Attachment 8b - Supplemental clarification of answers to questions under RFP HSCG44-10-R-TEDSSA.doc

Clarifications of Answers to Questions for RFP HSCG44-10-R-TEDSSA Amendment 23

1. “Page 41, RFP Paragraph E.13, fourth sub-paragraph, and Page 42, RFP Paragraph E.15, second subparagraph specify two binders, one containing Volumes I and II, the second containing Volume III. Page 42, RFP Paragraph E.16, REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL FORMAT, requires three binders, one for each volume.

Please clarify whether two or three binders are required.”

1A: Three (3) binders are required: Volume 1 – Technical Approach, Technical Capability, Management Approach and Quality Control; Volume 2 – Past Performance Information; and Volume 3 – Price/Administrative Documentation.

2. “Page 42, RFP Paragraph E.16, REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL FORMAT, fifth bullet. The requirement for all Volume I attachments, such as Technical Capability items (a) through (q) and Resumes to fit within the 200 page Volume I limit is simply unattainable given the size and scope of the example documents. For example, just one of the requested products that we must include in the proposal is 96 pages long. The total page count will easily exceed 1,000 pages if we are successful in obtaining permission from our current customers to include copies of all 15 items (a) through (q).

Request that the Factor 2 Technical Capability product examples (a) through (q) be excluded from any and all page limitations and that the Volume I page limit be reset to 30 pages per the previous RFP.

Regarding the 30 page limit, request that the Resumes, Title Page, Table of Contents, Cross Reference Matrix, Tabs, Dividers and Cover Letter once again be excluded from the Volume I page count as provided for in the amended RFP.”

2A: Based on concerns as to page limitation of actual samples required under Volume 1, Factor 2, Technical Capability, all samples, attachments and appendices are excluded from all Volume page limits for proposal submissions. In addition, Resumes, Title Pages, Table of Contents, Cross Reference Matrix (if submitted), tabs, dividers and cover letters are also excluded from all Volume page limitations for proposal submissions. The Volume 1 page limit is clarified to be 30 narrative pages in lieu of 200 pages.

3. “Page 49, RFP Paragraph E.18.6, Factor 5, Past Performance, second sub-paragraph and Page 51, RFP Paragraph E.18.6.1, Past Performance Questionnaires: We are submitting three contracts as past performance examples (as the prime) per the RFP instructions. In those submittals, we identify the CO and the COTR/Government Program Manager for each contract and provide complete identifying and contact information.

Please confirm that this satisfies the requirements in the third sub-paragraph that states in part ‘…provide a minimum of three (3) references to include specific…’ If not, what additional reference information is required?”

3A: Past Performance Questionnaire responses are to be provided from Government agencies separate from any past performance reference information that is provided under Factor 5. However, information that is provided under past performance references can be based on the responses from the past performance questionnaires as long it meets the information requirements under Factor 5. No more than seven (7) past performance references are required to meet Factor 5 – Past Performance.

4. “Page 49, RFP Paragraph E.18.6, Factor 5, Past Performance, second and third sub-paragraphs: We have already developed past performance examples and confirmed that our references have completed and submitted their past performance questionnaires for more than 7 examples. If we reduce the number of examples in our proposal, the government will have questionnaire information on contracts that are no longer cited in Volume II. This has the potential to cause significant confusion, and to negatively impact our past performance evaluation, as there will be no supporting information for the received questionnaires to explain who the POCs are, why the contract is relevant, etc.

Request that the words ‘…no more than seven (7) examples total.’ be deleted.”

4A: No more than seven (7) past performance reference examples is the Government’s requirement; however, if additional past performance references are provided based on responses to past performance questionnaires, the Government will not count that against an offeror’s submission.

5. “Page 40, RFP Paragraph E.10, Prime Contractor Responsibilities. Please clarify what agreement the government expects to be submitted with the proposal. Are you requesting teaming agreements?”

5A: If teaming agreements are proposed; yes, the proposal shall provide teaming agreements with all teaming partners and 1st tier subcontractors.

