APLESQ AMARCH1.doc

USCG APLES Solicitation #HSCGG3-10-R-PWV500

1 March 2010

Responses to Vendor Questions/Clarifications for APLES Solicitation

Question 1:

Reference: Section L.2 Question: Section L.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION, DELIVERY AND PACKAGING states that foldouts are not allowed. Will the Government allow foldouts for worksheets in the cost volume? Specifically, the Base and Option Year worksheets that are broken down by work area are over 75 columns wide. Allowing foldouts will provide flexibility for printing and inclusion in the cost volume.

Response: Foldouts are acceptable for the cost volume.

Question 2:

Reference: Section L.2 Question: Section L.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION, DELIVERY AND PACKAGING states that text in the proposal must be “Times New Roman 12 point font” For figures and tables, would a smaller font be acceptable such that the font was clearly readable and the readability of the figure or table is the responsibility of the offeror?

Response: For figures and tables ONLY, a smaller font is acceptable but not less than 8 point font.

Question 3:

Reference: FY10 Level of Effort Data by System Question: The worksheet provided in Section L entitled, “FY10 Level of Effort Data by System,” which provides APLES labor and ODC projections for FY10, includes 10 FTEs under the columns “General Contract Services.” These FTEs are for Program Managers and Procurement Specialists. The Cost Templates for the Base Year and Option Years are delineated by product line area but do not include columns for Contract Management to account for associated hours and labor costs. Should the offeror add columns into the Cost Template worksheets to account for Contract Management services? This would ensure capture of the hours and costs.

Response: No, the Offeror should not add columns into the cost template worksheets to account for Contract Management Services. The 10 FTEs under the “General Contract Services” columns are the Government’s estimates of managerial support for FY10. Due to the changeover between the SETS II and APLES contracts, this support was separated out as “General Contract Services” in the Level of Effort file. As part of the proposal process, the offerors are expected to allocate their proposed management personnel to correspond in the manner they intend to provide oversight and management of the Contract and task order requirements. This should be reflected both in the technical and cost proposal.

Question 4:

Reference: APLES Cost Templates

Question: It is understood that it is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that formulas are correct; however, one particular formula error embedded in several worksheets causes a misstatement of significant magnitude.

Total ODCs shown on the Base Year and each of the Option sheets are misstated, as the formulas exclude the amounts included in column AK, which indicates the ODC costs for CG-LIMS. The current formula yields incorrect totals in each year and calculates total program ODCs as $36,772,456, while the correct formulas will increase the amount shown for each year and calculate total program ODCs of $37,112,456.

Response: There was a formula mistake in the original cost template. The formula has been revised to include all ODC costs. The cost template has been revised. Please note that CG-LIMS has been deleted from the Cost Template as there is no tasking associated with CG-LIMS at this time.

Question 5:

Reference: Section L - Attachment 2: - SETS II FY09 Historical Data Question: Does the cost included in each column of the spreadsheet include the contractor's fee, or is it fully loaded cost before fee?

Response: The costs in Attachment 2 do not reflect the application of any award fee or contract access fees.

Question 6:

Reference: Section 4.8.3-Cost Reports Question: Section 4.8.3 Cost Reports & Invoices of the Sample Task Order states that "Specific data elements to be included in the electronic format are provided in Section G, Attachment 1". There is no “Attachment 1” in Section G. The data elements to be included in the electronic cost file are provided in Section G.9 (Cost Reports – Other Than Fixed Price Task Orders) of Section G.

Response: Section 4.8.3 of the Sample Task Order has been revised to remove the reference to Attachment 1. It does not exist.

Question 7:

Reference: APLES Summer Intern/Co-op Program Question: Does the government intend to sponsor a summer intern program under APLES? If so, will those students charge direct to their respective business systems or will it be funded by the OSC tax under a management sub-CLIN?

Response: Yes, Section 4.4.1 of the APLES IDIQ PWS addresses the Government’s intent regarding a Summer Intern and college CO-OP programs. Specifically, for the Sample Task Order, due to the timing of the APLES contract award, there will be no summer intern or college CO-OP program in the base period. Section 4.5.7 of the Sample Task Order PWS has been revised.

Question 8:

Reference: RFP HR requirements Question: The RFP conveys significant HR requirements, but there is no labor category or cost location identified for billing. Please clarify the government’s intention for this function and staff.

Response: In the course of researching and developing the APLES requirements, OSC conducted research into current contracting trends and other Government contract vehicles. As a result of this research, it was determined that the majority of available contract vehicles do NOT include HR or an HR Specialist labor category as a direct charge to similar contracts or task orders issued under similar contracts. As HR is an inherently administrative function, it is expected that the contractor will develop a strategy to support its HR requirements via corporate overhead/administrative fees. HR functions should not be billed as a direct charge to any task orders issued under the APLES IDIQ contract.

Question 9:

Reference: FT09 Historical Data Question: Is the FY09 SETSII Historical Data provided in Section L, reflective of the entire SETS II activity (i.e APLES and CTS) or is an extrapolation of APLES data?

Response: The FY09 Historical Data pertains ONLY to the software development tasking that will be under APLES.

