Remaining PMOSS Questions-2- dtd 13MAY09

Remaining PMOSS Questions and Answers Dated 13 May 2009

Question 1: Will the Government permit offerors to use 10 point Arial font in tables and 8 point Arial in graphics? There are numerous required tables that will become much more easily read and thus evaluated in 10 point font. Additionally, 8 point Arial in graphics will allow offerors to submit both pre-existing and tailored solution diagrams and graphics that support solution offerings yet remain legible.

Answer 1: The RFP will reflect the following:

Font size shall be Arial, in no smaller than 12 point for text, 10 point for spreadsheets and any font size for graphics as long as they are legible.

Question 2: Will the Government please clarify when questions are due to the Government following final RFP release. In the pre-solicitation questions and answers, a response indicates that questions will be entertained, “…up to the time of receipt of proposals.” However, and in contradiction, the latest draft RFP Section L.4 states, “…no later than 5:00 pm [seven] six business days after release of the official RFP.”

Answer 2: In the pre-solicitation question and answer number one (1), the Government previously stated that questions may be submitted via our PMOSS mailbox up to the time of receipt of proposals. That response was incorrect. The correct response is that questions may be submitted via our PMOSS mailbox and questions must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., six (6) business days after the release of the official RFP and phone calls will not be accepted.

Question 3: Pre-Solicitation Responses to Questions, Question 11: Does the scope of the work done by the companies listed in this list (Nortel, Willcor, Gulf South Research Corporation, et al) present a [C]O[C]I (either real or perceived) with the work to be executed under the PMOSS contract?

Answer 3: In accordance with section H.23, HSAR 3052.209-72 paragraph (c) the offeror will disclose whether: (1) It is not aware of any facts which create any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest or (2) It has included information in its proposal, providing all current information bearing on the existence of any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest. If an offeror with a potential or actual conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage believes the conflict can be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated, the offeror shall submit a mitigation plan to the Government for review. In conclusion, OCI shall be determined on a case-by-case basis after discussion with the offeror.

Question 4: Our question is in three parts:

Pre-Solicitation Responses to Questions, Question 158: Will the Government please clarify whether or not Key Personnel are to be available on the date of contract award? This answer and the latest version of the draft RFP contradict several earlier responses that indicate the availability of Key Personnel would be included as a factor in the Overall Risk Assessment.

Is it the Government’s intent to include the availability of Key Personnel on date of award in Section M.5 – Risk Assessment?

Will the Government please clarify whether “available” implies simply being employed with the successful offeror or hired with a CBP BI clearance in place upon contract award.

Answer 4: Key personnel are to be available on the date of contract award. This means that key personnel are to be employed by the contractor by the date of contract award. It does not mean that key personnel must have a completed BI approved by CBP at the time of contract award. H.27 Security Procedures (OCT 2008) paragraph C states in part “A Contractor employee shall not begin working under the contract until the entire background investigation (BI) is completed with approval from CBP. Exceptions to this requirement will be handled on a case-by-case basis, and access to facilities, systems, data, etc. will be limited until the individual is cleared.” Paragraph C further states in part “All personnel employed by the Contractor or responsible to the Contractor for the performance of work hereunder shall either currently possess or be able to favorably pass a background investigation. The Contractor shall submit within ten (10) working days after award of this contract a list containing the full name, social security number, and date of birth of these people who claim to have successfully passed a background investigation by the CBP, or submit such information and documentation as may be required by the Government to have a BI performed for all personnel. The information must be correct and be reviewed by a Customs Official for completeness. Normally this shall consist of SF-85P, "Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions;" FD-258, "Fingerprint Chart;" and a Financial Statement.”

Task Order 1, Section 5.5 Milestone/Deliverable has been changed to reflect and make consistent with H.27 Security Procedures (OCT 2008) that the complete CBP/SBI security package requirements for all Key Personnel and proposed staff planned completion date is date-of award (DOA) plus ten (10) days.

The ability to provide personnel with completed background investigations (BI) on the date of contract award is not considered a factor in the Risk Assessment because this is beyond the control of offerors and dependent on the Government’s ability to timely process BIs. Irrespective of the status on the date of award, key Personnel are to be available on date of award; and the ability to provide Key Personnel on date of award is a risk factor.

Question 5: In addition to the required staffing tables, the Program Staffing Plan may contain text that clarifies the content of the required staffing tables. Will the Government please confirm that this text, in fact the Program Staffing Plan in its entirety, are outside the page limitation for Part 1.

Answer 5: Yes, the Program Staffing Plan and any text that clarifies its content is excluded from the page limitation of Part 1.

Question 6: Pre-Solicitation Responses to Questions, Question 140: Will the Government please confirm that any additional past performance content submitted in the body of the offeror’s proposal must refer to the same three past performances discussed in Attachment 6, Past Performance Questionnaire?

Answer 6: No, the offeror may submit any past performance content in the body of its proposal.

Question 7: Pre-Solicitation Responses to Questions, Question 140: Will the Government please clarify whether or not any past performance content submitted in the body of the proposal and in addition to the required Attachment 6 will be evaluated?

