Admin_Q_and_A_27_June_2019.pdf

Question PWS Section Government Answer

1 Do the qualifications listed in this section apply to administrative and program support personnel in the ISIA Directorate, or to all of Task 2? 5.23.2

Applies to Specialized Administrative and Program Support (Industrial Security Integration and Application (ISIA) Directorate)

2 It is mentioned that the CI Office locations in Andover, MA, San Diego and Irving will be converted to SCIF Spaces. When will this occur?

Technical Exhibit 7.1

Andover Planned activation is FY21, Irving Planned activation is FY19, San Diego TBD

3 Kindly confirm that the positions indicated with a (**) are currently filled by Secret cleared personnel with paperwork submitted for TS/SCI upgrade.

Technical Exhibit 7.1 Yes

4 It is mentioned that the offeror shall list at a minimum of two (2) contracts for past performance information. We request the government to also consider task orders, in addition to contracts, for past performance information. L.5.5 Yes. A task order is a contract.

It is our understanding that the government has removed price realism in evaluation of pricing. As such, we request that the government remove the last sentence in this section as the sentence suggests that the government will still perform a price realism analysis.

M.2.2 Yes. Language updated.

6 How do we Price for CLINS 0004, 0005 and 0006? Section B See Pricing Table and Section B. CLIN 0007 has a plug number and CLINs 0008 and 0009 are Not Separately Priced (NSP).

7 Is the Govt. anticipating more work with multiple Task Orders for a ceiling of $100 Million when the incumbent contract value is only $32 Million for a 5 year POP with a funding obligation of $30 Million? Section B

Yes, but the number is unknown. The purpose of the IDIQ is to allow DCSA the flexibility to award more Task Orders if the mission needs arise.

Based on our research from govt. databases like fpds.gov, it appears that the incumbent had a definitive contract unlike an IDIQ contract like this RFP with only 1 task with an obligated funding of $30 Million for 5 year POP. Correct? If not, how many Task orders has the incument firm receive and their Task order numbers during this 5-Year POP?

Section B Correct. The current contract is a "C" type contract, not an IDIQ.

1.6.4. - This Section states that should the employees be required to work on Holidays, they will only receive pay at their regular rate. However as per FLSA, any worked in excess of 40 Hours per Week incliding Holiday Hours Paid have to be paid at the Overtime Premium Rate of 1.5 times to be in compliance for Non-Exempt Employees. Paying striaght time rate for hours in excess of 40 Hours in a week (8 hours in California in a day) would lead to a violation of Overtime Laws subjecting the contractor to Back pay. fines etc.? Hence it is requested that the Govt. not put the company in a position that they could be subject to fines etc. by Department of Labor due to violation of Overtime Laws shoud the employees be required to work during Holiday resulting in excess of 40 Hours in a week by requring that they be paid at the normal straight time rate but instead the compaany pay the employees with the 1.5 Time OT premium to comply with the law and the Govt. reimburse the Contractor @ 1.5 times for all hours worked in excess of 40 Hours in a week (8 hours in a day should an employee work in California on a task) for Non-Exempt employees working on this contract.

Section C Language updated in PWS Section 1.6.4

1.6.7.1.. This says that the Government is not responsible for paying any overtime premiums or expenses under this contract. However should the mission of the Govt. require employees to work more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours a day in Calfornia as directed and or approved by the Govt. in advance, then how would the contractor be reimbursed for the OT premium that the Contractor would need to pay the Non-Exempt Employees to comply with the FLSA Law?

Section C

Per 1.6.7.1The Contractor’s Point of Contact (POC), the Government’s COR and Task Manager shall consult and coordinate on any proposed alternate work schedules that may be arranged depending on the operational tempo and needs of the mission. Alternate Work Schedule requests shall be submitted by the Task Manager to the COR for approval. The request will be in writing via email and will include a justification for alternate work schedule based on the operational tempo/needs of the mission.

1.14. As per this Clause Contractor Employees may be required to travel other locations. Should such travel and work performed during travel days be done by Non-Exempt employees may result in excess of 40 Hours per week or 8 hours per day for CA employees, then such excess hours would need to be paid as OT with 1.5 Times Premium to comply with OT laws as per FLSA by Department of Labor. Such workhours would need to be billed at 1.5 times since the contractor will be required to pay @ 1.5 Times. Such hours however would approved in advance by the Govt. before these hours are expended.

