TABSS - Pre-Solicitation Questions and Answers.xlsx

Pre-Solicitation Q&A's Pre-Solicitation Questions & Comments Matrix

Question Number Industry Question/Comment Industry Recommendation and Resulting Benefit to DHS DHS/USCG Response

In addition to the PPMSS and FM Blanket Purchase Agreements, which other vehicles will TABSS replace? Who are the incumbents for these other vehicles?

This procurement includes significant scope for Information Technology and Technology support services. When might a DHS component use this DHS-wide vehicle over IT and Technology support vehicles such as EAGLE II or First Source?

1st Question - There are no specific restrictions on competition at the contract level. However, there may be restrictions at the task order level based on Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) related to the specific task.

2nd Question - There are a large number of contracts and task orders that will be replaced via this acquisition. Releasing information regarding incumbents is therefore not practical.

3rd Question - See the answer to question 1.1.

1.9 The PPMSS contract has provided program and project management services that are very different from the engineering and technical support included in the draft SOW for TABSS Domain 1. We propose that DHS establish separate Domains for 1) Program and Project Management and 2) Engineering and Technical Support. The Draft, by combining these very different types of work into a single domain creates the unintended consequences where DHS components might not have access to proven program management vendors who have successfully served them. Components will look to other vehicles to procure these services. With these two domains, DHS components and USCG needs are both satisfactorily and fairly met.

The bundling of these separate domains is not in the best interest of the government for a number of reasons:

a. A combined Program Management, Engineering and Technology Support Domain may serve the USCG by bundling domains but other DHS components are buying services that focus on specific domains. For example, DHS components will not always need engineering or technology services when seeking program management expertise. They may not want a vendor that specializes in both but instead focuses on expert program management capability combined with specialized or domain services based on program mission. As a result, these components might overlook what could be an important DHS wide vehicle and seek out other vehicles such as GSA MOBIS for these services.

b. A combined Program Management, Engineering and Technology Support Domain could end up excluding proven and high quality firms who are currently meeting DHS program management needs. For example, many DHS Program and Project Management Support Service BPA (PPMSS) incumbents, who have demonstrated program management capabilities and who have successfully served DHS customers over the past four years, might not also have the requisite and specialized engineering support capabilities needed to earn an award in a combined Program Management, Engineering and Technology Support Domain. Without an award, existing DHS customers may need to look to non-TABSS vehicles to access these proven vendors, or incur the cost of transitioning to a new vendor. Similarly, PPMSS or other vendors may be left out of an important market, limiting Task Order competition for these critical DHS requirements.

c. The Draft, by including a combined Program Management, Engineering and Technology Support Domain limits competitors and creates unfair competition. The USCG has been publicly preparing for a very similar procurement for well over a year and a half. During this time, many firms who have USCG experience and who have engineering and technical capabilities have formed teams and locked down partners, hired staff and generally positioned for the USCG procurement. PPMSS incumbents who were not positioning for this engineering and technical work are at a significant disadvantage creating a biased competition.

We urge DHS and the USCG to modify this procurement by creating multiple domains from the existing Program Management, Engineering and Technology Support Domain. Doing so will create a more used and marketed DHS wide vehicle, better meeting domain service needs and create a more fair competition.

Recommendation noted.

DHS considered past contractal experience and current market research in forming the respective domains. As a result, the domain structure contained in the final RFP will both maximize competition and bring the maximum benefit to our customers.

l Modeling and Simulation Support l Software engineering, development, programming, and network support l Systems Engineering Support

These three categories will subsume more specific services in the current draft RFP such as those noted below:

l C4ISR engineering support l Engineering services, to include Process and Safety Engineering l In-service engineering, fleet introduction, installation and checkout support l Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RM&A) support l Weapons certification

Our experience in performing business and financial management support across DHS suggests that DHS should consider widening the current definition of Domain 2 scope. Specifically, we believe there are seven services currently listed exclusively in Domain 1 that are equally, if not more applicable, in Domain 2. These seven services are:

· Communications and Public Affairs support

· External coordination support

· Project team facilitation & participation

· Strategic planning support

· Workforce management planning support

· Workforce training support We recommend including the following services in Domain 2 also - so that it will allow a single task order to provide end-to-end business and financial management services:

· Communications and Public Affairs support

· External coordination support

· Organizational assessment

· Project team facilitation & participation

· Strategic planning support

· Workforce management planning support

· Workforce training support

For TABSS, we believe DHS will benefit from Key Personnel for both the IDIQ as well as for individual Task Orders as appropriate. Language in the draft RFP that recognizes the need for Key Personnel at both the IDIQ and Task Order levels will be valuable to DHS and its Components. As TABSS is an IDIQ procurement (rather than a specific task order procurement) we suggest that the offeror should specify Key Personnel who are dedicated for the IDIQ, and that Key Personnel requirements for a particular Task Order be specified in the RFP for that Task Order.

We recommend that the following Labor Categories, as specified in the Attachment 3 spreadsheets of the Draft RFP, be designated as Key Personnel for the IDIQ:

Domain 1

· Sr. Program Manager

· Program Manager

· Sr. Program Management Specialist

Domain 2

· Sr. Program Manager

· Program Manager

· Sr. Business Subject Matter Expert

· Senior Financial Analyst

· Senior Accounting Analyst

We also recommend the addition of a Contract Manager, though not specified in Attachment 3. A Contract Manager is critical to manage multiple business partners, both small and large. Recommendation noted. Please see our response to question 1.9.

For more information on key personnel, please see our response to question 7.1.3

• In-service engineering, fleet introduction, installation and checkout support

• Weapons certification support

Also, the FM BPAs referenced in question 1.3 cover audits related to large-scale technical projects. TABSS will cover acquisition-related program audits.

