Final_RFP_Q A_Set_1_v5.docx

Question and Answer Set 1 for NBACC FFRDC Final Solicitation HSHQDC-15-R-00050

Question 1—Section L.4.1.z.3 states that “The method of delivery shall be via electronic media (email)…No other method is acceptable.” Section L.4.3.1.2.1 reiterates that “The Offeror should submit electronically one set of its proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) via email.” However, the RFP also states “After award of the contract, one copy of each unsuccessful proposal will be retained in the official contract files and all other copies will be destroyed”, which implies the submission of hard copies of the proposal. Similarly, Section L.4.3.1 (on page L-23) states that “Proposal material shall be presented on double-sided pages only…” an instruction that applies to the submission of hard copies of proposals. Additionally, Section L.4.3.1 (page L-23) states “All copies of the proposal volumes (including electronic copies on CD-ROMs) shall be submitted electronically to the Procuring Contracting Officer” Please verify that the Government does, in fact, want only an electronic submission and clarify the method—file upload (with link identified), email, or CD-ROM.

Answer 1—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The Offeror should submit electronically one set of its proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) via email. The statement at item aa entitled “Disposal of Unsuccessful Proposals” is correct as written. The Government will retain the original proposal set in the official contract file. However, the Government will revise item aa on page L-17 to read as follows to provide greater clarity:

“After award of the contract, one copy of each unsuccessful proposal will be retained in the official contract files.”

The Government has reviewed the statement at L.4.3.1 (on page L-23) concerning proposal material being presented on double-sided pages only and finds that, since the proposal will be submitted via email, the statement is not valid and has deleted it from the revised Section L attached to Amendment 000005.

The Government has reviewed the statement at L.4.3.1 (page L-23) that references the possible submission of CD-ROMs and believes that the statement, as a whole, is correct as written. A copy of the proposal volumes shall be electronically submitted to the Procuring Contracting Officer at the place and at or before the time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33. However, the Government will revise this statement in Section L of the solicitation to read as follows in order to provide greater consistency and clarity:

“A copy of the proposal volumes shall be electronically submitted to the Procuring Contracting Officer at the place and at or before the time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33.”

Question 2—for Volume III Cost Proposal, under Section 1.3 Other Information (page L-64) it states that “Subcontractor proposals are not required from non-principal subcontractors. However, Offerors must identify each non-principal subcontractor proposed and provide labor rates for each, supported with quotes and associated cost data from the identified subcontractors.” The two sentences contradict one another. Please confirm that Subcontract proposals are not required from non-principal subcontractors.

Answer 2—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. No, subcontract proposals from non-principal subcontractors are not required. In Amendment 000006, the language on page L-63 was revised to provide the above answer with greater clarity.

Question 3—for Volume III Cost Proposal, under Section L.4.3.4.1 General Rules and Assumptions (page L-46) the RFP refers to major and non-major subcontractors but neither is defined. What are the definitions for both? For Volume III Cost Proposal, under Section 1.3 Other Information (page L-64) the RFP refers to principal and non-principal subcontractors. How do these terms relate to major and non-major subcontractors? Are they the same?

Answer 3—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The “major subcontractor” and “non-major subcontractor” is the same as “principal subcontractor” and “non-principal subcontractor.” The definitions for “principal subcontractor” and “non-principal subcontractor” are found in paragraph (h) in Section L.4.1 on page L-11. However, the Government, in Amendment 000006, revised paragraph (e) under Section L.4.3.4.1 General Rules and Assumptions found under L.4.3.4 entitled Volume III Cost Proposal on page L-46 in Section L of the solicitation for greater clarity and consistency:

“e. The prime Offeror shall propose on a CPFF/CPAF basis respectively. Principal subcontractors and non-principal subcontractors may propose on other than a CPFF/CPAF basis; however, the type of contract that is proposed and the basis thereof shall be fully justified.”

Question 4—may subcontractor Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee and Award-Fee (CPFF/AF) submitted costs be provided as total cost (not by cost element) under the Prime Contractor’s voucher submittals? If no, is the Government prepared to receive separate Subcontractor vouchers for review and approval each month per Task Order containing the Subcontractor’s cost element data which is considered proprietary in nature and therefore cannot be shared with the Prime Contractor or other Subcontractor team members? If not, would the Government then consider allowance of other Prime Contracts and their Subcontractors to negotiate alternate contract types for services provided by the Subcontractor team members such as Time & Material level of effort or Fixed Price level of effort?