Section C

See Section 1.6.7.1 and question # 10. Very rarely has traveled been required on this contract. If so, it would occur during normal hours or would be seen as a chance as specified in 1.6.7.1 and would require approval..

1.14.2. Since local travel from DSS HQ to surrounding Metropolitan Areas of DMV shall not be reimbursed will the govt clarify a quantum of such trips in a year to be able to pay for it in the fully burdened rate? Otherwise, how will the contractor recover this cost of doing business which has no basis to be intelligently estimated? These costs can be quiet substantial in a year with mileage, Parking and Toll. Alternatively should the Govt. require and approve such travel, can such costs be reimbursed as ODC? Normal employee commute costs shall not be billed separately

Section C

ODC can cover parking fees if no government parking is available. Travel CLIN is not bid it is a plug number. If required it will be at the task order level and will be specified at that time.

1.18.1 Even though the contractors always strive to have mimimal turnover if not zero turnover, sometimes due to factors beyond the Contractor's control, turnivers do occur. In such situations, the contractors always tries to provide a replacement "yesterday" rather than 2 days. However due to reasons beyond the contractors control like time it takes for Security Clearance Adjudication etc.,interviewing the potential replacement candidates etc/ it may not be always possible to provide a replacement within 2 days. In such situations, how can the contractor be held responsible to provide a replacement within 2 days?

Section C

It is up to the contractor to propose a solution that will ensure the mission needs of the Government are being met. The solicitation does not state it has to be a new employee within 2 days.

14 For those positions that require a TS or TS / SCI, in light of the time it takes to receive a Full TS to be eligble for TS / SCI, can a contrator employee start work with an Interim Secret and then await while he / she gets adujudicated for full TS? Section C

See updated language in PWS Section 1.10. For the TS/SCI positions, contract personnel must possess a TS/SCI prior to onboarding. For the Secret positions, the contractor may start with an interim Secret clearance that has been issued by DoD Central Adjudication Facilities, depending on the task order and the duty locations.

5.27.1. Staffing Plan: In the absence of definite Tasks, how is the contractor expected to come up with a staffing plan and submit it as a part of the proposal? Addtionally, since the contractors will typically attempt to always hire high performance incumbent employees, such a staffing plan becomes moot and based on this will the govt. remove the requirement for submission of staffing plan?

Section C

The Government has provided information on what the number that will be required in the first task order and the exhibit says to use those numbers when addressing your staffing plan.

Past Performance Questionnaire - Is it possible to use CPARS in lieu of PPQ should there be CPARS available? The reason for this request is that more often than not, govt. staffers are hard presssed in terms if time and feel it to be another burden to have to respond to thse PPQs for multiple RFPs that contractors may be bidding on when they have already taken the time to provide CPARs that document a Contractors Past Performance and stays within the system that can be easily retrieved. More often than not, the govt. staffers may not be able to turn in the PPQs in a timely manner to the KO due to their demanding schedule on top of their daily work that may not reflect the high quality level of Performance that a Contractor may have by earning superior CPARS ratings which seems to be the govt's objective - to pick a high peforming contractor which can be easily gauged by CPARs ratings instead of the burdensome process of PPQs. Moreover, due to turnover of govt. staffers, they may not be in a position to be contacted or be inclined to respond to a PPQ (especially if they are no longer in govt. service - resigned / retired, re-assigned, deceased etc). A CPARS still stays on record to demonstrate a contractors level of performance and should be used instead of PPQs. Will the govt. kindly remove the PPQ requirement and instead use CPARs? Of coue to level the playing field, the govt. could give an option to thos bidders who do not have CPARs the option to submit PPQs.

PPQ This question was asked and answered multiple times. See previous Q&A posted.

17 Can documents be provided as Adobe Pdf files whenever approporate instead if MS Office? L.4 Proposal Files.

Follow proposal submittal instructions in Section L.

