Attachment_J.7_Responses_to_RFP_Feedback.pdf

HSHQDC-17-R-00006

Attachment J-7

Draft RFP

Reference RFP Section Question/Recommendation Response

Section B Services and Prices/Costs

How will license costs for Decision Lens, DOORs and other tools be handled? Does the government already hold licenses for these and therefore, should not be included in our Price?

The license will be handled by ODCs under the CPFF CLIN. The

Government does not intend to provide COTS licenses to the contractor.

Section B.2

“CLINs ending in “1” are firm-fixed-Price (FFP) and cover the portion of the required services under section C.2.2 of this contract.”

Will the Government consider Time and Materials?

There will be no change in the pricing structure.

B.2 Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)

Structure

What is the expected level of effort breakdown between Program Management Support and

Analysis Support?

The expected level of effort for Program

Management Support is 3

FTE.

Sections B, C.2, and C.3

B.2 Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN) Structure; C.2.2 Program

Management Support SOW; C.3

Deliverable Requirements; Section

L.10, Subsection (7) Level of Effort

Section B.2 states “CLINs ending in “1” are firm-fixed-price (FFP). For offerors to provide maximum flexibility to the government and accurately price services and products, will the government consider changing all

CLINS to CPFF?

There will be no change in the pricing structure.

Section B.2.

Discussion of firm-fixed-price (FFP) and cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF)

CLINS

We recommend that the current CPFF CLINS be converted to FFP or time and materials (T&M). CPFF creates additional administrative burdens on the

Government and the contractor with little apparent benefit to the Government or the contractor for this type of work.

T&M would effectively provide the spending flexibility that CPFF provides for products that might require an uncertain amount of effort.

FFP would price-certainty for deliverables with a defined scope and an increased contractor incentive to provide

There will be no change in the pricing structure.

high-quality deliverables if payments are linked to deliverable acceptance using defined criteria.

Section B.2 Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)

Structure

While section B.2 spells out the Cost

(0002/1002/2002/3002/4002) and Fixed Fee

(0003/1003/2003/3003/4003), can we assume that is based on the number of anticipated deliverables provided and will be priced out separately when we get the price template?

The Government expects the contractor to provide pricing as defined in the

RFP.

Section B.2, pg. 1 of 66

Do the FFP CLINs include labor and other direct costs

(e.g. travel, conference fee, etc.) and if so will the government provide a pricing assumption for the other direct costs?

The FFP CLINs are labor only.

Section B.2, pg. 1 of 66

“For this Contract, each anticipated performance period has 3 associated

CLINs. CLINs ending in “1” are

FFP and cover that portion of the required services under section C.2.2 of this contract (inclusive of subsections) …”

Section C.2.2 on page 7 of 66 has no subsections identified. Did the Government intend for the Sections identified as 2.3 Operations Policy Development Support and Section 2.4 Impact to Operations Study Reports to be subsections under Section C.2.2?

Section C has been re-ordered.

Section B.2 CLIN

Structure

Section B.2 CLIN Structure Table on page 1

Recommend changing descriptions of CLINs x002 to

“Analytic Support”, removing “Estimated Cost for”

No change due to internal naming guidelines.

B.2 (pg.1) Services and Prices/Costs, CLIN

Structure, The first table in B.2.

Will the Government please identify which sections in the

Statement of Work (C.2) align with the CLIN Numbers identified in the table in section B.2?

Please see revisions to

Section C.3.

Page 2, Section B.3

Indirect Costs

(a) The Contractor shall be reimbursed for indirect costs consistent with forward pricing rates subject to appropriate adjustment when the final rate(s) are established.

The Contractor is responsible for submitting approved Forward Pricing

Rate Agreements to the DHS

Contracting Officer as they are

If an offeror does not have an approved FPRA, would

DHS accept pool & base information that the Indirect

Cost were based upon?

Please see revisions to

Sections B, C and L.

approved by the Defense Contract

Audit Agency (DCAA) or the

Contractor’s cognizant Government audit entity.

C.1 (pg.2) Statement of Work, General Do these requirements apply only to support of the Joint

Requirements Council?

Support will be provided to the entire DHS

Enterprise, but taskings will all come from ORA.

C.1 (pg.2) Statement of Work, General Is this effort intended to provide analytical services to the extended DHS Enterprise as well?