Answer 4—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. Clause G.8 entitled “Billing Instructions” provides the Offeror with the required instructions for the submission of a proper invoice. The clause, however, does not specify directly how the Offeror has to segregate out the Subcontractor submissions. So, yes, the Offeror can submit a total cost in the invoice submission but should also provide a breakdown of the total subcontractor amount by the particular subcontractor and be prepared, if necessary to provide to the Government supporting documentation, as requested.

The Government is capable, if necessary, to receive separate Subcontractor vouchers for review and approval each month per Task Order containing the Subcontractor’s cost element data which is considered proprietary in nature and therefore cannot be shared with the Prime Contractor or other Subcontractor team members.

Concerning the question about allowing the use of other types of subcontracts, the Offeror can propose other types of subcontracts than CPFF/CPAF with the non-principal subcontractors provided that, in the Offeror’s proposal, that the type of contract that is proposed and the basis for its use is fully justified.

Question 5—as a result of the Government anticipating adequate price competition and with the understanding there is no privy of contract between the Government and the subcontractors who team with the resulting Prime Contractor awardee, it is unclear the rationale for requiring major subcontractors to propose their cost estimate on a CPFF/CPAF basis or allowance for such a requirement in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) regulations. The Offeror requests clarification for the allowance of this shall statement identified in line (e) in Section L.4.3.4.1.

Answer 5—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. After further review and discussion, the Government has determined that the requirement may be restrictive given the proposed work and, in Amendment 000006, rewrote the requirement at L.4.3.4.1 item e on page L-46 in Section L of the solicitation to read as follows:

“e. The prime Offeror shall propose on a CPFF/CPAF basis respectively. Principal subcontractors and non-principal subcontractors may propose on other than a CPFF/CPAF basis; however, the type of contract that is proposed and the basis thereof shall be fully justified.”

Question 6—if the cost of general purpose items identified under item f are not reimbursable but required for Prime Contractor and/or Subcontractor team members to support completion of the Government site task requirements identified in the Task Order RFPs will the Government modify the SOW to remove these requirements or pay for these type of services separately under another contract mechanism? If not, will the Government provide any of the general purpose items identified to the Prime Contractor and Subcontract Team members as Government-Furnished Material, Equipment, or Property? If not, does the Government expect the Contractors who are being paid for their programmatic, administrative, and technical services to pay for these expenses out of pocket during the term of the Task Order contracts?

Answer 6—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The intent of Item f under L.4.3.4.1 entitled General Rules and Assumptions on page L-46 of Section L of the solicitation is to prohibit Offerors from charging the costs for general purpose items that are used by the “back office” functions of the Offeror in the normal operation of their general business as part of this contract because those costs should not be charged against this contract as they do not directly relate to the instant acquisition. The text of Item f does reference that the costs of the identified general purpose items, in this instance telephone services, are allowable for “(…project-related telephone charges for performance of this contract which, per the Contractor’s Defense Contract Audit Agency’s approved accounting system, may be directly reimbursed under communications expenses)”. If the costs of those items identified in Item f under L.4.3.4.1 are used for the performance of work under the instant acquisition then those costs would be allowable to be charged to the instant contract and would be paid accordingly.

Question 7—please clarify if the following provision allows for the subcontractor/team members to submit all of their proprietary cost data directly to the Government under separate cover from the Prime Contractor, in response to all of the RFP Section L requirements, to include all direct labor and indirect burden provisional and final rates, copies of Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer (CACO) and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) and final rate letters, actual direct and indirect burdens, payroll salary data verification, compensation plan and financial statements?

Answer 7—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. A review of Item c in L.4.3.4.1 on page L-46 in Section L of the solicitation does not prohibit subcontractors, if they want to do so, from providing all of their proprietary cost data directly to the Government under separate cover from the Prime Contractor, including all direct labor and indirect burden provisional and final rates, copies of the DCMA CACO and DCAA FPRA and final rate letters, actual direct and indirect burdens, payroll salary verification, compensation plan, and financial statements.