18 Will the Title Page, Table of Contents and the Summary Section be counted towards the Page Count? L.4.2 & 4.4 No.

19 Will Adobe Digital Signature signed by the Contractor Officer suffice? L 5.2 Yes. See language in L.5.2

20 Attachment 5: Pricing Tables - Will the contractor be required to fill this table and submit it as a part of Price Proposal as per L 5.3? L 5.3 Yes. See updated language in Section L.5.3.1.1

21 Will the contrator be required to price for the entire 83.5 FTE outlined in Informational Technical Exhibit 7.1 using the rates outlined in Attachment 5: Pricing Tables L 5.3

No, the price will include only the hours specifed in the pricing table. The 83.5 FTE will be priced in the first task order. This is for your reference only.

22 What kind of Pricing details is the govt. looking for to determine that the Price Proposal is adequate besides giving the Fully Burdened Labor Rates for the 3 labor categories outlined in Attachment 5: Pricing Tables L 5.3 Provide only information that you would provide for a FFP contract.

23 Where is Section J, “Administrative Support Services Pricing Form” and attached to the RFP in FedBizOpps? L.5.3.1.1 The Pricing Table is in Section J of the

Solicitation.

24 Where is Section J attachment titled “Pricing Table IDIQ.”? L.5.3.1.2 See question 23.

25 How will the Govt. objectively evaluate if a proposed price is fair and reasonable? Matrix? L.5.3.2 See Section M 2.2

26 This appears to be missing. If so, will the govt. re-number the Sections? If not, will the govt. please incorporate it? L.5.3.3 Numbering updated.

27 Where is the provided pricing table? L.5.3.4 See question 23.

Should a relevant contract task continue for 24 months or more but under two different contract vehicles due to govt.

convenience for identical requirements and same customer, can that be included as a PP citation outlining the 2 different Contract numbers and the 2 contonous periods of performance adding upto a cumulative period of 24 months or more?

L.5.5 VOLUME

IV – FACTOR

3: PAST

PERFORMAN

CE.

Yes

29 Where will the contractor outline this "Section-3 – Subcontracts" in the Past Performance Form?

L.5.5 VOLUME

IV – FACTOR

3: PAST

PERFORMAN

CE.

L.5.5. states, "Data concerning the prime offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order."

Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire that are to be mailed by the contractor to their clients need to be returned by the clients directly to the KO by the RFP closing date. This requirement is beyond the control of the bidder as it is really upto the client to mail it in time and should they not do so, even high performer contractor with documented superior CPARS ratings will be penalized and not get the award. This will defeat the very objective of the govt. to award the contract to a high performer contractor. Hence it is requested to allow the contractors to show CPARS should they have to demonstrate their superior performance in lieu of PPQ in view of all these factors. Often times due to govt. personnel turnover, re-assignment, resignation, retirement and even death or due to very demanding work schedules of the govt. clients, it may not be feasible to have the PPQs turned in directly to the KO by the RFP closing date. Hence CPARS would be an objective way to determine the Performance Level of the bidders for the Govt. to evaluate how well a contractor performed previously to make the award without the possibilty of missing a high performer should they have CPARS.

L.5.5 VOLUME

IV – FACTOR

3: PAST

PERFORMAN

CE.

Contractors are requested to follow instructions regarding submitting the PPQs. The Government will determine the need for and usage of CPARS.

Realize that while the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. However this burden on the contractor may be unfair due to reasons beyind the contractor's control as outlined in the previous question. Hence will the govt. please take this into account and use CPARs as the method to evaluate Past Performance which is the purpose of the Govt. to have CPARs in the first place with CORs spending their time to provide CPARs to remove the burden on them to have to respond to so many PPQs form so many contractors. Quite a few CORs and agencies (especially DoD - Navy) are reluctant if not refuse to provide PPQs as a policy even for high performers since CPARS have been provided and feel that those must be used rather than PPQs to make the process more efficient to gauge the performance level of a Contractor.

L.5.5 VOLUME

IV – FACTOR

3: PAST

PERFORMAN

CE.

The Government states we may review CPARS.

What criteria will the govt. use to determine if theoverall Technical Capability and it's subfactors like (2.1) Staffing Plan (2.2) Management Plan, and (2.3) Transition Plan. Will be deemed technically acceptable?

