Question 27 above.

Can you define technical acceptability?

DOD provides additional guidance in its Better Buying Power 2.0 Memorandum to the Defense Acquisition Workforce (11/13/12). This guidance states, “Industry has expressed concerns about the use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) selection criteria that essentially defaults to the lowest price bidder, independent of quality. Where LPTA is used, the Department needs to define [technically acceptable] appropriately to ensure adequate quality.”

The procurement office should defer to the technical team for guidance on what constitutes technical acceptability.

For procurements involving software development, systems integration, systems engineering, solution architecture, etc., it is hard enough to define the work let alone the criteria for technical acceptability. If the government cannot specify what constitutes technical acceptability in the RFP, then the procurement should not use LPTA selection criteria.

Technical Acceptability is defined in Section M of the RFP.

Is past performance important?

If past performance is important to you, then LPTA may not be an acceptable evaluation criterion. The guidance from DOD which you follow in the RFP states that, “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Guidance from the FAR and DOD allows bidders with no relevant past performance to be treated as though they have the same past performance as the most experienced firms in the industry. If you believe past performance is a predictor of future results, then you may want to steer clear of LPTA evaluation criteria.

Past Performance is a mandatory factor and is being evaluated, please read Sections L and M of the RFP.

States "When hiring personnel, the Offeror shall keep in mind that the stability and continuity of the workforce are essential.” This is contradictory to a LPTA selection methodology where companies are rewarded for low-cost, "technically acceptable" workers who don't get the pay or benefits which would encourage them to stay in a position or a company longer than it takes to find another job. Request you remove this or change to a "Best Value" selection where DSS will realize the benefits of continuity within its contractor workforce.

This is not a question.

Definition for Key Personnel states that "When Key Personnel are used as an evaluation factor in best value procurement, an offer can be rejected if it does not have a firm commitment from the persons that are listed in the proposal." Since this is a LPTA and not a Best-Value procurement does this eliminate the need for a firm commitment from the persons in the proposal?

Please see section L.5.3.1.2. a Letter of Commitment is required for all Key Personnel.

Please see the Government's response to Question 80 above.

States "The Government will not however, provide equipment for the establishment of a Development environment for software code development. The Government requires all code developed using a Offeror managed Development environment to be integrated into the DSS Test and Production environments using GFM." There is no code development identified in the Scope or PWS of the base IDIQ or Task Order 1. Should this requirement be deleted?

Please see Amendment 0001.

States "Security Clearances: Offeror personnel, including subcontractors, are required to have a current Secret security clearance as applicable to the position they fulfill." The DD-254 and elsewhere in the RFP state that the minimum requirement is for a TS with SCI eligibility. Which is correct for all personnel on the contract?

Please see the Government's responses to Questions 2 and 42 above.

Discusses installation, configuration, testing, and maintenance of hardware and networks, but the recommended LCATs have no labor category who would be qualified to do this work and the scope of work does not cover this. Is this paragraph in error and should it be removed?

This is provided for awareness, so the offerors are aware of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs)

States that “Offeror staff members performing work under this PWS, and performing functions specified in DoD 8570.1-M, shall be included in the Agency's Information Assurance Workforce and shall possess or obtain the certification at the appropriate level, as determined by the Government's Senior Information Assurance Officer (SIAO), within 6 months of award. What is the required DoD 8570.1-M compliance level for the roles of personnel performing their duties and responsibilities under the scope of this contract when awarded? The requirements for the Key Personnel doesn't list a certification. Do the Key personnel need to meet 8570 certifications and if so, at what level?

Please see the Government's response to Question 69 above.

The Scope for Task Order 1 is the same as the Scope for the IDIQ. Task Order 1 PWS does not allow the Offeror to identify the full breadth of work required. Are we to assume Part 5, Specific Tasks are to apply to Task Order 1 and prepare our cost proposal based on this work?

Yes. Pricing is to be provided in accordance with the Guidance in Section L of the RFP.

This section states that “a Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) Facility Clearance is required for this procurement at time of proposal submission”. Is this an accurate requirement or is the requirement for a TS Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission?

Please see the Government's responses to Questions 2 above.

This section identifies a Project Manager as a Key Personnel, but does not list a Project Manager in the ensuing description of positions (1.6.8.1 thru 1.6.8.6). Will the Government provide a position description for the Project Manager?

Please see the Government's responses to Question 11 above.

105 Will the Government provide the QASP so the Offeror can properly align the QCP to the QASP for this program? Yes. The Draft QASP is provided with Amendment 0001 to the RFP.

106 The Government requires a Transition Plan be provided with the proposal. Where in the proposal does the Government want this plan, is it considered a draft plan, and does the plan count against page count? Please see the Government's response to Question 13 above.

The Government provides a list of content for the Transition Plan which includes phase-in and phase-out which contradicts the prior paragraphs which state phase-in Transition Plan is due with the proposal and phase-out is due upon Government written notification. Please clarify the requirements of the Transition Plan due with the proposal.

Please see Amendment 0001.

Identifies contract must be 75% staffed within 15 days and 95% staffed within 30 days. Is this from contract award or Authority to Proceed (and not notification of award since notification of award may be premature due to potential protests)?

Please see Amendment 0001.

109 Following award, will DSS provide PKI Certificates to all contractor personnel in order to access the necessary information? Yes

Penalty for not achieving Level of Effort is excessive. With snow days, Federal Closings, Holidays, and PTO, a more realistic work year is 1860 or 1840 which is the norm on most contracts. Will the Government change this (which will also reduce cost to the Government)?

Task Order 0001 is a Firm Fixed Price Order and this provision will only apply to Firm Fixed Price Level-of Effort Task Orders, no revisions to this section will be completed.

Each of the CDRL attachments has two numbers, e.g. HS0021-15-R-0010_-_CDRL_01_and_02.pdf, but when opened, there is only a single form. Is the CDRL numbering wrong or does it denote, in the example given, that the draft is CDRL 01 and the Final product is CDRL 02?

There are two CDRL's per each document, please not the CDRL's have been revised and are included with Amendment 0001 to the RFP.

The Past Performance Questionnaire on Page 1, Section 2 states in Description of Current Solicitation “The contractor shall provide the level of language transcription, translation, and interpretation services.”…