Question 10:

Reference: L.4.4

Question: The Government states in L.4.4. "Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement... The quality and stability of the work force to be employed on task orders issued under this IDIQ contract is important to the Government." Because offerors are not privy to the actual salaries used on the predecessor contract, use of salary surveys alone may not yield data that is consistent with the current compensation levels and therefore, while justifiable on the basis of the surveys, may not facilitate staff continuity. Will average salaries by labor category be provided?

Response: No, average salaries by labor category will not be provided.

Question 11:

Reference: APLES Cost Template

Question: On the APLES Cost Templates, the worksheet entitled, “Cost Elements” contains the prices for the Base Year and Option Years leading to “Total – All Performance Periods.” Phase-in costs are not included on this worksheet. Should the offeror modify the worksheet to include Phase-in so this sheet matches the “Summary” sheet total for all performance periods?

Response: Phase-in costs are now included in the “Cost Element” worksheet. NOTE: A cell reference error on this sheet is also corrected. Row 74 shows total ODCs for each performance period but pointed to the wrong cell for all performance periods. This has been revised and the total ODCs displayed on this sheet are correct.

Question 12:

Reference: Site Visit Question: Can you please provide a listing of attendees for the Site Visit?

Response: The list of vendor attendees follows:

XA Systems, LLC TeraThink Corporation Digital Management Inc.

General Dynamics Information Technology Primescape Solutions Dynamics Research Corporation

IMTS

Zantech IT Services, Inc.

IP Network Solutions Inc.

Capstone Corporation

SAIC

NETCOM Group

Booz Allen Hamilton

CTGi

Link Solutions, Inc.

Optimal Solutions and Technologies DKW Communications, Inc.

Electronic Consulting Services, Inc.

SRA International

Platinum Solutions

QinetiQ North America

Dell Perot Systems

CSC

Information Technology Coalition, Inc.

UrsaNav, Inc.

MorganFranklin

CACI, Inc.

Windward Consulting Group, Inc.

C&H Global Security, LLC

Microsoft Corporation

Question 13:

Reference: Organizational Conflict of Interest Question: Are any of the existing prime contract holders or their subordinate partners supporting the OSC barred from competing on the APLES procurement due to Organizational Conflict of Interest such as the I V & V or Help Desk contractors?

Response: Yes, the Contractor and subcontractors supporting OSC’s Information Assurance, Configuration Management, Quality Assurance (IACMQA) Task Order, #HSUSCGG3-09-J-TWV276, are not eligible for award of the APLES IDIQ contract. It is of vital importance to maintain the independence of the IACMQA tasking to clearly establish a level of independence for these functions and to preclude the appearance of any conflict of interest. Section 1.1.2 of the APLES IDIQ PWS has been amended to clearly articulate this prohibition.

Question 14:

Reference: Section B.8 (pg 3 of 4) refers to Section C, Attachment 8 for Labor Categories

Question: There is no Attachment 8 to Section C (PWS). Should this refer to Section C, Attachment 7?

Response: Yes, Section B.8 has been corrected to refer to Section C, Attachment 7.

Question 15:

Reference: Section C (PWS), Paragraph 6 is titled “Software Engineering Activities”. The Sample Task Paragraph 6 title is “IT Engineering Activities”.

Question: Should the Sample Task paragraph have the same title as the PWS?

Response: Yes. The IDIQ PWS, Section 6 has been revised to read “IT Engineering Activities”.

Question 16:

Reference: Section C, Attachment 3, Product Line System Descriptions

Question: The reference in Section 1 to “Section 8 of the APLES PWS” appears to be incorrect. Please clarify. The reference in Section 2.1.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 to “Section 7.9.1” appears to be in error. Should this latter reference be to Section 6.2.16.1 of the Sample Task Order PWS (Section J, Attachment 1)?

Response: Attachment 3 has been corrected to Reference Section 6 of the APLES PWS. The references to Section 7.9.1 that were initially included in Section 2.1.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 of Attachment 3 have been removed as they were incorrect.

Question 17:

Reference: Section H.14 Key Personnel of Facilities and Section B, Paragraph B.8 Labor

Question: It appears that H.14 directs the contractor to specify Key Personnel for each Task Order award. However, Section B.8 appears to restrict Key Personnel designations to only the Program Manager labor category. Will the Government consider eliminating the asterisk in Section B.8 to provide the contractor with discretion in designating Key Personnel?

Response: No, the asterisk will not be eliminated in Section B.8. It is the Government’s intent to restrict the Program Manager II, III, and IV labor category as key personnel. The Section H language is from Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) 3052.215-70. The key personnel designated by the Contractor and accepted by the Government will be stipulated in Section H upon contract award.

Question 18:

Reference: Section I.1 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (page 2 of 7), 52.222-41 Service Contract Act

Question: Please confirm that this contract is subject to the Service Contract Act.

Will the government provide a Wage Determination for this contract?

Response: This contract is not subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA). Therefore, SCA Wage Determinations are not applicable.

Question 19:

Reference: Section I.1 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (page 2 of 7), 52.222-41 Service Contract Act and Section C, Attachment 7, Labor Category Descriptions

Question: In reviewing the labor category descriptions, education and experience requirements, it would appear that these positions are exempt positions and not subject to the Service Contract Act. Is this a correct assumption? If this assumption is incorrect, please indicate which positions listed in Attachment 7 are covered by Service Contract Act.

Response: See the response to Question 19, above.