M.1 BASIS

FOR AWARD See Section M.2.5

33 Where is L.6? M.2.4.5 Lanugage updated to remove reference.

As per this Section, it appears that the Govt. is looking for PP for a single $40 Million task that is unrealistic to expect from a true small business for this SBSA procurement. Going by this criteria, even the incumbent with a $32 Million Contract Value as per fpds. gov and USASpending.gov with $30 Million in obligation shall not qualify from PP perspective. It is highly unlikely if not impossible for a true small business to have a single $40 Million Task / Contract and still remain a small business. We have had a $100 Million Plus IDIQ Administrative Support Contract supporting multiple states but have never had a single task that was $40 Million though we did suppport 100 + tasks for a cumulative amount exceedind $40 Million.

Hence for a realistic assessment of a small business ability to increase competition, will the govt. lower the amount to a more realistic figure of mimimum $5 Million as a Prime supporting multiple states per task verifiable by fpds.gov? Or will the govt.

consider a cumulatiive Corporate Experience as a Prime Contractor verifiable via FPDS.gov for a cumulative amount of $40 Million or less within the last 5 years? The contarctor can show a total of $40 Million value for all tasks in Administrtative Services in the last 5 years verifiable via fpds.gov. This will enable true small businesses to be able to respond effectively and for the govt. to know that a business has effectively handled tasks at that volume. In fact it is perhaps more of a challage to handle multiple tasks for a cumulative of $40 Million rather than one singke $40 Million Task

M.2.6.2 This question was asked and answered multiple times. See previous Q&A posted.

Since the Govt. shall evaluate the lowest 7 offers and will stop evaluating any offer should the lowest priced offerors be deemed technically acceptable and earn a substantial PP, it appears that it is more concerened about price akin to a LPTA rather than a Best Value Trade -off where PP is a factor. Hence will the govt. either make it a true LPTA with stringent Corporate Experience requirement to ensure that the winning contractor has the background to be able to underatake such a volume of work or make it a true Base Value Trade-off where Technical and PP are ranked first and then Price is evaluated?

M.2.2 Factor 1:

Price Evaluation

Section M.1.1 states,"This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations."

Making it a LPTA with stringent Corporate Experience criteria for Acceptable / Unacceptable along with Acceptable / Unacceptable for Technical and PP will ensure that the govt. will receive the lowest price and have a contractor that has the background in handling this volume of work which appears to be the goal of the Govt as per M.2.6.4 and M.2.5.

M.2.2 Factor 1:

Price Evaluation

See question #35.

37 Q&A answer 90 refers to an incumbent currently performing the work. Can the government please share the name and contract number for the work currently being performed METIS Solutions, LLC HS0021-14-C-0002

Will the government confirm that PWS 5.4.2 and PWS 5.4.3 on page 19 should read?

5.42 Task 2: Specialized Administrative and Program Support (PWS Sections 5.14 - 5.23)

5.4.3 Task 3: Senior Administrative and Management Support (PWS Sections 5.24 - 5.26).

A similar question was asked in the previous Draft RFP Q&A period and was not fixed in the latest Draft RFP.

PWS 5.4.2 &

PWS 5.4.3 Numbering updated.

Section M.2.4.5 contains the following language: "The Government will verify that the total proposed price breakdown for subcontractor(s) for the contract is provided in accordance with L.6." There is no section L.6 anywhere in the Draft RFP. Can section M.2.4.5 be removed since section L.5.3.4 no longer requires price breakdown? Or, please clarify M.2.4.5.

M.2.4.5 Language removed.

How will the government hold the contractor accountable for the vacancy rate in PWS 2.2.15 if it falls below 5% (Section 7.2)?

It appears that the government intended to put the penalty clause in PWS 1.20.1 (as its referenced in PWS 2.2.15 and it exists in the current contract), but there is no PWS Section 1.20.1. Will the government be add the penalty clause back into the solicition?

PWS 1.20.1

(non-existent) as referenced in

2.2.15 and 7.2

The information in 2.2.15 outlines how the Government will hold the contractor accountable.

Language referencing 1.20.1 was deleted.

41 Attachment 1 is missing one current position Specialized LMD position in Linthicum, MD. Will the Government correct Attachment 1? 7.1

Attachment 1 represents the Governments current mission needs. The actual numbers if different will be specified in the task order PWS.

There are several misnumberings (sections, subheadings, etc.) due to changes in the solicitation during each draft RFP revision.

Will the government re-number to correct the following?

L.5.3.3 appears to be missing or a misnumbering follows.

There is a numbering gap from M.2.2.1 to M.2.4.3.