Answer 7: Yes, the Government will possess or obtain information sufficient to be satisfied that the offeror is responsible. In making the determination of responsibility and for source selection, the Government will consider all relevant past performance information in its evaluation.

Question 8: Answer 11 of the pre-solicitation Q&A’s says the “PMOSS scope does not include the fore-mentioned contractors [LMI, GSRC, Compass, Nortel, Willcor].” Does that mean it doesn’t include those contractors as incumbents or that it doesn’t include the scope of work currently being performed by those contractors? The answer is not completely clear. If the PMOSS scope does not include work currently being performed by the aforementioned contractors, we have the following questions:

Answer 147 of the Pre-Solicitation Questions, states the PMOSS contractor will work closely with USACE & GSA….to identify ownership, gain ROE’s and obtain and track the status of real estate to execute FM&E TI projects. Answer 148 states that the PMOSS contractor will be responsible for tracking, coordinating, and briefing real estate status. All of this work is currently being performed by incumbent contractor LMI and Nortel – could the government please clarify what support they expect from the PMOSS contractor.

In addition, in the draft RFP, TO #2 currently suggests an Environmental Planning Specialist as a Key Personnel. Since the recent TI Program reorganization, there are now 6 LMI and Nortel resources currently providing this support, could the government please clarify what support services they expect to be provided in this area from the PMOSS contractor. In addition, it would seem that the recent conversion of an LMI employee to a government IPA, would meet the requirements for this key position. Would the government consider revising this recommended key position since it appears this requirement is already being met?

Due to the current reorganization of FM&E TI, there are now a number of Nortel and LMI contractors and additional government employees that are now providing support to the TI Program in areas of scope that are in TO#2 such as environmental planning and real estate support, and integrated logistics management. What is the government’s intention for how the PMOSS support efforts would integrate with these incumbent contractors. Is there any plan to revise the scope of the TI Program to reduce requirements in these areas?

Answer 8: This question has been overcome by events. TO 2 is no longer a PMOSS requirement. See the updated draft RFP, dated 23 April 2009.

Question 9: If the PMOSS scope does include work currently being performed by the aforementioned contractors, we have the following question:

Due to the recent reorganization of the TI Program, there are now appear to be 28 contractor FTE’s and 2 open FTE contractor billets on the TI Program. Is it the government’s intention to scale these down to 18 FTE’s?

Regarding Answer 161 of the Pre-Solicitation questions, if the PMOSS proposal must address all of the scope of work currently being performed by the aforementioned contractors, is the government considering increasing the number of FTE’s for TO#2, given that there are now 28 FTE’s performing this work?

Answer 9: This question has been overcome by events. TO 2 is no longer a PMOSS requirement. See the updated draft RFP, dated 23 April 2009.

Question 10: The Revised SBI PMOSS Draft RFP (23 April 2009) Section H.16.2(b) Key Personnel #2 – Senior Systems Engineer states “the Contractor shall identify a Senior Systems Engineer (SE) for the Chief Engineer and the Mission Engineering Directorate”. Is it the Government’s intent that the Senior Systems Engineer would support both the Chief Engineer within the Systems Engineering Directorate and the Chief Engineer with the Operational Integration Directorate (formerly Mission Engineering)? If not, could the Government clarify the role of the Senior Systems Engineer?

Answer 10: As a Key Personnel position, the Senior Systems Engineer would support both Chief Engineers in both directorates and supervise all contractor system engineers in those directorates. However, the offeror may propose more than one senior systems engineer as Key Personnel. The offeror has the latitude to propose two senior system engineers as Key Personnel to support the two directorates if the offeror believes that two senior systems engineers/ key personnel are necessary.

Question 11: In section M.4.5 it is stated that “the Government will evaluate the offeror’s written cost proposal (Section L.8, Part II) to determine completeness, cost realism, fairness and reasonableness, including all options.” Further, Section L.8 requires cost and price proposals be submitted for the Section B.4 hourly rate tables as well as for the Task Orders 1 & 2. However, in response to questions the Government has indicated that only Base one-year proposals for Task Order 1 will be requested (Industry Day Q&A’s #6) and that option cost and prices for the first two task orders will not be evaluated as part of the award determination. Additionally, there is no evaluation description in Section M.4.5 regarding how the Government will use the submitted cost and price information for Section B.4 hourly rates combined with proposed prices for Task Orders 1&2 to make the award determination. Will the final RFP include a description in section M.4.5 that explains how the individual cost and pricing elements submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section L.8 will be evaluated as part of the award decision? For example, will the total cost of the proposed Task Order be the only price element that is used in comparison to other factors (Management and Staffing Approach, Technical Approach, Past Performance, Small Business Utilization and SB Subcontracting Plan, and Risk Assessment) to determine whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government or will there also be a Section M.4.5 cost/price evaluation element that considers the proposed hourly cost/prices for option year performance up to the $98.8 million ceiling stated in Section H.2 - as represented by the rates proposed in the Section B.4 tables?

