15-R-00089_-_Questions_-_111215.pdf

PIID: HSHQDC-15-R-00089/000003 12 Nov 2015

# RFP Section Question Response

(1) J-2

5.2 Should the parenthetical reference to 4.1.1 read 5.1? This has been corrected.

(2) J-2

5.3 Should the parenthetical references to 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 read 5.1 and 5.2? This has been corrected.

(3) J-2

5.4 Should the parenthetical reference to 4.1.3 read 5.3? This has been corrected.

(4) J-2

In view of J-2 section 16, which indicates work will be up to the level of FOUO, and which raises the possibility of classified work under the task order, can the Government explain the selection of A-Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited?

No classified work is being performed under this effort. The release statement has been revised.

(5) J-2

Can the Government advise how the matrix in Table 4 and the STE allocations in 17.1-17.7 relate to the tasks 5.1-5.5? Task 5.5, for example, is a management task, and several of the other tasks are contingent on decisions made by the PMO.

This is up to the offeror to decide in completing the TEP as part of its proposal.

(6) J-3 5.1

Given that a Management Plan must be submitted elsewhere in Volume I, can the Government explain what it is looking for in the technical approach related to this task?

Please see revisions to this section of the TER and the deliverables tables.

(7) J-3.

Can the Government advise how the matrix in Table 4 and the STE allocations in 18.1-18.7 relate to the tasks 5.1-5.5, which are all management tasks and as such are difficult to map to focus areas and missions?

This is up to the offeror to decide in completing the TEP as part of its proposal.

(8) J-4 5.1.2

Does the Government consider the subtask execution plan, as well as coordination plan, final scope, staffing, and cost estimate when required, to constitute the "initial response" to the subtasks?

The response to an initial request from the government will be iterative and will progress along a defined set of milestones (see example milestones in TER J-4, 5.1.2). According to this example, the initial response would include a “Brief scope description and point of contact identification” and would then progress along the subsequent milestones.

(9) J-4 5.1.2

When is the cost accounting method for determining the S&T labor and contract cost due for each subtask?

The cost proposal for the TER/TEP should include all relevant costing information as part of the offeror’s response to the

RFP.

(10) J-4 5.1.2

The statement that "HSOAC shall support OCS by performing ongoing background analysis and development" appears to be a separate task with costing implications. Can the Government explain this requirement?

The task lead, or designee, may be called in for consultation prior to the initialization of a specific subtask. This “background analysis” and “development and maintenance of a network” may expend resources and would be documented in the quarterly report and final report, see TER J-4, 5.1.3 and rows labeled 5.1.3 in Table 2.

(11) J-4 5.1.2

By "maintenance of a network of expertise" and "external SME capabilities," is the Government referring to a network of outside consultants that HSOAC could engage? If so, per the Sponsoring Agreement para 5.k, prior to any work, consultants must be approved by the Contracting Officer, and the DHS General Counsel and CO must approve their signed nondisclosure and conflict of interest agreements. Can the Government provide an estimated timeline for CO and General Counsel approval?

The “external SME” network is external to the federal government and may consist of HSOAC employees or outside consultants. The PMO will process and respond to additional requests for consultants within 3-business days of the request.

(12) J-4 5.1.3

Please explain what is meant by the requirement that the quarterly report "shall report on the overall suitability of the tasking structure." Is the Government requiring the HSOAC to assess the effectiveness of the Government's tasking system described in 5.1.2?

The Government is requiring that feedback and evaluation be provided regarding the “suitability and effectiveness” of tasking approach. The contractor has the opportunity to provide recommendations on how to improve and enhance the ability to respond to quickly developing situations.

(13) J-4

5.1.3 Please explain what "standard operation protocol(s)" refers to.

A “standard operation protocol” documents a standard procedure for receiving, defining, executing, and delivering results for specified subtasks.

(14) J-4 5.1.3

The meaning of "and effectiveness using data and metrics developed during the execution of the subtasks" is unclear. Can the Government clarify?

The contractor is asked to self-evaluate their own effectiveness in responding to subtask requests. Data will need to be collected to support analysis and self-evaluation during the execution of this task.

(15) J-4

The deliverables table does not include summary briefing, which is listed in 5.1.2 as a requirement for each subtask. Does the Government consider the summary briefing to be a deliverable?

Yes, the summary briefing is required and will be formally delivered as part of the subtask final delivery. This has been included in the deliverables table.