There is a numbering gap from PWS 1.6.7.1 to PWS 1.8. PWS 1.7 is missing.

There is a numbering gap from L.2 to L.2.1.1. L.2.1 appears to be missing.

L.5.3.3, M.2.2.1-

M.2.4.3, PWS

1.6.7.1-1.8, L.2 - L.2.1.1

Numbering updated.

43 Please clarify Faciltiy Clearance of Top Secret required at time of propsal submittal or at award.

L.2.1.1 &

4.3. Security

Clearances & in Q&A #35

Time of proposal submission. Language updated in PWS.

The Draft RFP instructions states in Section L.5.3.1.1 that "The total price shall be the quantity (provided by the Government) multiplied by the unit price proposed by the Offeror)." Could the Government please clarify that total proposed price provided by the Offeror is to included only the fixed (fully burdended) labor hour rates in accordance with the Attachment 5 Pricing Tables and that the FFP (fully burdened labor hourly rates) provided in Section B will be carried over from the totals in Pricing Table 9 without calculation based on the quantity of FTEs provided in the Technical Exhibit 7.1.

Section L.5.3.1.1

Technical Exhibit 7.1 is for informational purposes only. This represents the quantities that will be used for the first task order.

The specific task assignments listed in section 5.4 state that Task 2 is to include PWS sections 5.14 to 5.21, and Task 3 is to include PWS sections 5.22 to 5.24. In reviewing the specific tasks detail for sections 5.22 and 5.23 it appears to list these as Task 2 for Specialist Administrative and Progam Support and Sections 5.25 and 5.26 are not listed in Section 5.4 as Task 3 tasks for Senior Managment Support. Will the government confirm that PWS 5.4 should match the lisitng in the Performance Requirement Summary provided in Attachment 2?

Section 5.4 Numbering updated.

46 The NISS Program Management Office position location listed includes both Quantico, VA and Alexandria, VA for 1 FTE.

Could the Government please clarify if one positon is required to provide support to both office locations?

Technical Exhibit 7.1

Position has historically been located at Quantico, VA. Contractor has provided one (1) contractor resource and provided direction when the location may change.

The government currently requires a minimum of 2 - 5 past performances that each meet the $40M threshold. Will the government consider amending this to require only one reference that meets the $40M threshold, and the remaining references to be relevant in terms of scope and complexity, but may have a value of less than $40M?

L.5.5 and M.2.6.2 Yes. Language updated in M.2.6.2

As a Prime Contractor that has a related Past Performance that meets DSS’ Solicitation’s $40 million dollar task order requirement, is our subcontractor, critical to the successful performance of some DSS tasks, required to have a Past Performance contract valued at $40 million dollars?

L.5.5 and M.2.6.2 No.

Section L.5.4 requires Offerors to “demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements and risk in implementing those requirements identified in the PWS in accordance with the Table 1 in section L.4.2. This will include the Offeror’s plans to meet all technical requirements, and the thoroughness in which the proposal addresses each technical requirement.” L.5.4 goes on to address the requirements for the three Technical Capability Subfactors and the expected content for each.

Section M 2.5 states … “The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s proposed solution satisfies the requirements specified in the solicitation and the PWS. Factor 1 [sic] has three (3) subfactors: (2.1) Staffing Plan, (2.2) Management Plan, and (2.3) Transition Plan which will be rated separately. The overall Technical Capability factor rating will be based on a roll up of the ratings for subfactors 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.” M.5.2 goes on to identify the evaluation requirements for each of the subfactors.

Please confirm that the “understanding of the technical requirements” described in L.5.4 and the determination of whether the “proposed solution satisfies the requirements specified in the solicitation and the PWS” in M.2.5 will only be evaluated in the context of the Staffing Plan, Management Plan, and Transition Plan subfactors and there will not be an additional evaluation for “understanding” or “solution” for each PWS requirement.

L.5.4 and M.2.5 Correct.

50 Can the Government please confirm past performance references from any proposed subcontractor, regardless of whether they are defined as a major subcontractor, will be evaluated and considered relevant?

Section L.5.5 (first paragraph and 3. Section 3

- Subcontracts) and M.2.6.1

Please see M.2.6.2

51 Can the Government please revise the definition of a major subcontractor as "one whose subcontract is for 15% or more of the total proposed price?"