Support will be provided to the entire DHS

Enterprise, but taskings will all come from ORA.

2.1

The Contractor shall be required on a situational basis to produce any and/or all of the following requirements related products under this statement of work.

Does the Government anticipate that all work will be performed in support of S&T, or is the vision for the Contractor to support Components and other organizations across the Homeland Security

Enterprise via task orders?

Support will be provided to the entire DHS

Enterprise, but taskings will all come from ORA.

There will be no task orders.

C.1. General

C.1.1

The purpose of this contract is to acquire highly qualified Contractor technical services to support all phases of the Department of

Homeland Security’s (DHS) operations analysis and the development of operational requirements documents. This contract will also require subject matter expertise to support and inform policy formulation and decision support of to the DHS Joint

Requirements Council (JRC)/Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and all DHS Components and

1. Please clarify the supported organization(s). Will all contractor support be provided directly to the JRC/S&T

Directorate, or will there be support provided to components/directorates below the Department level?

2. Does “…all phases…” mean at the DHS level or component level?

Support will be provided to the entire DHS

Enterprise, but taskings will all come from ORA.

Headquarters entities that engage with the JRC.

C.2.2 & C2.3 (pg.7)

Statement of Work, Requirements, Program Management Support &

Operations Policy Development

Support

“The Contractor shall provide support to the management of current operations by delivering products that inform and facilitate development of operational policies…The Contractor shall provide front office support to include scheduling, task tracking, front office correspondence…”

Do these requirements apply only to support of the JRC or do they pertain to other contemplated support at DHS

S&T or the greater Homeland Security Enterprise across

DHS?

Support will be provided to the entire DHS

Enterprise, but taskings will all come from ORA.

Page 2, Section 1.2, par. 2.1.1

Fiscal Years 2014-2018 DHS

Strategic Plan; DHS Resource

Planning Guidance; (Draft) DHS Joint

Requirements Integration and

Management System (JRIMS) user manual

Request to know if current copies of all documents cited, such as the “DHS Resource Planning Guidance” and others listed throughout the document, are available?

Releasable documents have been attached to the

RFP.

C.2 (pg.3)

Statement of Work, Requirements

“Analysis shall support the entire

Homeland Security Enterprise with anticipated quick turnaround deliverables.”

Will the Government please clarify the expected timeframe for “quick turnaround” for all deliverables listed in Section C.3.1 (p.8)?

Quick turnaround will be defined by Homeland

Security Enterprise analysis requirements and may be from hours/days to months depending on the requirement.

C.2

Within the scope of this effort, the contractor shall identify work products from the DHS Centers of

Excellence (COE) that could

Please provide clarity on the nature of these work products.

Work products are varied, and include documents, models, etc.

The contractor will need to review the relevant inform and support the analytic efforts that the contractor will support under this effort. Work products from the newly-established Center for Homeland

Security Quantitative Analysis

(CHSQA) are likely to be most applicable to the JRC, but other

COEs’ outputs must also be considered. Work products developed by the CHSQA shall be incorporated into ORA processes as much as possible.

work products to find the best ones suited to support the DHS

Homeland Security

Enterprise.

Section C.

Statement of Work

2.1 Requirements Generation

Products

In order to generate the requirements related products, will the Contractor be engaging directly with the Center for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis (CHSQA) or with the DHS component soliciting the new requirement?

Anticipate direct engagement with DHS components with ORA oversight.

Section C.

Statement of Work

2.1 Requirements Generation

Products

If the Contractor may be required (on a situational basis) to produce any or all of the requirements related products, to what extent will the Contractor be expected to be involved in the Acquisition Decision Events associated with the Acquisition Lifecycle?

The Contractor will not be involved in

Acquisition Decision

Events.

Section C.2.1.8

“The contractor must provide subject matter expertise in the use of

M&S [Modeling and Simulation] tools such as Modular Semi-

Automated Forces (MOD SAF), the

Extended Air Defense Simulation

(EADSIM), discrete even[t] simulation…”

We recommend changing this portion of the sentence to read, “The contractor must provide subject matter expertise in the use of M&S tools that are relevant to DHS mission operations and decision-making, including discrete event simulation…”

(We assume “even simulation” should be “event simulation” in this sentence.)