6. From Questions 6, 115 (and others) – “From RFP paragraph E.18.3: ‘All examples given shall be extracted from actual, successful efforts and will include….’ yet from Item A, guidance is directed to, ‘provide one example of a completed prototype evaluation plan.’ [Emphasis added.] Is the government’s intent to have offerors provide actual samples of contract deliverables, test plans, program management plans, operational requirement documents, etc.? The wording examples and providing samples mean two totally different things. If so, this seems like an unrealistic request – for a variety of reasons, most program sponsors would dismiss any formal (or informal) request to attach an actual contract deliverable as a sample for another agency’s proposal response. Also, the government’s request for the offeror to submit a letter from the program sponsor (on letterhead, no less) stating that the request to release their documentation has been denied is another unreasonable request. Not only would the program sponsor deny our request to attach actual samples of contract deliverables, he/she certainly won’t be willing to put this in writing. Furthermore, we view this as a misplaced burden of proof – the contracting officer and staff should use past performance and CPARS/PPIRS references to verify and validate the offeror’s performance, capabilities, and capacity to perform similar work.”

6A: The requirement under Factor 2 – Technical Capability, Sub-Factor 2 is for actual samples of the requirements as defined under bullets a-q; however, if an actual samples cannot be provided due to classified information; to meet sub-factor 2, the information provided must be of sufficient detail that the Offeror has performed this type of work and is capable of doing so as required by this solicitation. In addition, if the actual sample is classified, the denial letter on agency letterhead with organization/agency name, point of contact with telephone number, documents denied and rational for denial is official proof which is verifiable by the Government.

7. From Question 21 – “The government’s answer to this question is problematic for at least two reasons. First, language that hints at task orders issued on a sole source basis makes us believe that this proposal may be wired for someone, most likely an incumbent (reference FAR 16.505.(b)(2)(iii) – ‘a logical follow-on’ exclusion to Fair Opportunity Process). Second, the exclusive use of FFP task orders places most (if not all) pricing and execution risk on the offeror. Both of these concerns are severely damaging to an offeror’s business case – this will likely drive an increase in pricing to cover this risk on FFP task orders.”

7A: There are no incumbent contractors under this requirement. The majority of the task orders under these IDIQ multiple award contracts shall be issued as competitive; however, there may be a requirement for a task order that the Government determines “sole source” which shall be approved through the appropriate channels for one of the IDIQ contract awardees to provide services. It is the Government’s determination based on historical data that firm-fixed price task orders are appropriate for these services.

8. “Questions 47, 94 (and others) - The sentence fragment that follows lacks a verb to complete the government’s requirement for the offeror to respond: ‘A list of similar contracts, delivery orders, purchase orders and/or subcontracts completed during the past 3 years, a list of similar contracts, delivery orders, purchase orders and/or subcontracts currently in progress, or a combination of similar contracts, delivery orders, purchase orders and/or subcontracts that have either been completed in the past 3 years or are currently in progress.’ Please clarify what the offerors must submit to satisfy this evaluation criterion.”

8A: This paragraph refers to the type of past performance information that should be provided under Factor 5. Any of this type of information is considered past performance information.

9. “Questions 29, 118 (and others) – The DD 254 included as Attachment 6 in Amendment 21 lacks the continuation page for Item 13 Security Guidance. This is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it lacks the answer to whether tasking will be subject to DHS suitability determination. Second, no information is given for expectations of classified work above the SECRET level. Both issues directly impact an offeror’s pricing model – DHS suitability determination and TS/SSBI or TS/SCI clearances will add significant salary requirements to staff C3CEN task orders. This uncertainty may drive offerors to avoid significant pricing schedule discounts to mitigate this risk”.

9A: It is not anticipated that efforts requiring more than a ‘Secret’ clearance will be accomplished under this contract. The continuation page of the DD 254 is posted with these clarifications.

10. Question 53 (and others) – “The combination of the following three statements regarding pricing and equivalent rates creates a conundrum for offerors to build their pricing model:

a. “The first statement in Attachment 7 “In accordance with FAR52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 1989), and in compliance with the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor (29 CFR Part 4, this clause identifies the class of service employees expected to be employed under the contract and states the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were employed by the contracting agency subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C 5341 or 5332. This statement is for Information ONLY. IT IS NOT A WAGE DETERMINATION:

b. The last sentence in this answer ‘Contractors must pay at least this amount for the categories listed.’

c. The statement from RFP paragraph E.18.7 Factor 6 Price – ‘Proposed rates in Attachment 2 shall be fixed for the life of the contract.”

10A:

a. Attachment 7 – Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires should not be utilized in pricing submittals. Attachment 4 - Wage Determination should be utilized, as this sets the minimum labor rates established by the Department of Labor (DOL).

b. This sentence incorrectly referred to Attachment 4 the correct reference would be Attachment 7.

c. This statement is accurate and shall not be changed. The rates proposed by the selected awardees shall be fixed rates for the life of the contract.