Question 8—please clarify how the award fee % will be awarded and distributed among the Prime Contractor and each subcontractor team member? What if the Prime Contractor has 3 or more subcontractors contributing to the program and eligible for award-fee?

Answer 8—The Government has reviewed the above questions and provide provides the following answers. The Government will not provide guidance on how the award fee % will be distributed among the Prime Contractor and each subcontractor team member. The Government, in accordance with the applicable Award-Fee Plan, will perform an objective evaluation of the Contractor’s performance and will, if warranted, provide earned Award Fee funds to the Contractor through formal written contract modification. At that point, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to determine how it will distribute those funds to its team members.

Question 9—would the Government provide a listing of all positions by labor category and experience level that is currently covered under the DHS NBACC FFRDC? In order to prepare an adequate pricing proposal, it is necessary to identify all positions as well as the expertise and qualifications for each of those positions. The fact that the current incumbent has this information and it is not shared as part of the solicitation might be considered to give a competitive advantage to the incumbent.

Answer 9—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The Government has reviewed the prospective bidder’s concern in its last statement about the “fact” that the current incumbent has a listing of positions (with expertise and qualifications for each of the positions) and that since this information is not shared to everyone as part of the solicitation that it constitutes a “competitive advantage” and found that it is not a valid claim. In the solicitation for the original NBACC FFRDC contract (reference number: HSHQDC-06-R-00017), the responsible contracting activity, the U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA), did not provide a project specific listing of personnel (with expertise and associated qualifications). Instead, it required that the prospective Offerors provide a technical proposal that provided detailed approaches, plans, procedures, and methodologies that specifically demonstrated how the Offeror was going to complete the work outlined in the Statement of Work of the solicitation. Furthermore, the Offeror was required to provide in its proposal a detailed Staffing Plan that provided a projected staffing plan for the first five years anticipating full performance of the Statement of Work. The plan should provide procedures for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified staff members. The Offeror shall include this plan in its procedure for “Employee Capture” of experienced and qualified personnel currently on the original NBACC contract. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a narrative rationale to support the proposed staffing plan and proposed labor categories, including as an attachment to the staffing plan the commitment resumes of individuals proposed for each key position. Include a discussion of their qualifications and experience. The Offeror shall provide a narrative on its ability to provide trained personnel to support surge requirements or overcome manpower shortfalls.

In accordance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the incumbent Contractor, Battelle National Biodefense Institute (BNBI) and another vendor provided a proposal with the above identified requirements and their proposals were evaluated by the Government in accordance with the solicitation, Source Selection Plan, and applicable law and regulation. BNBI, it was determined, provided the Government with the best value and won the contract.

Moving to the current solicitation, paragraph 7 entitled “Staffing/Manning Requirements under Section L.4.3.2.1 entitled “Volume I—Technical Volume” found on pages L-28 and L-29 in Section L informs Offerors the following:

“The Offeror shall provide with its proposal a projected staffing plan for the first five years anticipating full performance of the Statement of Work. The plan should provide procedures for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified staff members. The Offeror shall include this plan in its procedure for “Employee Capture” of experienced and qualified personnel currently on the original NBACC contract. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a narrative rationale to support the proposed staffing plan and proposed labor categories, including as an attachment to the staffing plan the commitment resumes of individuals proposed for each key position. Include a discussion of their qualifications and experience. The Offeror shall provide a narrative on its ability to provide trained personnel to support surge requirements or overcome manpower shortfalls.”

It should be noted that this approach was the same approach done by the Government for the original NBACC FFRDC contract that was awarded by USAMRAA from Solicitation HSHQDC-06-R-00017. The key aspect in both the new solicitation and the process done under the original NBACC solicitation is that the Offeror, not the Government that developed and provided the proposed staffing and overall technical approach for the operation/management of the NBACC FFRDC.