The Government is looking for expertise in the tools listed. ORA seeks to leverage

Government off the shelf simulations models for

DHS Enterprise analysis requirements.

MOD SAF and EADSIM appear to be DOD-focused simulation tools. Is DHS specifically looking for expertise in tools such as these and apply them to DHS needs, or are modeling tools focusing on DHS missions and operations sufficient?

2.1.8

The Contractor must provide subject matter expertise in the use of M&S tools such as Modular

Semi-Automated Forces (MOD

SAF), the Extended Air Defense

Simulation (EADSIM), discrete even simulation, and the ability to effectively and efficiently utilize commercially available tools such as Matlab’s Simulink and Image

Processing Toolkits as well as free-ware tools such as OCTAVE and JAAMSIM when required to develop data to support and inform decision making.

Is experience with Modular Semi-Automated Forces

(MOD SAF) and the Extended Air Defense

Simulation (EADSIM) a requirement or are those just provided as examples?

Recommend indicating they are examples if that is the case.

Subject Matter Experts are required as described in C.2.1.8

C.2.1.8 (pg.5);

C.2.1.9 (pg.5)

Statement of Work, Requirements, Modeling and Simulation Support and Analytical Modeling

Will the Government require Offerors to host or manage data to appropriately provide 2.1.8. M&S Support and

2.1.9. Analytic Modeling at Contractor sites?

If yes, will the Government provide DHS laptops or will the Contractor be required to conduct such support on Contractor computers?

If yes, will the Contractor be required to furnish a SCIF or support classified data sets at Contractor sites?

Will the Government require Offerors to host or manage software or tools to appropriately provide 2.1.8. M&S

Support and 2.1.9. Analytic Modeling at Contractor sites?

All work shall be done on DHS laptops and networks due to the sensitive information involved.

It is anticipated that a secret level facility clearance will be required. Please see the revised Section C.4.3.

2.1.8.1

These must include development of software code and scripts to extract and exploit various forms of structured and unstructured data and/or to automate execution or to extend simulations as needed to extend simulations as needed.

Please provide clarity on the software language and code the Government requires development experience with.

There is no particular language and code desired. The language and code required to support the analyses efforts will vary.

C.2.1.8 (pg.5)

Statement of Work, Requirements, Modeling and Simulation Support

“The Contractor must provide subject matter expertise…..“Discrete even”….”

Recommend changing “discrete even” to “discrete event” Corrected.

2.1.15 T&E Subject Matter Expert support

Please provide examples of the types of mission areas in which T&E SMEs are required.

T&E SMEs will be required to support a wide variety of DHS

Mission Areas.

Section C.

Statement of Work

2.2 Program Management Support

Will DHS request the Contractor to propose to a knowledge management tool or is there a tool (or tools) that have been previously procured that the vendor will be expected to use?

No tools have been previously procured or selected for this requirement.

Section C.

Statement of Work

2.2 Program Management Support

Is there an existing Executive Steering Committee or

Program Management Office that is comprised of the

Joint Requirements Council/Acquisition Review

Board/Chief Financial Officer Council structures that the

Contractor will report into?

The contractor will report to ORA.

Section C.2.2

C.2.2 Program Management Support

SOW

Section C.2.2 includes“…front office support to include scheduling, task tracking, front office correspondence and division operation activity support. It is anticipated that program management support positions will be located onsite at Government facilities in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.” Does the government intend that the front office support in C.2.2 will be provided by labor

The front office support will be provided under the Program

Management Support

CLINs, which has an estimated level of effort of 3 FTE. This estimate hours in addition to the 388,750 hours provided in Section

L.10, Subsection (7) Level of Effort?

is included in the overall

Level of Effort estimate.

C.2.2 (pg.7)

Statement of Work, Requirements, Program Management Support

Place of Performance

Section C.2.2 is the only area of the draft RFP that states a place of performance. Will the government please clarify if all work required under this vehicle will be performed at the government facilities in the Washington, DC metropolitan area?

Please see the revised

Section F.2.