Question 20:

Reference: Section J.1.1, Sample Task Order, 1.3 Task Order Deliverables

Question: It appears that the Section References in the table are not IDIQ PWS section references but rather Sample Task Order section references. Is this correct? If this is not correct, please provide the corrected IDIQ contract section references.

Response: Yes, all references Section 1.3 should reference the Sample Task Order.

Question 21:

Reference: Section J.1.1, Sample Task Order 1.3 Task Order Deliverables

Question: It appears that the PWS section reference for the required Training Report should be 4.5.6 instead of 4.5.4 (Contract Management and Administration). Is 4.5.6 the correct reference?

Response: Yes, 4.5.6 is the correct reference in the list of Deliverables, vice 4.5.4.

Question 22:

Reference: Section J.1.1, Sample Task Order PWS, Section 2.1.

Question: Section 2.1 states that “OSC provides software development and maintenance support for 51 IT systems within the 6 product line areas.” Other portions of the RFP identify only 34 product line applications. Please clarify the reference to 51 systems.

Response: Section 2.1 of the Sample Task Order PWS has been corrected to reflect the 33 IT Product Line systems currently supported by OSC.

Question 23:

Reference: Section J.1.1, Sample Task Order PWS, Section 4.8.3

Question: Section 4.8.3 states that the monthly invoice and cost report shall be submitted to the Government by the 10th business day. Section G-8 states that the monthly invoice and cost report should be delivered no later than 15 calendar days. Please clarify which date for delivery of the monthly cost invoice and report is correct.

Response: Section G-8 is correct. The monthly invoice and cost report should be delivered no later than the 15th calendar day of every month for the proceeding performance month. Section 4.8.3 of the Sample Task Order PWS has been revised.

Question 24:

Reference: Section L.2 Instructions for Proposal Preparation, Delivery and Packing

Questions: Given the page constraints of the Offeror’s RFP response and for ease of readable will the Government permit the use of a 10 point font size for tables?

Response: Please see the response to Question 2.

Question 25:

Reference: Section L.1.5, Sample Task Order

Question: Section L indicates that pricing for the IDIQ contract must be provided for the Phase-In Period, Base Period and all Option Periods (60 months) and must be based on tasking detailed in the Sample Task Order (32 months). Since no information is provided for the work effort to be accomplished in Option Periods 3 through 5, is it the Government’s intent that contractors propose the same level of effort as that proposed in Option Period 2 for Option Periods 3 through 5?

Response: Yes Question 26:

Reference: Section L.2.1, Proposal Delivery

Question: This section states: “The Technical Proposal shall include a compliance matrix …” Is this matrix excluded from the page count?

Response: No. Also, Section L.2 has been revised to clearly stipulate single-side page submission.

Question 27:

Reference: Section L.2.3 Technical Preparation

Question: Would the government consider including an Executive Summary (2 page limit) to the Technical Proposal?

Response: No.

Question 28:

Reference: Section L.2.3.1.2, Part II Management Approach and M.2.2 Factor 2 Management Approach.

Questions: Please clarify whether letters of commitments are needed for all key personnel, or only those who are contingent hires not already employed by the Offeror and their subcontractors.

Response: Letters of commitment are required for all key personnel. Section L.2.3.1.2 (Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5) are revised to read:

“The availability and commitment of Contractor key personnel must be described in the proposal response. Letters of Commitment for employment with the Offeror, if the Offeror receives an award under this solicitation, must be included.

Offerors shall provide resumes for all key personnel proposed that include current information technology degrees and certifications. If the key personnel have worked on any of the contracts used in past performance, indicate which contracts and their role. The Offeror’s management approach shall address the sub-factors listed in Section M.

The contractor shall provide position descriptions for each labor category. This information shall be provided for all levels of personnel proposed.”

Section M.2.2, Sub-Factor 2, Sentence 3, is revised to read:

“Resumes for key personnel, including past and/or current experience, education, certifications, and/or training, along with Letters of Commitment shall be submitted as part of the Offeror’s proposal.”

Question 29:

Reference: Section L.2.3.1.2 Part II Management Approach, paragraph 1, fourth sentence.

Question: This sentence states that “Offeror’s must provide a Staffing Matrix in the proposal response, as described in the APLES IDIQ Performance Work Statement.”

(a) Is the intended reference the Sample Task Order PWS (paragraph 4.5.2)?

(b) Does the required Staffing Matrix include staffing levels as well as labor categories or just a mapping of labor categories?

(c) If staffing levels are required, should the Staffing Matrix be for the 32-month period of performance for the Sample Task Order or should Offerors provide a Staffing Matrix for all five years of the IDIQ contract in their proposal response?

Response:

(a) Yes, the staffing matrix in the sentence should refer to the Sample Task Order, Section 4.5.2.

(b) The required Staffing Matrix includes a mapping of labor categories; not staffing levels.

(c) N/A

Question 30:

Reference: Section L.2.3.1.4, Part IV Past Performance

Question: The instructions for Part IV do not make reference to a cover page and table of contents. These items are specified for the other three parts of the Technical Proposal. Should they be included in Part IV as well?

Response: No, they should not be included in Part IV. It was the Government’s intent to have a cover page and table of contents in Part I, II, and III of the Technical Proposal, not in Part IV.