It is further noted that under Sub-factor B—Technical Approach on page L-32 of Section L of the solicitation, the Offeror is responsible for the following activities:

The Offeror must address this item in sufficient detail to evidence an understanding of the technical approach:

a. The Offeror must provide a narrative that comprehensively addresses its programmatic approach to successfully carrying out the objectives of Core Support, Biological Threat Characterization, and Bioforensic Analysis programs. The narrative should expand on all of the functions that are identified in the Statement of Work (SOW) and any attachments to the SOW, including any draft plans which are required by the solicitation, or other parts of this solicitation in a way that clearly shows that the Offeror fully understands the nature of the work to be performed. The Offeror shall also include discussions of its approach to emergency operations and consequence management, describing how it would support the appropriate Government authority if a serious incident should occur.

b. The narrative should provide the Offeror’s technical approach and methodology to be utilized in performing the functions called out in the SOW, including a full explanation of the proposed techniques and procedures. The narrative must be specific and detailed, and it must include the rationale behind the proposed approach. The narrative should demonstrate the Offeror’s breadth of expertise in the ability to address science and technology issues in varying technical areas during the life of contract.

Thus, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to propose a staffing plan and approach to fully perform the technical requirements outlined in the Statement of Work. The Government, in paragraph 8 entitled “Key Personnel” under Section L.4.3.2.1 entitled “Volume I—Technical Volume” found on page L-29 in Section L of the new NBACC FFRDC solicitation identifies what the Government considers to be “key personnel” for this effort. However, it remains the responsibility of the Contractor to provide, in its proposal, its overall technical approach, including staffing plan, for the successful operation of the NBACC FFRDC.

Question 10—what is the specific number of staff the bidder is to propose for this effort broken down by Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)?

Answer 10—The Government has reviewed the above comment and provides the following answer. The Government is not going to provide a specific breakdown of the specific number of types of staff that the bidder is to propose for this effort by CLIN. It is the responsibility of the Offeror, after reviewing the technical requirements that are outlined in the NBACC FFRDC solicitation and its supporting documentation to develop its overall technical approach, including its staffing plan, to successfully meet those technical requirements, the operation and management of the NBACC FFRDC.

Question 11—does the Government wish for the bidders to use the Wage Determinations (dated 19 June 2013) included by DHS as part of the solicitation or should bidders use the updated version issued by the Department of Labor on 25 July 2014?

Answer 11—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. Offerors should use the updated version of the Wage Determination issued by the Department of Labor on 25 July 2014 for pricing its proposal. The Government has issued an amendment (Amendment 000003) that has replaced the original Attachment 16 to the solicitation with the updated Service Contract Act Wage Determination of 25 July 2014.

Question 12—Will the maintenance/service contracts necessary for Government-Furnished Scientific Equipment be provided by the Government or are these contracts the responsibility of the Contractor?

Answer 12—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The Government will not provide maintenance/service contracts necessary for Government-Furnished Scientific Equipment. The Offeror is directly responsible and accountable for all Government-Furnished Equipment. It must establish a system to account for GFP, subject to approval by the Government’s Contracting Officer. The Offeror will also be responsible for maintaining the Government property and can become liable to the Government for its loss, damage, or destruction.

Question 13—Given the tour of the NBACC on 27 January was delayed by a late post opening and the actual tour lasted 20 minutes with a view of two non-active laboratories with no access to the animal care facilities or the BSL-4 suites, where is the NBACC Annex and will this facility be considered a part of the contract? Will the Contractor procured equipment be considered Government owned and transferred to the successful bidder and returned to the NBACC?

Answer 13—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. Due to inclement weather, the commanding officer of Fort Detrick, the military installation whereby the NBACC facility resides, determined that, for the personal safety of his personnel, to open the installation late. Accordingly, nobody was granted access to Fort Detrick until the delayed opening time. When the opening time arrived, DHS provided all of the interested parties who had properly registered with DHS and were actually physically present, with the same 20-minute tour and these parties were also allowed a view of the two non-active laboratories within the NBACC Facility. Concerning the question about the NBACC Annex, this facility is not considered to be part of the overall contractual effort. Attachment 8 to the solicitation provides a listing of Government-Furnished Equipment, Materials, Property for this project. Also, it is important to note that the proposed contractual instrument for the management of the NBACC FFRDC Project will be a cost-reimbursement. Paragraph (e) (3) of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.245-1 entitled “Government Property” states as follows:

(3) Title under Cost-Reimbursement or Time-and-Material Contracts or Cost-Reimbursement contract line items under Fixed Price Contracts. (i) Title to all property purchased by the Contractor for which the Contractor is entitled to be reimbursed as a direct item of cost under this contract shall pass to and vest in the Government upon the vendor’s delivery of such property.