(16) J-4 This task order contemplates classified work. In the event the content of the tasking is classified, what process will the Government use to initiate the tasking?

At time of award, the FFRDC will have to staff available at different security levels to provide support, ranging from SECRET up to TS/SCI depending on the classification of the request.

(17)

It seems we have to produce a complete Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the entire $500+M five-year ground up blue print FFRDC effort with no level of effort provided by the government in the RFP or in the answer to the clarification questions submitted.

Is this what the government would like to see in a proposal? If so, will the government provide a level of effort?

The estimated IDIQ level of effort is provided with the execution of amendment 00003 under Section L 7.3.3.3.

(18)

The staffing plan requirement has been modified significantly. The added staffing plan and BOE requires a complete picture of how the offeror intends to operate the HSOAC FFRDC. This adds a substantial addition of work with extremely limited information to estimate the full scale of the program. Would the government consider extending the due date for an additional three weeks to address the new requirements?

With the execution of amendment 00003, the due date for responses to this RFP is extended to 11/30/2015

(19) The DHS Mentor Protégé Program was removed as a requirement, but the RFP still states a credit may be received for it under the source selection sub-factor. The proposal does not list any sub-factor. Will the government provide the sub factor?

This has been removed.

(20) The TER templates include a table to capture STE that is mapped to the focus areas and mission areas. In our interpretation of the RFP, for TERs 1 and 2, this table does not seem applicable. Will the government please confirm this?

The Government cannot confirm this since this is part of the offeror’s approach to demonstrating that it understands the work requirements of the RFP.

(21)

Instructions for BOE were added in Amendment 2 of section 7.3.3.5. The instructions state the BOE should estimate the resources required to perform the work of the IDIQ and the three sample task orders. The three sample task orders cover a very small level of the effort across the IDIQ. It is not explicit but it would appear that the larger requirement is to develop a BOE for the entire IDIQ contract. Is this correct?

With the execution of amendment 00003, the Government has provided the estimated IDIQ Level of effort, which should assist with establishing the BOE for the IDIQ contract. As stated in the instructions for the BOE under Section L 7.3.3.6 (amendment 00003) a BOE should also be provided for each of the three sample orders.

(22) The compensation plan will need to be submitted in Volume III but is evaluated under Volume III and Volume I. Is this correct?

The compensation plan is not evaluated under a Volume, but will be evaluated under two of the evaluation factors (Factors 2 and 4).

(23) The TER templates do not mention if they are FFP or CPFF. Can we receive a clarification for this?

The Government anticipates awarding CPFF task orders based upon the three TER templates provided under this RFP.

(24) The Government did not revise the PPQ which restricts customer satisfaction questions to management and onsite personnel only, excluding a significant portion of

The “quality work from the current FFRDC contract” is not excluded from the PPQ and will be documented under the quality work from the current FFRDC contract. Is this the government’s intent? Please clarify.

“Quality of Product or Service” section of the PPQ.

(25) The detailed breakout of the proposed profit/fee is to be included in the BOE instead of J6 (cost volume) or the pricing narrative. Is this correct? No. The BOE is not a replacement for the cost proposals.

(26)

It is highly unusual to have a plan that is evaluated in more than 1 volume, unless the government is clear about which elements of the plan will be included for consideration in one factor and excluded from the others. Evaluation factors for the Compensation Plan are included in Factor 1 (technical approach), Factor 2 (management approach), Factor 4 (cost), and as a stand-alone section L.3 (which appears to be pass/fail). Is this correct?

The provision at L.3 directs the Government to assess the reasonableness of the offeror’s compensation plan as part of the evaluation. This assessment is included in the evaluation factors. The specific aspects of the plan the Government will evaluate are detailed under each factor. The content of the plan itself is being evaluated under Factor 2 and Factor 4, while Factor 1 evaluates the offeror’s application of the proposed plan.

(27)

The amendment moved the Staffing Plan from Evaluation Factor 1 to Evaluation Factor 2. The table in Section 7.3.1 shows the Staffing Plan after the Transition Plan under Factor 2. The Staffing Plan evaluation components are still listed under Factor 1 in Section M.3.1: “The extent to which the Offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish each aspect of the requirements in the Statement of Work, ability to retain or quickly fill-in suitable staff to mitigate risk, and the ability to provide a cross functional team that collectively possess the knowledge in all functional areas and the ability to successfully accomplish the required tasks.”

Shouldn’t the Staffing Plan evaluation components be moved under Factor 2 in Section M.3.2?

This has been moved to Factor 2.