B.2 (pg.1); C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4 and 3.1 through 3.5

Services and Prices/Costs, CLIN

Structure

“For this Contract, each anticipated performance period has three (3) associated CLINs. CLINs ending in

“1” are FFP…”

Section B.2 indicates that CLIN numbers ending in “1” are FFP and include services under Section C.2.2

(inclusive of subsections) and CLINS ending in “2” and

“3” are CPFF and cover Section C, except C.2.2 (and its subsection). Section C, 2.2 only includes Program

Management Support, Section C.2.3 is Operations Policy

Development Support and C.2.4 is Impact to Operations

Study Reports. However, in Sections 3.1 through 3.5, the

SOW reference for Operations Policy Development

Support is 2.2.1 vice 2.3 (per page 7) and the SOW reference for Impact to Operations Study Reports is 2.2.2 vice 2.4 (per page 7).

Under Section C, should the Operations Policy

Development Support and Impact to Operations Study

Reports paragraphs be labeled as 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 respectively vice C.2.3 and C.2.4? The labeling will indicate if these paragraphs are part of the FFP CLINs or the CPFF CLINs.

Section C has been re-ordered.

C.3 Deliverable requirements How was this estimate arrived at? Are there different levels of effort expected at each stage?

The estimate was arrived at using the

Government’s forecasted requirements.

C.3 Deliverable

Requirements.

The anticipated numbers of studies below are an estimate only and are subject to change.

Will the government provide summary statistics for estimated man-hours required to produce each deliverable noted in the table?

No.

3.1 Base Period of Performance

Deliverables

Section C.

Statement of Work

C.3 Deliverable Requirements

How are the number of required deliverables derived? It is based on a single point in time (cumulative analyses/assessments of new capabilities over a range of time) or is the expectation that these be generated on an as needed basis?

The estimate was arrived at using the

Government’s forecasted requirements.

Deliverables will be generated on an as needed basis.

C.3 (pg.8)

Statement of Work, Deliverable

Requirements

“The Contractor shall support requirements traceability and compatibility by providing expertise in the use of the DOORs requirements management tool database.”

Does S&T envision the use of DOORs to occur onsite or offsite?

The use of DOORs will occur as and where needed to best support analysis requirements.

Section C.3 and

SOW Section 2.2

Section C.3 Deliverable

Requirements, and SOW Section 2.2

In Section C.3 Deliverable Requirements, Item 16 for

SOW Section 2.2 for the Base and each option year has a requirement for one (1) Program Management Support

Study. However, directly above Table 3.1, it states: “The anticipated numbers of studies below are an estimate only and are subject to change.” Assuming that it is the

Government’s intent to have this annual study included in the quote as part of C.2.2, please provide parameters of/requirements for this study, and confirm that only one

(1) study should be priced for the base and each option year.

SOW section 2.2 is not a study; it is the ongoing project management support.

C.3.1

Base Period of Performance

Deliverables. Item 17 “Operations

Policy Development Support” and

Item 18 “Impact to Operations Study

Reports”.

Item 17 “Operations Policy Development Support” references SOW 2.2.1 but should this be SOW 2.3? Item

18 “Impact to Operations Study Reports” references SOW

2.2.2 but should this be 2.4?

Section C has been re-ordered.

C.3.1

Base Period of Performance

Deliverables. Item 20 “Quarterly

Progress Reports.”

Should the anticipated number of these deliverables be

“4” given they are quarterly reports?

Corrected.

Pages 8-11, Section

C.3; Paragraphs 3.1

– 3.5

Deliverables table lists Quarterly

Progress Reports with a Number

Anticipated of 1

Recommend changing number anticipated to 3 for each

Option Period (every 4th quarter report for each Option

Period is an annual report).

Corrected.

C 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 (pgs.8-11)

Statement of Work, Deliverable

Requirements, Base and Option

Year Deliverables

Will the Government please confirm that the deliverable

20 in sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 should be three (3) quarterly reports and one (1) annual report?

Section C.3.8.2

“In lieu of every 4th quarterly report, the Contractor shall provide to the

Government an annual report within fifteen (15) days of the end of each contract period detailing the successes of each analysis effort.”

It is recommended that the deliverable charts for the Base

Period and all four (4) Option Periods be revised to indicate four (3) quarterly progress reports instead of one

(1). And one (1) annual report as a deliverable for the

Base Period and all four (4) Option Periods.

Corrected.

C 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 (pgs.8-11)

Requirements, Base and Option

Year Deliverables

Generating a set of sequential deliverables (CAR, MNS, CONOPS, ORD) for a given topic impacts the schedule and staffing differently than if the Contractor is expected to generate these four deliverables concurrently for different topic areas. For the purposes of the BOE, will the Government clarify which deliverables it wants to generate independently and which will be generated sequentially?