(ii) Title to all other property, the cost of which is reimbursable to the Contractor, shall pass to and vest in the Government upon—

(A) Issuance of the property for use in contract performance;

(B) Commencement of processing of the property for use in contract performance; or

(C) Reimbursement of the cost of the property by the Government, whichever occurs first In summary, any GFE presently at the NBACC has been identified and made part of the listing of GFE/GFM/GFP for the NBACC Project found at Attachment 8 of the solicitation and, upon contract award, would transfer from the current NBACC FFRDC Contractor to the new Contractor. Furthermore, as outlined in the passage from FAR 52.245-1 above, any Contractor acquired property would become Government property.

Question 14—it is not clear if the bioinformatics capacity supporting the NBACC resides in the NBACC building, or if it is located on a site outside of the NBACC building. Can you confirm that the bioinformatics capability is located in the NBACC building, and that the associated hardware will be included in the contract? If the bioinformatics hardware and personnel are located offsite relative to the NBACC building, is this space Government-owned or is the Contractor required to procure this resource, and will the hardware transfer to the new Contractor? If the bio-informatics program is located outside the NBACC facility, will this effort be transferred to the winning bidder?

Answer 14—The Government has reviewed the above questions and provide the following answers. Yes, the bioinformatics capacity, found on pages C-7 through C-14 of the Statement of Work in Section C of the solicitation, is housed entirely within the NBACC facility. Furthermore, the bioinformatics hardware/equipment is also located inside the NBACC facility and these items are also included in the contract. The NBACC facility is owned by the Department of Homeland Security and is located on a Department of Defense, Department of the Army garrison/fort situated within Frederick, Maryland.

Question 15—based on the table on page 3 of Attachment 15, it appears that a significant number of the NBACC FFRDC staff, may not be employed by the incumbent. What percent of the current NBACC staff are subcontractors or independent consultants (Form 1099 Contractors)? What percent of labor costs are captured in the ODCs costs?

Answer 15—The Government has reviewed the above comment and provides the following answer. The Government is not going to provide a specific breakdown of the composition of the staff that is employed by the incumbent. Attachment 15 to the NBACC FFRDC Solicitation provides prospective Offerors with a general overview of the workload and associated operating costs for the NBACC FFRDC. That information should help Offerors in the development of their proposals. However, as was extensively discussed in the Government’s response to Question 9 above, although Attachment 15 provides a general overview of workload and expense data, it is the responsibility of the Offeror , after reviewing the technical requirements that are outlined in the NBACC FFRDC solicitation and its supporting documentation to develop its overall technical approach, including its staffing plan, to successfully meet those technical requirements, the operation and management of the NBACC FFRDC.

Question 16—Attachment 15 states that the total estimated staff is approximately 168. Does this include the staff required to support the BKC effort that is being moved from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory?

Answer 16—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. No, the total estimated staff of approximately 168 does not take into account the staff required to support the BKC effort that is being moved from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Government believes that it is important to note here that the work for the BKC that is identified in the Statement of Work will performed through the issuance of a Task Order under either the Work-For-Others (WFO) or Analytic Tasks Programs of the new NBACC Contract. As part of the ordering process under the new contract, the Contractor will receive a request from the Government for a technical/cost proposal and would be required to provide a complete proposal for evaluation purposes. It would be at this point in time where the parties would be able to identify the number and types of staff that would be required for the BKC. Upon agreement after any negotiations, the Government would issue a Task Order to the Contractor for the BKC work identified in the Statement of Work. Furthermore, in the current solicitation, the Government has directly advised interested parties in Section L that, for the purposes of the WFO and the Analytics Tasks Programs, there is a maximum ordering amount identified and to use that number for pricing its proposal.

Question 17—Attachment 15 states that 51% of the budget goes toward ODCs. Will the Government provide an historical breakdown of the cost by ODC type (i.e. Subcontractor, Consultants, Travel, Supplies, Materials, Insurance Liability/Indemnity, Lease/Rent, Other)?