Question 31:

Reference: Section L.2.3.1.5, Past Performance Questionnaire

Question: The reference states “In addition to the Past Performance Information, the contractor shall include Past Performance Questionnaire for each of the references cited.” Will the Government consider using performance data available for Past Performance reference data available in the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and /or the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire?

Response: No, the Government is requiring Past Performance Questionnaires as stipulated in Section L.2.3.1.5. In addition to the required Past Performance Questionnaires, the Government may also utilize additional past performance data such obtained from official Government reporting systems (CPARS, PPIRS).

Question 32:

Reference: Section L.2.3.2.2 and Section L, Attachment 4, APLES Cost Template

Question: Cost components 8 through 13 identified in Section L, pp 9-10, require the inclusion of Composite Burdened Labor Rates. There appears to be no worksheet within Attachment 4 that permits the calculation of this composite rate. Is it acceptable for offerors to include another worksheet within the template that supports the calculation of this composite rate?

Response: Offerors may include another worksheet to support the calculation of their composite labor rates. However, it is expected that the Government’s worksheet templates will be completed for the base and all option periods, for all labor categories proposed.

Question 33:

Reference: Section L.2.3.2.2 Cost Template Components (Table)

Question: In the overview discussion of Item 5. Ratios, it states that this table should be submitted by the prime and all subcontractors. It appears that all information required would be included in the table provided by the Prime. Is it necessary for subcontractors to submit this table as well?

Response: The worksheet shall be completed by the Prime; however, the Prime will be responsible for providing the distribution of hours for all Subcontractors proposed.

Question 34:

Reference: Section L.2.3.2.2 Cost Template Components (Table)

Question: It appears that Cost Component Overview for Item 9, Option Period I Costs, states “this worksheet details hours and costs by system for the Base (1 January through 31 December 2011). We assume that the period title is in error and should have read “Option Period 1.” Is this a correct assumption? If not please clarify. Note that a similar error occurs in Item 10 through 13.

Response: Yes, the assumption is correct. The Cost Template Components (Item 9 – 13) are revised to correct the errors.

Question 35:

Reference: Section L.4.4 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, L.4.5 Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, and L.5.1 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Question: These sections require inclusion of a total compensation plan (L.4.4), a copy of the uncompensated overtime policy (L.4.5), and a conflict of interest statement (L.5.1) with the proposal. Where in the proposal response should these items be provided?

Response: These must be included in the Offeror’s Cost Proposal response.

Question 36:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 2: FY09 SETS II Historical Data and Section L, Attachment 3: FY10 Level of Effort Budget

Question: A review of the two attachments indicates a budgeted growth from 253.4 FTEs in FY09 to 307.3 FTEs in FY10.

(a) Will the government provide insight as to the basis of the growth?

(b) Can Offerors expect similar growth in the out years of the contract?

(c) What changes should we expect in the out years of the contract, i.e. what systems/ applications are scheduled for decommissioning, what systems/applications are scheduled to become operational during the contract period?

Response:

(a) No.

(b) No.

(c) The Government cannot provide any expectation of growth.

Question 37:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 3, FY10 Level of Effort Budget Data

Question: Attachment 3 lists a labor category of Document Management Specialist (I through IV). Elsewhere in the RFP (Section B.8, Section C, Attachment 7, and Section L, Attachment 4 makes reference to a Technical Writer/Editor labor category. Are these two positions the same position? If so, will the government please clarify the appropriate terminology?

Response: The labor category of Document Management Specialist I-IV is listed incorrectly and has been corrected to Technical Writer/Editor I-IV.

Question 38:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 3, FY10 Level of Effort Budget Data

Questions: In reviewing the data provided, there appear to be several incorrect calculations in the spreadsheet.

(a) It appears that the “Total Current Systems Hours” does not include the 29,600 hours of the Application Engineer I in the Total Direct Hours.

(b) It appears that the Total Direct Labor Hours for BelManage and CGHELP are not included in the Total Enterprise Information Branch total.

(c) It appears that the 1,387 hours for a Program Manager under Enterprise Information, RAST is not included in the summary for this product line and therefore is not included in the summary of Total Direct Hours. Further, RAST is the only application that includes Program Manager hours. Is this entry in error? If not, should these hours be included in the Total Direct Hours for the contract?

Will the Government provide a revised spreadsheet?

Response:

(a) This formula error has been corrected. “Total Current Systems Hours” now includes ALL labor categories in the calculation.

(b) This formula error has been corrected. “Total Enterprise Information Branch” now includes ALL systems within the Branch.

(c) This was a data entry error and has been corrected by the removal of the hours for the Program Manager that were erroneously entered for RAST.

Question 39:

Reference: Section L Attachment 3: FY10 Level Of Effort Budget

Question: Will the government provide the government’s estimate of total hours for all contract years?

Response: No Question 40:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 3, FY10 LOE Budget Data

Question: The FY10 budget indicates that no support is required for the CG-FINS application. Will this remain true for the duration of the APLES contract? If not, will the Government provide estimates of the future support requirements for CG-FINS?

Response: The Government cannot provide estimates of future support requirements for CG-FINS as future support requirements are not known at this time. The APLES IDIQ Performance Work Statement is written to include the possibility for additional tasking for Financial Systems work. It is anticipated that new tasking such as this will be a separate and distinct task order awarded under the IDIQ contract.