11. “Would the government please clarify its intent and guidance for offerors to adequately price these labor categories with appropriate fringe benefits?”

11A: The rates proposed by all Offerors are to be fully burdened labor rates with or without discounts. “Fringe benefits” are included in the overall fully burdened labor rates.

12. “Based on the abundance of questions and answers posted, specifically for a small business, would the government entertain another extension please?”

12A: No, there will be no additional RFP extensions.

13. Question #115. RFP, Section E, E.18.2.3. “The solicitation states the contractor shall provide 15 examples to demonstrate the capability to perform the nine (9) functional areas. Is the requirement submitting a complete plan for each of the 15 items or just a descriptive extract from the actual plan with the requested identifying information? ”

13A: Offerors shall submit complete plans. If the samples are in narrative form then yes, it will be counted as part of the 30 page limit. However, if the plans are attachments then no, they will not counted against the page limit. Please see clarification answer to Question # 2 above for further information regarding page limit exclusions.

14. Question #14. “Did the Government intend the first sentence to read: “The intent of paragraph E.18.4 is to emphasize the importance of the Program Manager’s duties and responsibilities”…etc.”

14A: Yes. The intent of paragraph E.18.4 is to emphasize the importance of the Program Manager's duties and responsibilities as it pertains to monitoring key and non-key personnel in accomplishing the overall tasks awarded under the IDIQ Contract.

15. Answer to Question #32, Answer to #100. “The following answers seem to be contradictory. The answer to question #32 states that “Resumes are to be provided in Volume I”. However, Answer #100 states that “Resume(s) are to be provided in Volume II.” Please clarify where the resumes should be located.”

15A: The Answer to Question #100 is hereby clarified to read “Resume(s) are to be provided in Volume I” vice Volume II.

16. Answer to #67. “Please clarify that Letters of Commitment are to be placed in Volume III.”

16A: Letters of Commitment are considered administrative in nature. They are to be placed in Volume III, Administrative and Price Proposal.

17. Answer to Question #46, Part VI, Answer to Question #95. “The answer to Question #46 indicates that a list of similar contracts should be submitted as specified in Amendment 21. However, when asked in Question #95 if the Government requires a list of all similar contracts performed in the last three years, the answer states: ‘No. Please see revised 18.4.1 and Amendment 21’. There seems to be two problems with this response. First, Section18.4.1 is an unrelated Section. This should reference Section E.18.6 (pg. 50). Secondly, there seems to be a contradiction between the two answers. Will the Government confirm that a list of similar contracts completed within the last three years (as required on pg. 50 of the amended RFP) should be included? And if so, will it be excluded from the Past Performance page limit (10 pages)?”

17A: Agree. The response provided to Question #46 relates to Key Personnel vs. Past Performance. The response provided to Question #95 is hereby clarified to read “See Paragraph 18.6, Factor 5, Past Performance, paragraphs 3 and 4.”

Paragraphs 3 and 4 reiterate the submission requirements for contracts either related to or currently in progress or completed within the last three (3) years (i.e., within three (3) years of the release of the amended RFP).” As stated in 2A, above, samples, attachments and appendices, etc., are excluded from page limits for proposal submissions. Narratives count in proposal submissions for individual Proposal Volumes.

18. Answer to Question #101. Please clarify due date. RFP states February 28th. Answer to Question #101 states Feb. 22nd.

18A: As stated in Amendment 20 and herein, the closing date for submission of all proposal submissions is 28 February 2011 at 2:00PM, Eastern Standard Time (EST).

19. Question #105. Due to the following, would the Government consider altering the requirement for 10 pt. font to be used in graphics with embedded text and require only that it be reasonable and legible:

a. The solicitation has been active for several months; therefore, previously designed graphics will require re-design to accommodate this requirement.

b. Jpeg graphics, even when designed with the proper font size, may be scaled to fit within the text of the document. This may cause the font size to shift.

19A: To clarify, 10 point font size is the standard for graphics; however, graphics/drawings and legends shall be both readable and legible.

The Government will not accept any additional questions as the acceptance date for questions has passed. However, the government is providing clarification to the aforementioned inconsistencies in the answers provided above one time and one time only.

The closing date of 28 February 2011 and all other terms and conditions remain unchanged.