Answer 17—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The Government is not going to provide a specific breakdown of the specific types of Other Direct Costs (ODCs) that the Offeror is to propose for this effort. As identified in Question 15 above, Attachment 15 to the NBACC FFRDC Solicitation provides prospective Offerors with a general overview of the workload and associated operating costs for the NBACC FFRDC. That information should help Offerors in the development of their proposals. However, as previously stressed in other Government answers in this Question and Answer Set, It is the responsibility of the Contractor, after reviewing the technical requirements that are outlined in the NBACC FFRDC solicitation and its supporting documentation to develop its overall cost estimate for the project to successfully be able to operate and manage the NBACC FFRDC.

Question 18—for the proposed staff that is currently employed by the bidder, are we required to provide actual, current salaries for those employees or identify any difference and provide rationale for the changes in salary for those employees?

Answer 18—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The Offeror should use the actual, current salaries for those employees that are currently employed by the Offeror and, if necessary, identify any differences and provide the necessary rationale for the changes in salary for those employees.

Question 19—the Statement of Work does not address specific facility systems and equipment (e.g. HVAC, compressed air, steam, power systems, etc.) that currently exist and are used in the NBACC facility. This prevents accurate staffing and estimating for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Will the Government provide a detailed listing and description (drawings, schematics, etc.) of the NBACC Facility systems and equipment?

Answer 19—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. Due to security reasons, the Government cannot provide drawings or schematics for the NBACC facility. However, the Government provides the following listing of NBACC Facility systems and equipment for Offerors to use for the purposes of developing proposals for the NBACC FFRDC:

NBACC systems for life safety and containment safety will be maintained throughout the life cycle of the facility (includes, but not limited to, architectural, mechanical systems [HVAC systems and controls; HEPA filters have been provided on all air paths out of the high containment space; humidifiers; coiling coils, differential pressure sensors; bioseal dampers; exhaust fans and supply fans, etc.], electrical systems, plumbing systems (including chilled, hot water, clean steam and glycol systems), effluent decontamination system, fire protection system, security systems, laboratory compressed air system, breathing air system, chemical shower system, instrumentation and control including the building automation system [BAS] that controls heating and cooling coils to maintain a fixed supply air temperature, etc.). O&M testing, inspections, verifications, certifications, documents and reports, etc. will cover the entire NBACC facility (i.e., loading dock, BLS-2, ABSL-2, BSL-3, ABSL-3, BSL-3E, BLS-4, ABSL-4, Administration Areas, mechanical/electrical support areas, BAS, plumbing systems, fire protection system, mechanical systems, electrical systems, HVAC, etc.).

Question 20—the Government requires that the safeguards and security program be in compliance with the Government provided NBACC Facility Security Plan. In order to address biosecurity and overall facility security in the proposal in a descriptive and compliant manner, will the Government provide the referenced NBACC Facility Security Plan (even in a redacted format) as part of the RFP?

Answer 20—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The Department of Homeland Security has reviewed the description of the NBACC facility and its mission that is contained within DHS Solicitation HSHQDC-15-R-00050 and believes that the description contained within the solicitation and the additional data provided as an answer under Question 19 of this Question and Answer Set is sufficient for an Offeror to devise a sufficient understanding of the security requirements associated with the operation and management of the NBACC facility and its associated missions. The physical security at the facility is not the responsibility of the Offeror proposing under HSHQDC-15-R-00050 but is provided to DHS and NBACC through another contractual vehicle. The Government cannot provide the referenced NBACC Facility Security Plan (even in a redacted format) as part of the solicitation.

Question 21—the Government states there are two aspects of the past performance evaluation. First is past performance relevancy, but the second aspect is not clearly defined in this section. Will the Government clarify the second aspect of past performance evaluation?

Answer 21—The Government has reviewed the above question and has provided the following answer. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is the determination of how well the Offeror performed on those past contracts which make up its past performance record and history. The past performance evaluation process will gather information from customers on how well the Offeror performed on those past contracts. The Government will use the following sources of information for past performance evaluation purposes:

· Past Performance Information provided by the Offeror, as solicited

· Past Performance Information obtained by the Government from questionnaires tailored to meet the circumstances of the acquisition

· Past Performance Information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases

· Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials, and Defense Contract Management Agency personnel The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

To provide greater clarity and consistency, the Government has added the above discussion into Section M via solicitation amendment (See Amendment 000006).