The APLES Cost Template (Section L, Attachment 4) has been revised to delete the reference to CG-FINS as there is no current requirement for any level of effort to be proposed. CG-LIMS has also been removed from the Cost Template as there is currently no requirement for any level of effort to be proposed.

Question 41:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, APLES Cost Template

Question: The Cost Template appears to have several calculation issues as follows:

(a) In the Cost Elements worksheet, the Total Cost Input sum in line 75 does not include the Overhead costs from line 65.

(b) In the Cost Elements worksheet, the formulas on line 74 for the Option Periods and Total-All Performance Periods refer to cells from the Base Period worksheet

(c) In the Phase-In Cost worksheet, the Total column calculates Hours times (total) Cost and appears to be unnecessary

Should offerors correct these formulas or will the Government issue a revised Cost Template?

Response: The Section L, Attachment 4, APLES Cost Template has been revised to correct the errors.

(a) The formulas in row 75 have been corrected to include the Overhead costs from line 65.

(b) The formulas in row 74 for the Option Periods have been corrected.

(c) The formulas in the Phase-In Worksheet have been corrected.

Question 42:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, APLES Cost Template

Question: The title of the table in the Hours worksheet contains the phrase “(include Additional Systems).” Will the Government clarify the intent of this phrase?

Response: Section L, Attachment 4 has been revised to delete the phrase “Include Additional Systems.”

Question 43:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, APLES Cost Template

Question: The worksheets for the Base Period and each of the Option Periods do not provide a column for Contract Management similar to that provided in the FY10 LOE Budget Data spreadsheet. This would mean that those individuals that provide services across the entire contract (e.g., the Program Manager) would have their hours spread across each of the applications shown in the worksheets. Would the Government consider revising the worksheets to add a Contract Management column similar to that included in the FY10 spreadsheet?

Response: See response to Question #3.

Question 44:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, APLES Cost Template

Question: The cost template requires that offerors provide costing for each of the applications within the six product line areas. In order to assist in the pricing, it would be useful to understand in which phase of the system development life cycle (SDLC) each of applications reside. Would the Government provide an estimate of what percentage of the work for each application is within each of the seven phases of the SDLC defined in Section 5.1 of the Sample Task Order PWS (Section J, Attachment 1)? If this percentage allocation is expected to vary over the term of the APLES contract, will the government provide this information as a function of time?

Response: All systems described in the PWS are currently in the Operational/Mixed Life Cycle, Operations & Maintenance phase of the SDLC however each Product Line currently has some degree of enhancement activity. The Government would estimate enhancement activity for each Product Line to be approximately thirty-five percent of annual tasking.

Question 45:

Reference: Section M.2.2 (pg 2 of 6) refers to Attachment 9 of the APLES IDIQ PWS for Labor Categories. There is no Attachment 9 in Section C (PWS).

Question: Should this refer to Section C, Attachment 7?

Response: Yes, Section M.2.2 has been revised to refer to Attachment 7, vice Attachment 9.

Question 46:

Reference: Section M.2.4 Factor 4: Past Performance, second sentence

Question: Please provide a definition of a “proposed major subcontractor”.

Response: See the response to Question #47.

Question 47:

Reference: Site Visit Question: Will the Government provide a copy of the Attendees List from the OCS, February 17, 2010 site visit?

Response: See the response to Question #12.

Question 48:

Reference: Past Performance Questionnaires

Question: Section L.2.3.1.4 states, “Offerors shall identify past performance reference, 3 for the Prime Contractor and 2 for each first-tier Subcontractor …” while Section M.2.4, Factor 3 states, “…This evaluation will include past performance of proposed major subcontractors.” Are past performances and questionnaires required from all subs or just the major subs?

Response: Section L.2.3.1.4 is revised to clarify the Government’s intent and clarify the past performance requirement as follows:

“For the purposes of this solicitation, the definition of first-tier subcontractor is any subcontractor holding a subcontract with the prime contractor that will be performing work equating to 15% or more of the tasking for each individual period of performance (base and all options).”

Section M.2.4 (Factor 4: Past Performance) is revised to read:

“This evaluation will include past performance of the Prime Contractor and all first-tier Subcontractors.”

Question 49:

Who is performing the work now and what contractors support this office?

Response: QSS/Perot is the incumbent contractor currently performing the work.

See Section C. 1 (Introduction) for a description of the contract vehicles providing services to support IT operations at OSC. The Contractors associated with the contract vehicles are as follows:

Facilities and Data Floor Management, Task Order #HSCGG3-09-R-TWV066 Contractor: SCI Consulting, Inc.

Information Assurance, Configuration Management, Quality Assurance (IACMQA) Task Order #HSCGG3-09-J-TWV076 Contractor: Eagle Enterprises, JV, LLC

Help Desk Services, Task Order #HSCGG3-07-J-TWV342 Contractor: STG, Inc.

Systems Engineering and Technical Services, Task Order #HSCGG3-05-F-TWV436 Contractor: QSS Group, Inc.

Question 50:

What is the Government level of Effort estimate for this procurement?

Response: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Level of Effort Budget Data is included in Section L, Attachment 3.

Question 51:

What is the budget profile for this effort:

Response: The Coast Guard budget profile information is not available.

Question 52:

Is there an incumbent contractor that may have performed this task under a different contract vehicle and if so, who was that contractor?