Please confirm that “Section A Subsection 5 (Miscellaneous) should be “Section A Subsection 4” to map to the information in L-5 (p 66).

A small businesses which is not an 8(a) or SDV would be allowed to prime under Domains 1 and 2 only, as Domain 3 is set aside exclusively for 8(a) businesses. See Section B-2 of the draft RFP for a listing of the tracks applicable to this procurement.

Please see Section L-3 of the draft RFP for more details.

5.5 Is the $7M NAICS size standard defined by total company revenue, or revenue associated with contracts under NAICS 541611? The $7M size standard refers to Annual Receipts. The SBA defines Annual Receipts as follows: "Receipts means 'total income' (or in the case of a sole proprietorship, 'gross income') plus 'cost of goods sold' as these terms are defined and reported on Internal Revenue Service tax return forms. The term does not include net capital gains or losses; taxes collected for and remitted to a taxing authority if included in gross or total income, such as sales or other taxes collected from customers and excluding taxes levied on the concern or its employees; proceeds from transactions between a concern and its domestic or foreign affiliates; and amounts collected for another by a travel agent, real estate agent, advertising agent, conference management service provider, freight forwarder or customs broker. For size determination purposes, the only exclusions from receipts are those specifically provided for in this paragraph. All other items, such as subcontractor costs, reimbursements for purchases a contractor makes at a customer's request, and employee-based costs such as payroll taxes, may not be excluded from receipts. Receipts are averaged over a concern's latest three (3) completed fiscal years to determine its average annual receipts. If a concern has not been in business for three (3) years, the average weekly revenue for the number of weeks the concern has been in business is multiplied by 52 to determine its average annual receipts."

This information is provided for the conveinence of contractors. Ultimately, the SBA is responsible for determining business size, not DHS.

If the size status of a small business prime changes due to acquisition or merger at any point during the life of the contract, they must re-represent within 30 days. If it is deemed that they are no longer a small business, they can no longer participate in any future task order competitions under the TABSS program and will be removed from the contract. The businesses, however, will be able to complete the work on their current task order(s).

Please see Section L-10 of the draft RFP for more information on "Other Required Documentation" and the end of Section I for the "Limitation of Future Contracting" clause.

1.) Will the draft RFP (OCI) clauses be flowed to all subcontractors and all task orders?

2.) Will there be additional OCI restrictions placed on individual task orders?

3.) If there are additional OCI restrictions on a task order, will those restrictions only apply to those members of the team who are part of the task order or will the OCI restrictions be applied to all members of the broader IDIQ team, regardless of participation on the task order? 1.) Yes.

2.) The determination of adding additional OCI restrictions and their overall applicability will be made by the task order contracting officer.

3.) This will be decided by the task order contracting officer.

6.34 Does the USCG intend that large-business awardees will be allowed NOT to bid on specific Task Order competitions they believe will engender an organizational conflict of interest? For example, a task-order competition for Analyses of Alternatives is a task that we consider believe will engender an OCI for an organization as large as ours. Is it the USCG's intent that winning large companies may systematically avoid bidding on such task-order competitions under TABSS? The determination of whether or not an OCI exists is dependent upon the work required under a given task order. Task order contracting officers will determine what OCI preclusion measures need to be taken.

Additionally, there is no requirement that an awardee must bid on every task order opportunity available to them.

a. There does not appear to be any fields to complete in Paragraph b of Section K. Please confirm.

b. Should the offeror submit a copy of the ORCA submission with the proposal?

a. 52.212-3(b)(2) contains a blank space for offerors to fill in and corresponding instructions: "Offeror to identify the applicable paragraphs …".

b. It is not necessary to submit a copy of the offeror's ORCA entry.

a. Is an alternate font size acceptable for figures, graphics, and tables?

b. The pricing attachments currently use 10.5 point Arial font. Should these (and other) required attachments be converted to 12 point Times New Roman font before submission?

a. Question: Please confirm that “graphics shall be readable” in lieu of the guidance provided for “type” provided in the referenced section.

b. Question: Please confirm that, in addition to glossaries for abbreviations and acronyms, that cover pages and/or table of contents pages will not count against page limitations for respective volumes.

As stated respectively in the draft RFP in paragraph M-3.2 and paragraph L-7, Volume I, Section A, past performance is a separate and distinct factor from experience.

8.1.7 Reference Section L-7, Volume I, Section A: Experience: The reference states that “Any changes of personnel occurring between time of offer and time of award shall be immediately brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer”. Given in sourcing, Government conversions, and the employment market, in general, which tends to high turnover rates in the skill sets needed to staff contracts such as TABSS, this requirement could result in a continuous evaluation of Offerors’ proposals. Respectfully request that this requirement be reconsidered and deleted. Recommendation noted.

So that we can best meet this RFP requirement, please explain the government rationale for this requirement and how the government thinks that this requirement is an indicator for experience. We suggest that resumes are a poor indicator of a company’s experience. No company that intends to stay in business very long has a pool of staff who are not fully engaged in project work for which they are qualified. Given that, it is not certain that these staff will work future projects. Secondly, this requirement favors larger companies with thousand or even tens of thousands of resumes to draw upon. Larger companies will have no problem fulfilling this RFP requirement and presenting a pool of qualified staff even though they may not have any more available staff than mid-size companies. Medium sized companies, who often bring extremely qualified staff and innovative solutions, might not gain an award as a result of this requirement.

As an alternative, consider other mechanisms to allow a company prove their experience. For example, EAGLE II requires offerors to explain relevant examples of their work to demonstrate their expertise and also require those vendors to obtain past performance surveys from their customer to judge performance. We believe that this is a better indication of experience.

Please see our response to question 7.1.3.

Also, requiring resumes is a common practice in government contracting. For more on this, please see our response to question 7.1.4.