Section L.5.5 (first paragraph and 3. Section 3

- Subcontracts)

No.

PWS Section 5.27.1.1, within the Staffing Plan section, still includes the requirement to provide information on the postion and location; tie-back to task(s) in PWS; name of Contractor employee; current security clearance level; and how the prime contractor will verify experience and education of the Contractor employee; however, this content was removed from Section L.5.4.1.a and M.2.5.a. Can the Government please correct this by removing PWS Section 5.27.1.1?

Additionally, Sections L and M do not require offerors to include "the labor mix assigned to the functional program areas, including position name, level, and planned, Secret, Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance level," which is included in PWS Section 5.27.1.2; can the Government please correct this by removing PWS Section 5.27.1.2 as well.

PWS Sections

5.27.1.1 and 5.27.1.2, Section L.5.4.1.a, and Section M.2.5.a

See updated language in PWS 5.27.1.1 and 55.27.1.2

According to Section L.4.5.1, no additional questions will be accepted after 17 June 2019; we respectfully request the Government to remove this stipulation from the solicitation. While we do not anticpate any additional questions, we may identify discrepancies in the Final RFP, which would require submission of additional question(s).

Section L.4.5.1 No, this date will not be removed.

54 RFP states Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts will be provided for Travel and ODC’s, but no amount is provided. Will the government be providing that NTE number in the final RFP? 1.14 See Pricing Tables in Section J. Plug number provided.

RFP States "Offerors shall provide pricing for those requirements identified in the PWS and the provided Labor Categories in accordance with Table 1 in Section L.4.2 and the informational Technical Exhibit 7.1." There is no table 1 in section L.4.2; will the government clarify to what table the RFP is referring?

L.5.3 Table 1 is in L.4.2. It is labeled.

56 1920 hours is listed as the "number of hours" for each CLIN for each year, is the offeror to change those hours to reflect the proposed level of support for each CLIN? Pricing Tables 1920 hours is being used for the purposes of evaluating price at the base level.

57 Are the listed FTE and 1920 hours per FTE a government estimate which the offeror can update/change or are offerors instructed to propose that number of hours?

Technical Exhibit 7.1

The hours can not be changed. This number will be used for evaluation purposes as stated.

58 Should the CLIN tables reflect the number of hours for five years of the base period IDIQ or should it include all eight years?

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

This information is specified in the labor table.

Please follow the specified instructions. 8 years.

59 RFP states "Failure to provide detailed pricing may be grounds for finding a proposal nonresponsive and not eligible for award". Please confirm the completed IDIQ pricing tables would qualify as "detailed pricing".

L.5.3 VOLUME

II – FACTOR 1:

PRICE

Correct.

60 Please fully clarify the contract type. Schedule B indicates FFP but it conflicts with PWS 1.9 which states contract type will be determined at the task orders level. 1.9

Section 1.9 states, "Will be determined at task order level, but is expected to be Firm Fixed Price

(FFP)."

With respect to Issuance of Keys. Please confirm that in this context contractor is to include any subcontractor personnel who may be assigned as the definition in 2.2.1 of "contractor" only include the Prime Contractor. Definition of subcontractor is clearly defined in 2.2.10.

1.10.3.2 and

2.2.1 and 2.2.10

The Government does not distinguish between prime and sub when it comes to issuance of CAC cards, keys, equipment, etc.

62 In order to accommodate any absences that exceed two days, will one contractor employee be allowed to fill two positions, at the same government site, on a temporary basis? 1.18.1

Yes. As long as the mission needs are being met, it is up the contractor to determine how they plan to meet the Gov't needs.

63 Are offerors required to enter a Max NTE AMT for CLIN 0006 since the table states" This CLIN is not separately priced."? Section B CLIN 0006 No. Not for the NSP CLINs.

PWS 1.14.2 states “Local travel, including to and from DSS headquarters and in the surrounding metropolitan DC area, performed during the course of performance is considered the cost of doing business and will not be reimbursed.” Similar applies to section 2.2.13.

Question: Would the Government consider better defining the “local travel” such as “50 miles radius ”?

1.14.2 Language updated. See PWS Sections 1.14 and

1.14.2

Section K states “(k) Certificates regarding exemptions from the application of the Service Contract Labor Standards.