Response: The incumbent contractor is QSS Group, Inc. under GSA Government-wide Acquisition Contract #GS-09F-0047Z, USCG Task Order #HSCGG3-05-F-TWV436.

Question 53:

What kind of a software platform/technologies are the application based upon?

Response: See Section C, Attachment 5. This document identifies the hardware and software requirements.

Question 54:

Is teaming allowed when submitting proposals?

Response: As stipulated in Section B, “this solicitation is limited to interested and capable 8(a) certified small business sources or 8(a) joint ventures, including those with an approved SBA Mentor-Protégé Agreement. Contract teaming is encouraged as prescribed under the SBA rules for Joint Ventures, Prime Contractor/Sub-Contractor arrangements, and the SBA’s mentor-Protégé Program Procedures.”

Question 55:

What percentage of the scope of this procurement would require a TS Clearance or any other Security certification other than HSPD-12?

Response: The Government anticipates that the intelligence product line has some portion of tasking that would require a TS Clearance or above. The approximate percentage of this tasking would be 5% or less.

Question 56:

Is there a requirement that a company must be a participant under the DHS EAGLE contract:

Response: No

Question 57:

Reference: Section C, Attachment 7: Labor Category Descriptions

Question: While the description provide for “equivalent” degrees for a specific labor category, there is not “equivalent” for years of experience in lieu of a degree. Will the USCG accept years of experience in lieu of a college degree?

Response: Yes Question 58:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4: APLES Cost Template

Question: Since the cost template requires disclosure of approved burdens, subcontractors will need to submit sealed bids in addition to providing a burdened rate to the prime contractor. Please confirm that the USCG will accept sealed bids?

Response: Yes, Subcontractor cost information can be submitted directly from the Subcontractor. The Prime Contractor is responsible for including in their proposal, all Subcontractor costs. The Prime and each Subcontractor are responsible for preparing and submitting the Cost Elements, Key Rates, and Hours Worksheets included in Section L, Attachment 4. If a Subcontractor does not wish to disclose their “cost” information to the Prime, the Subcontractor can either (a) give the Prime a “sealed” envelope with their cost information, or (b) submit the cost information directly to the Government. If (b) is the preferred option, then the Prime should document that the Subcontractor’s proposal(s) have been sent directly to the Government. The same proposal delivery requirements in Section L.2.1 would apply.

Question 59:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4: APLES Cost Template

Question: Within the Hours by Labor Category, there is no defined level of effort in terms of individual hours per the 51 IT systems. Will the USCG provide an estimated or historical level of effort per system for the purposes of pricing?

Response: The historical level of effort in FY09 for APLES tasking in each of the 6 product line areas are provided in Section L, Attachment 2. Also, Section L, Attachment 3 provides the level of effort projected for budgetary purposes for APLES tasking for FY10.

Question 60:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4: APLES Cost Template

Question: This section requests rates for each prime and subcontractor with labor hours. Does this approach preclude a Team from providing a single "blended rate" as the standard hourly rate for the Team in lieu of individual rates for each team member?

Response: The Prime is responsible for providing a level of effort (see Hours tab of the Cost Template). The labor rates proposed for all contract option periods is a Burdened (Blended) Composite Labor rate which should include the rates for both the Prime and all Subcontractors based on the hours proposed by each. Each Subcontractor must submit the separate elements of cost by performance period which will provide unburdened labor rates. Burdened Composite rates should be used for each labor category. There is no expectation that Burdened Composite rates be provided for each team member.

Question 61:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4: APLES Cost Template

Question: For the Base Year and Option Periods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, what is the estimated level of effort for supporting the listed systems? Will the same current level of support information available to the incumbent be made available to all bidders?

Response: See the response to Question #59.

Question 62:

Reference: Section B, Pg 3, B.8 Labor

Question: First paragraph of Section B.8 Labor refers to Section C, Attachment 8 for Labor categories descriptions, however Attachment 8 is not provided, Is this referring to Section C, Attachment 7?

Response: Yes, see the response to Question #14.

Question 63:

Reference: Section B, Pg 3, B.8 Labor

Question: Section B.8 Labor; identifies the requirement to Contractor to provide a Staffing Matrix detailing proposed labor categories that are commensurate with the recommended labor categories provided by the Government. Should this matrix be included in Section B?

Response: The Staffing Matrix should be submitted with the Offeror’s technical proposal response.

Question 64:

Reference: Section L, Pg 5, L.2.3.1.2

Question: Last paragraph of Page 5 Section L, indicates that labor categories titles are provided in Attachment 9 of the APLES IDIQ PWS, however Attachment 9 is not provided. Is this referring to Section C, Attachment 7?

Response: Yes, the Attachment is 7 vice 9. Section L.2.3.1.2 has been revised.

Question 65:

Reference: Section L, Pg 2, L.1.5

Question: Under Section L.1.5 Government requires Offerors to base their cost proposal for the IDIQ contract on the tasking detailed in the Sample Task Order for the Phase-in, Base and all Option Periods (60 month period of performance), this differs from the information provided as part of the Sample Task Order PWS page 13, 3.1 Period of performance, in which the APLES Task Order totals a period of performance of 32 months. Could you please provide more detail on how the 60 month period should be priced? What is the level of effort of the Option Periods not defined under the Sample Task Order?