Answer 11: Task Order 2 is no longer a requirement under the PMOSS solicitation. Your question is dated 4 May 2009. Please see the Revised Draft RFP dated 23 April 2009. The Task Order 1 total base year price and the IDIQ Section B.5 hourly rates combined with the other evaluation factors and their relative importance, Management and Staffing Approach, Technical Approach, Past Performance, Small Business Utilization and SB Subcontracting Plan, and Risk Assessment will all be used to determine whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government. The IDIQ Section B.5 hourly rates will be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness and will not be used to project “proposed hourly cost/prices for option year performance up to the $98.8 million ceiling stated in Section H.2.” Section M.4.5 will be changed to remove “including all options” from the evaluation factor and will read as follow:

Since adequate price competition is anticipated in response to this solicitation, certified cost or pricing data is not required.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s written cost proposal (Section L.8, Part II) and Task Order 01 total base year price to determine completeness, cost realism, fairness and reasonableness. The IDIQ Section B.5 hourly labor rates will be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness. Costs that are excessively high or low (without sufficient justification) may be considered unrealistic and unreasonable and may receive no further consideration. Any proposal that is above the notional level of effort of 120 FTEs for Task Order 01, cited in Section L.5 shall include an explanation. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes any assumption or condition that impacts or affects the Government’s requirements.

Question 12: Because there were so many questions regarding confusion about Transition-In requirements and how the costs associated with transition would be evaluated (Q&A #’s 19,44,51,62,68,126,158), and given that Section C.2.8 requires “Transitional Planning and Support” for the end of the contract or subsequent Task Orders, will the Government consider including an additional requirement to support Transition-In activities as part of Section C.2.8 as well as included CLIN’s for Transition-In costs on both Task Order 1 and Task Order 2? In this manner, all offeror’s will be afforded an opportunity to propose a transition-in plan along with associated costs that takes into account their individual differentiators given the management and technical approach they choose to propose. The Government can then evaluate the transition-in plan as part of the overall Section M.6 award evaluation.

Answer 12: The Government will not consider an additional requirement to support Transition-In activities and contractor should incorporate its transition costs into the CLIN structure listed in the solicitation.

Question 13: In Sections C.2 and E.4 as well as Q&A #14 the Government indicates that approval must be obtained prior to working greater than 40 hours per week under Cost Reimbursable Task Orders. Is it not more appropriate to state that working in excess of 40 hours per week requires prior Government authorization if doing so would cause an increase in cost or price under the Task Order? Why would the Government need to approve how the Contractor manages its workforce and individual employees to adequately meet the performance goals of the contract/task unless there would be a cost impact to the Government?

Answer 13: The Government requires approval for work greater than 40 hours per week under Cost Reimbursable Task Orders. Section C.2 and Q&A #14 are not relevant to this question.

Question 14: Section H.31 requires primes and subcontractors to have a TS facility clearance upon contract award. It is our understanding that there is a very limited amount of TS-classified information accessed and thus a very limited number of contractor staff who will require TS clearances. As such, if a subcontractor will not provide support of subject areas requiring TS clearances must they have a TS facility clearance?

Answer 14: Section H.28 “Access to Classified National Security Information” of the solicitation states, “This contract requires access to classified national security information up to the TOP SECRET level.” The contractor is required to comply with the terms and conditions of this section.

Question 15: Paragraph C.1.2 – The Government intends to begin reducing contractor staff during the base period of the Task Orders and anticipates making staffing adjustments on a quarterly basis. The contractor cannot arbitrarily decide to reduce staffing in any quarter; the contractor will be responding to the Government’s success in hiring its staff. Allowing each offeror to bid different and arbitrary reductions in staff at any time prevents equal evaluation of price proposals. Will the Government, for price evaluation purposes only, provide a quarterly timeline for the percentage reduction in staff for the first year of the task orders to ensure equal evaluation of the price proposals?

Answer 15: This is a “Best Value” source selection where all technical (non-cost) evaluation factors, when combined, are more important than cost. Award will be made to the responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government, cost and other factors considered. The price proposals will be evaluated based on the stated evaluation criteria in RFP Section M.4.5. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s cost proposal and Task Order 01 total base year price to determine completeness, cost realism, fairness and reasonableness based on the offeror’s unique technical solution. The IDIQ Section B.5 hourly labor rates will be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness.

Question 16: Paragraph L.7.5 (Tab D) – This paragraph talks about Contractor Teaming Agreements (CTAs) only. We do not have CTAs in place but Teaming Agreements with various companies. Does the Government wish to see Teaming Agreements in this section as well?

Answer 16: If the potential offeror is proposing a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTAs), the proposal shall include the information required by RFP Section L.7.5 (Tab D). The Government is not clear on the distinction being made here between Contractor Teaming Agreements or Contractor Teaming Arrangement and “Teaming Agreements.”

Question 17: Section C.2 – General Program Support, paragraph 3 – Please clarify if both the prime and all subcontractors are required to hold Top Secret facility clearances at time of award?

Answer 17: Section H.28 of the solicitation states, The successful contractor must currently possess the appropriate security level clearance and be a participant under the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) prior to award. This requirement also applies to any subcontractors utilized by the Contractor.

PAGE