(Certification by the offeror as to its compliance with respect to the contract also constitutes its certification as to compliance by its subcontractor if it subcontracts out the exempt services.

[The contracting officer is to check a box to indicate if paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) applies.]” Question: Would the Government please check the appropriate box?

Section K (Page 93 of 116) Updated.

66 Does the Service Contract Act apply? If so are there labor categories for which the incumbent is reporting that SCA wage minimums may correlated with recruiting challenges and /or excesive turnover. No.

The RFP states that the technical response shall provide a staffing plan, a management plan, and a transition plan. It also states that "Offerors shall demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements and risk in implementing those requirements identified in the PWS in accordance with the Table 1 in section L.4.2." With the requirements in the PWS totaling 29 pages, the ability to respond to the PWS AND provide a staffing plan, a management plan and a transition plan in 30 pages is very difficult. Would the government please consider expanding the page count limitations to 50 pages to provide sufficient space to respond to all requirements?

L.4.2, L.4.7, L.5.2 No.

The Government has clearly defined that the three subfactors in the Technical Capabilities volume will be evaluated. However, there are no evaluation criteria for the offeror's approach to meeting the technical requirements and managing the risks for this program. Would the Government please provide evaluation criteria for the technical requirements and related risk management or eliminate the requirement to respond to all technical requirements?

L.4.2, L.4.7, L.5.2 No.

In the first sentence of the requirements for the staffing plan, the Government asks "how the offeror plans to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities and workloads without affecting the ongoing work." In the last sentence of the requirements for the staffing plan, the Government asks for "A strategy on how the offeror plans to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities and workloads without affecting the ongoing work." Since these appear to be the same question, would the Government please remove the redundancy so that we may respond to this question in the appropriate place within the staffing plan?

L.5.4.1.a Language updated in L.5.4.1 a

There are several questions in the Management Plan Instructions that seem to be more appropriate to the Staffing Plan or Tranition Plan requirements. These questions related to staffing are specifically: How are new employees orientated into the new organization?

How will you ensure properly cleared personnel are vetted and cleared?

And the one that seems most apt for the transition plan is:

How will you ensure prime/sub newly on boarded employee clearances are seamlessly completed during the hand-off from the incumbent contractor?

Would the government consider moving these issues to the Staffing and Transition Plan sections?

L.5.4.1.b You are correct they could possibly go in either section, but the specified locations are where we would like to review them.

M.2.6.2 Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving administrative support services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The ceiling amount of this contract is estimated at $100M with largest task order valued at approximately $40M. The Past performance must be valued at a similar size and scope of the first task order value of $40M and be providing admin support across several states. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 2. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be as important as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Question: Will the government modify its request to accept past performances “valued at a similar size and scope of the first task order. Since the government has decided to use a size standard of $15 million standard providing one contract that shows an annual value of $40 million dollars would inherently make all companies be over $15 million if the contract ran a base plus anything more than 3 years. Given the proposed criteria of a task order being $40 million dollars are we to assume the overall value would be $200 million base plus four options resulting in any potential company having to be over the defined $15 million dollars threshold? If the contract overall value is $40 it should be divided by the period of performance to arrive at a reasonable size standard in order to promote fair competition. Given the recent responses to the questions and the expectations of the past performance it appears as if the government is already pre-positioning this for the current team in which already existing Prime would be simply become the subcontractor of a new company X. Would the government consider revising its terms to have the past performance more aligned with companies at a $15 million dollar size standard?

M.2.6.2

This has been addressed in the previous Q&A.

Please go review.

M.2.6.2 Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving administrative support services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The ceiling amount of this contract is estimated at $100M with largest task order valued at approximately $40M. The Past performance must be valued at a similar size and scope of the first task order value of $40M and be providing admin support across several states. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 2. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be as important as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Question: Based on the above information can the government provide clarification on what the annual historical/estimated value of the above task order is? Or is each year valued at $40 million dollars and the term of the task order?

M.2.6.2 Total value. Language updated.

73 Section 2.2.15 states "the vacancy rate applies to both occupied and unoccupied positions, excluding the days allotted to the Contractor in accordance with PWS section 1.6.2., 1.6.3., and 1.20.1. Section 1.20.1 remains missing.

2.2.15/Q&A 121 Language updated.