Response: See the response to Question #25.

Question 66:

Reference: Section L, Pg 2, L.1.5

Question: The Initial Task Order is 32 months however the requirement is to provide cost for the IDIQ contract which is 60 months. Is the Initial Task Order the same as the first 32 months of the IDIQ contract?

Response: Please refer to Section L.1.5 and B.6 of the solicitation. The evaluated cost will be based on all periods of the IDIQ contract (60 months). Costs must be based on the tasking detailed in the Sample Task Order for the entire 60 month period even though it is the Government’s intent to award the initial task order for a 32 month period. See the response to Question #25.

Question 67:

Reference: Section L, Pg 2, L.1.5

Question: Are Offerors required to submit separate cost for the IDIQ contract and the Initial Task Order?

Response: The cost templates are provided in Section L, Attachment 4 of the solicitation. The template is for the IDIQ contract costs. See the response to Question #66.

Question 68:

Reference: Section L, Pg 7, L.2.3.2.1

Question: Are Offerors allowed to submit a word document in addition to the Excel workbook in Section L, Attachment 4 as part of their Cost/Price proposal?

Response: Yes, however the Word document must be limited to 5 pages or less.

Question 69:

Reference: Section L, Pg 7, L.2.3.2.1

Question: Should Section K be submitted as part of the Cost/Price proposal?

Response: Section K can be submitted with either the Cost or Technical proposal response. The Section K, Reps and Certs are not considered in the page number limitations.

Question 70:

Reference: Section L, Pg 7, L.2.3.2.1

Question: Should Section B be submitted as part of the Cost/Price proposal?

Response: Yes

Question 71:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 2 and 3

Question: The Total resources under the FY 09 SETS II Historical Data is 253.4. Under the FY10 Level of effort Budget data; the total resources equals 290.55. This represents an increase of almost 40 resources, could you please explain the difference? Is the work expected to increase during FY10?

Response: The difference represents staffing growth from FY09 to FY10. There is no additional expected increase in FY10 staffing beyond the FY10 LOE provided.

Question 72:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, Phase-In Cost

Question: Phase-In table cost has a column for the Burdened Composite Labor Rate. Could you please provide Government's definition of Burdened Composite Labor Rate?

Response: The burdened labor rate, also referred to as a “wrap rate” or “loaded” rate, refers to the direct hourly rate for a labor category with applied indirect costs (overheads, fringes, G&A, etc.). The allocation of the indirect costs must be in compliance with the Contractor’s estimating and accounting system practices. Also, how the Contractor develops the direct hourly rate must be in compliance with their established practices.

For example, Material Handling Overhead cannot be allocated to a direct labor hourly rate if it is not in accordance with their estimating and accounting system practices.

Composite rate includes burdened labor rates for both the Prime and all Subcontractors. The Burdened Composite Labor Rate used in the Cost Template spreadsheets for all Contract periods should be the average Total Loaded rate for the Prime and all Subcontractors by labor category.

Question 73:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, Phase-In Cost

Question: Should Burdened Composite Labor Rate include only salary, fringe and overhead? Should G&A and fee be listed separately?

Response: The burdened composite labor rate should include all allocated/applied indirect costs in compliance with the Contractor’s stated estimating and accounting system practices. G&A should be included in the burdened composite rate if applicable. Fee should be listed separately.

Question 74:

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, Cost Elements

Question: Can Offerors add a row under the Cost Elements Table for the Fringe Rate? Or should this be added to the Overhead rate?

Response: If a Contractor has a separate Fringe or Fringe Benefits Rate in accordance with their disclosed or documented accounting practices, it should be in a separate row. If the Contractor includes fringe benefit expenses in the various indirect cost pools (overhead, G&A, etc.), it should not be in a separate row on the spreadsheet.

Question 75:

Reference: Section L, Pg 7, L.2.3.2.1

Question: Are Subcontractors required to submit a separate cost proposal from the Prime?

Response: Yes, each subcontractor must submit the Elements of Cost by Performance Period, Key Rates, and Proposed Hours by Labor category. See the Response to Question #58 for additional guidance on submission of costs.

Question 76:

Reference: Section L, Pg 7, L.2.3.2.1

Question: Are subcontractors required to submit completed tables provided in Section L, Attachment 4? Will the Government accept sealed envelopes from the Subcontractors?

Response: Yes, see the response to Question #58.

Question 77:

Reference: Section L, Pg 9, L.2.3.2.2

Question: To assist Offerors in preparing Cost/Price proposal; Government has provided "FY09 SETS II Historical Data (spreadsheet), Section L, Attachment 2". However the data provided in this attachment seems unrealistic, for example:

- Under Program Manager only 7 hours are listed,

- Database Management Specialist shows 6635 hours under Finance with a total cost of $55,096.00, this represents a blended hourly rate for this category of $8.30 Does this data represent actual hours/amounts spent in FY09? Could you please explain and provide more detail to assist Offerors in preparing cost estimations?

Response: The Program Manager level of effort has been revised. The level of effort (labor hours) has been revised to correct errors and clarify the information presented.

Question 78:

Reference: Section C, Attachment 7

Question: Page 9 of Labor categories descriptions defines a Level V for Business Analyst/Architect, but this level is not listed on Section L, Attachment 4 Cost Tables. Should Business Analyst/Architect Level V be added to the cost tables?