Question 22—Section G.11 of the solicitation sets out the salary rate limitation instructions. It indicates that “an individual’s direct salary is the annual compensation that the Contractor pays for an individual’s direct effort (costs) under the contract)” (emphasis added). If a Prime Contractor or Subcontractor employee has a normal gross annual salary of $220,000 (which would exceed Executive Level 1 if the employee worked full-time for a year under the contract) and only works 100 hours on the contract during a given year, their compensation for the direct effort under the contract will equal approximately $10,577 ($220,000/2080 = 105.77 * 100 = $10,577). Please confirm that in this situation the Contractor could charge the full direct compensation value of $10,577, because the compensation paid for the direct effort under the contract is far below the Executive Level I threshold?

Answer 22—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. No, the Contractor could not charge the full direct compensation value of $10,577. Paragraph (a) of Clause G-11 entitled Salary Rate Limitation states that:

“Pursuant to current and prior DHS appropriations acts, the Contractor shall not use contract funds to pay the direct salary of an individual at a rate in excess of the Federal Executive Schedule Level I in effect on the date that the expense is incurred.” Since the illustration is using $105.77 (the rate that exceeds the Federal Executive Schedule Level I in effect that the expense is occurred), it would violate the salary limitation imposed by Clause G-11 of the contract and thus this charge would not be able to be paid since it would be an unallowable cost per the contract’s terms.

Question 23—paragraph p in Section C on page C-25 states that the Contractor “must have policies and procedures to discourage “walk-off” of employees, and management and identified critical positions shall be replaced “immediately” with individuals of the same or increased performance capacity.”

a. What policies are currently in place to discourage the “walk-off” of employees and have they been successful?

b. By the term “immediately” does the Government mean “promptly” or “as soon as reasonably possible?”

Answer 23—The Government has reviewed the above questions and provide the following answers. Upon review of the question and the associated areas of the solicitation, the Government believes that any operator of the NBACC FFRDC facility, particularly in light of the sensitive nature of its operations, should take all reasonable steps to minimize the risks that are identified in the above question and react promptly. Offerors may provide their thoughts in their submissions however the Government does expects Offerors to provide a reasoned response.

Question 24—the cost proposal instructions table in L.4.3.4.2.2 lists the Proposal Cover Letters as needing to include two separate times in the cost/price volume (as both items ii and iv). We assume this was a mistake. Please confirm where in the cost/price volume structure this Cover should be placed?

Answer 24—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. Yes, the Proposal Cover Letter identified as item iv in the cost proposal instructions table in L.4.3.4.2.2 is an error and has been deleted and the table in its entirety has been revised in the revised Section L that was attached to Amendment X. The Proposal Cover Letter should be placed after the Title Page in the Cost/Price Volume (page number ii).

Question 25—the instructions on page L-59 regarding providing cost documentation state: “The proposed subcontractors are required to submit their DCAA information and payroll verification under their prime Contractor.” Please clarify what is meant by under their prime Contractor? There are instructions that allow for subcontractors to submit sealed packages directly to the contracting office but it is unclear what information the Government would be willing to accept under seal.

Answer 25—The Government has reviewed the above question and provides the following answer. The statement identified in the above question is stating that the subcontractor could provide to the Government their DCAA information and payroll verification through the Prime Contractor since the subcontractor does not have any privy with the Government whereas the Prime Contractor would. However, upon further review, the Government has revised this statement to read as follows:

The proposed subcontractors have a choice in how they submit their DCAA information and payroll verification. The subcontractors may elect to either (1) provide the information to the Prime Contractor who can provide that information with its submission to the Government or (2) it can elect to submit that information directly to the Procuring Contracting Officer via separate email. The Government may compare the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor rate to the average labor rate from industry for cost realism and/or price reasonableness purposes.

The updated statement is provided on page L-59 in the revised Section L that is attached to Amendment 000006. (See Amendment 000006) Q&A Set 1 to Final RFP for NBACC FFRDC Page 15