74 The government states the clause 52.222-17 has been removed, however it remains checked in the current draft and in the flow down to subcontractors. Likewise 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards is listed in the flow downs.

52.222-17/Q&A 79 Updated.

75 The government's answer to question 24 states that the abstract requirement was removed, however it still remains. L.4.4/Q&A 24 Language updated.

76 Just want to clarify, the Cover sheets, TOC will not be counted in the print layout view. L.4.2*/L.4.3 Correct.

The government is stating that they want temporary coverage for absences of 2 or more consecutive days, including planned vacations. Technically that means the government is not considering 80 hours of leave which is calculated into the FTE equivalent of 1920 (2080 minus 80 hours of holiday and 80 hours of leave) If the FTE is 1920 then 80 hours annually per position should be excluded from the vacancy rate calculation and should not require temporary coverage. If the government expects coverage of all work days, then the FTE equivalent is actually 2000 hours. The variance in hours is 6680 hours (83.5 FTEs times 80 hours) which would be the equivalent of 3.5 additional positions. This is a conflict or must be priced into the Fully Burdoned Labor rate accordingly. Please clarify how the government wants this handled.

7.1/Q&A 120 The Government will allow the contractor to propose how to best ensure there is coverage for absences of 2 or more consecutive days.

78 Will the government permit a compliance matrix at the beginning of each volume exclusive of the page count? L.4.3 The Government will not evaluate anything beyond the proposal requirements.

79 We typically have to pay a premium for TS/SCI employees that exceeds the salary of an employee with only Secret clearance.

Would the government consider allowing two Fully burdoned Rates for each LCATS distinguishing Secret from TS/SCI?

IDIQ Pricing Table

Separate pricing options for Secret positions and TS/SCI positions were added to Section B and the IDIQ Pricing Table

80 The Subcontracting Plan has been removed from section L.5.2 but remains under L.4.7. L.4.7/L.5.2/Q& A 52 Language updated.

In our experience, clearance transfers from one agency to another may take additional time for security to process. If our candidat is ready to start and has CO approval, but is being held up at DSS security, we respectfully request would DSS consider not counting security processing time toward vacancy time.

2.2.15 These circumstances will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. DCSA mission requirements still must be maintained.

82 The draft states the contractor must provide coverage for any absence more than 2 days. If our employee has an emergency and leaves in the middle of the day, does the absense count starting the first full day of no coverage? 1.18.1 Yes

83 As this is an IDIQ and additional task orders may be added, would it be possible to add a few extra labor categories for potential future work? Something along the lines of business analyst or analyst? L.5.3 No.

Specific positions requiring skill sets different from the general labor categories have different salary requirements in order to obtain and retain qualified candidates. As an example, the position for the Office of Public Affairs and Legislative Affairs requires knowledge of legislative processes and Senate and House members specific interests in the Armed Forces.

Additionally, the Security Office position requires the candidate to serve as the SME for PESEC, PHYSEC, IA and INFOSEC.

These knowledge, skills, and abilities come at a premium beyond a mid-level general administrative assistant. We want to maintain price sensativity, not inflate and entire labor category for a few positions, and ensure the best candidate fills these positions. Would the government consider adding one or more labor category for specialty positions?

5.13, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, and 5.23

No. This has been addressed in the previous Q&A. Please review. We have found in previous acquistions that one overall rate works fine.

In Section L.5.5, the Government specifies that no more than five (5) past performance examples can be provided. In Section M.2.6.2, the Government specifies that these past performance examples must be valued at $40m each. Would the Goverment consider revising the evaluation criteria so that only one (1) past performance example needs to be valued at $40m? Most small businesses do not hold a contract valued at $40m. This requirement would mean that the Goverment is only reviewing the past performance of major subcontractors (who are presumably larger and can meet the $40m requirement), rather than reviewing the experience of the prime small business contractor. Changing this requirement would still require the offeror's team to demonstrate that they are capable of managing a contract of similar size, while allowing the prime small business contractor to display a wider range of relevant experience.

L.5.5 and M.2.6.2 Language updated. See M.2.6.2

86 Can the TS Facility Clearance of the Mentor and/or Protégé be used, or must the JV have the facility clearance? A JV must have their own clearance.

Can the past performances of the JV partners be used, or must the JV have its own past performance?

The past performance of the partners can be used.