Response: Section L, Attachment 4 Cost Tables has been revised to remove the Level V Business Analyst/Architect Question 79:

Reference: Section C, Attachment 7

Question: Under three Labor categories descriptions "Level I" is listed twice with different years of experience, these are: Project Control Specialist, Functional Analyst and Configuration Management Specialist. Should the higher requirement of experience be considered Level II instead?

Response: Section C, Attachment 7 has been revised to correct these errors. The higher requirement of experience has been corrected to reflect requirements for Level II.

Question 80:

Reference: General

Question: Due to the lack of clarity in the cost-related sections of the RFP, would the government please grant a 2-week extension to the due date of this proposal to allow for questions to be answered?

Response: The proposal due date of 15 March 2010 will not be extended.

Question 81:

Reference: Section L, Pg 4, L.2

Question: The RFP states "All text (including tables) contained in the proposal response must be printed…using Times New Roman 12 point font." What are the font requirements for graphics?

Response: See the response to Question #2.

Question 82:

Reference: Section L, Pg 6, L.2.3.1.4

Question: Part IV Past Performance states "Offerors shall identify past performance references, 3 for the Prime Contractor and 2 for each first-tier Subcontractor…" The page limitation for this section is "not to exceed 15 pages." For example, if a bidding company has 5 first-tier subcontractors, how could they submit 2 past performances references (at 3 pages per reference) from each first-tier subcontractor and stay within the 15-page limitation?

Response: The Government has clarified the definition of “first-tier” Subcontractor. See the response to Question #47. The page limitation will not be changed.

Question 83:

Reference: Section L, Pg 6, L.2.3.1.4

Question: Part IV Past Performance states "Offerors shall identify past performance references, 3 for the Prime Contractor and 2 for each first-tier Subcontractor…" What does the government mean by "first-tier"?

Response: See the response to Question #47.

Question 84:

Reference: Section L, Pg 6, L.2.3.1.4 & Section M, Pg 4, M.2.4

Question: Regarding Past Performance, Section L of the RFP states "References provided shall be from within the last 3 years, been performed for a minimum of 1 year, and should be as close as possible to a type of work and size comparable to the requirements in Section C." Section C is the PWS for the IDIQ. However, the evaluation criteria in Section M.2.4 states "The Offeror's recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the Sample Task Order..." Should we tailor our Past Performance References to the Sample Task Order PWS or the Section C IDIQ PWS?

Response: Section L has been revised to reference the Sample Task Order.

Question 85:

Reference: Section J.1.1 Sample Task Order PWS, Pg 47, Section 7.1 Question: The Process Improvement Plan section states the following "The Contractor PIP shall be delivered within thirty (3) calendar days after task order issuance." Does the government mean thirty (30) or three (3) calendar days?

Response: The Government’s intent is thirty (30) calendar days. Section 7.1 of the Sample Task Order has been corrected.

Question 86:

Reference: Section J.1.1 Sample Task Order PWS, Pg 9, Section 1.1.4

Question: Hardware, Infrastructure and Network Services, page 9 - With regard to the new division of duties between APLES and CTS contractors. Will there be a clean cut division of labor (effective 1 May) in regard to intertwined activities conducted under SETS II task order – or will that be one of the actions during the APLES Phase In period?

Response: The purpose of a Phase-In Period is to transition tasking from one contractor to another and to clarifying tasking between and among contractors.

Question 87:

Reference: Section J.1.1 Sample Task Order PWS, Pg 11, Section 2.2

Question: In regard to the Intelligence Product Line, will contract employees require higher clearance levels for this product line?

Response: See the response to Question #55.

Question 88:

Reference: Section J.1.1 Sample Task Order PWS, Pg 20, Section 4.3.2

Question: Will MS Office be the chosen tool for this requirement or another tool? Additionally – will this schedule have any information regarding other task orders in place at OSC listed in para 1.1?

Response: MS Office. See the response to Question #49.

Question 89:

Reference: Section J.1.1 Sample Task Order PWS

Question: The Sample Task contains few "shall" statements, and it is therefore difficult to clearly identify the government's requirements. For example Section 5.5 SOA, of the Sample Task, does not clearly state that the contractor shall perform any certain and specifically defined requirement. What are the specific requirements for SOA? Will OSC re-write the Sample Task to make requirements less ambiguous? As the Sample Task is currently written, the incumbent has a clear competitive advantage over other bidders.

Response: Section 5.5 of the Sample Task Order has been revised to clarify the Government’s expectations.

Question 90:

Reference: Section 4.5.5 Points of Contact, Sample Task Order Question: Sample Task Order, Section 4.5.5 Points of Contact – makes a reference to Section 5.2.2. We do not find this in the Sample Task Order.

Response: The reference to Section 5.2.2 has been removed from the Sample Task Order.

Question 91:

Reference: Section 5, Sample Task Order Question: Sample Task Order page 28 and 29 discusses the SELC and the SDLC. However, sub-bullets “a., b., c., d., e., and f” appear to map the MSAM to SDLC but not the SELC. There is no discussion in this section of the acquisition process. Is the contractor response supposed to address the acquisition process or just the gate reviews as part of the SDLC/SELC?

Response: The Offeror’s response should not address the acquisition process.

Question 92:

Reference: General…