This is a needs based requirement; some deliverables will be sequential and some will be generated independently.

Pages 10-11, Section C.3;

paragraphs 3.2 –

3.5

Option periods list requirement for

Internal Control Methodology

Recommend deleting requirement for Internal Control

Methodology in Option Periods. Paragraph 3.9 indicates that ICP is prepared at the Kick-off Meeting with a “final

ICP” to the COR NLT 15 business days after the Kick-off

Meeting.

Please see the revised

Section C.3.

Section C.3.9

“The Contractor shall provide a draft

Internal Control Plan (ICP) at the

Kick-Off Meeting for Government review and comment,” “The

Contractor shall provide a final ICP to

Will submittal of this draft Internal Control Plan (ICP) at the Kick-Off Meeting and the final ICP not later than fifteen (15) days after the Kick-Off Meeting fulfill deliverable requirement #21 for the Base Period?

Yes, although please note the numbering has been changed.

the COR and Contracting Officer not later than fifteen (15) business days after the Kick-Off Meeting.”

Page 10, Section

3.3

Option Period 2 Deliverables

Table Line 15, SOW 2.1.15 T&E

Subject Matter Expert Support

Can the Government please provide the number of deliverables anticipated during Option Period 2? A value is not included in the Table.

Please see the revised

Section C.3.

Page 10, Section

3.4

Option Period 3 Deliverables

Table Line 15, SOW 2.1.15 T&E

Subject Matter Expert Support

Can the Government please provide the number of deliverables anticipated during Option Period 3? A value is not included in the Table.

Please see the revised

Section C.3.

Page 11, Section

3.5

Option Period 4 Deliverables

Table Line 15, SOW 2.1.15 T&E

Subject Matter Expert Support

Can the Government please provide the number of deliverables anticipated during Option Period 4? A value is not included in the Table.

Please see the revised

Section C.3.

C.3.6

Forward Pricing Rate Agreements are a required deliverable per contract period, as established.

Will the Government accept a Forwarded Pricing Rate

Proposal or a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation in lieu of a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA), should an FPRA not exist?

Please see the revised

C.3.6 (pg.11)

Requirements, Contract

Management Deliverables, Forward

Pricing Rate Agreements

Contractors submit annual Forward Pricing Rates to

DCAA but do not receive a Forward Pricing Agreement from DCAA. Will the Government clarify whether this agreement is intended to be directly with DHS?

If no, we request that the deliverable be changed from

“Forward Pricing Rate Agreements” to “Submission of

Copy of Annual Forward Rate Pricing Submission to

DCAA”.

Please see the revised

Section C.3.

Pages 10-11, Section C.3;

paragraphs 3.2 –

3.5

Option periods list requirement for

Project Plan. Paragraph 3.9 indicates that Project Plan is provided at the Kick-off Meeting with a “final Project Plan” to the

COR NLT 5 business days after the

Kick-off Meeting.

Recommend deleting requirement for Project Plan for

Option Periods or specifying that Option Period plans are to update/detail Option Period activities.

Section C.3.8

“For this contract, the Contractor shall provide a draft Project Plan at the Kick-Off Meeting for

Government review and comment.”

Will a draft project plan be required for subsequent

Option Periods?

“The Contractor shall provide a final

Project Plan to the COR and

Contracting Officer not later than five (5) business days after the Kick-

Off Meeting.”

Will submittal of this final Project Plan within five (5) business days after the Kick-Off Meeting fulfill deliverable requirement #19 for the Base Period?

“This draft Project Plan shall be based on the technical information provided as part of the Contractor’s proposal.”

It is assumed that the final Project Plan shall also be based on the technical information provided as part of the

Contractor’s proposal. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes.

Section C.3.8.1

“The Contractor shall provide a quarterly progress report to the

Contracting Officer and COR via electronic mail and on a CD.”

Please specify how the CD should be delivered and an address as appropriate (i.e. hand-carried, mail, etc.).

The requirement for a

CD has been removed.

C.3.8.1 (pg.12)

Statement of Work, Deliverable

Requirements, Quarterly Progress

Report.

“The report shall also include the name of each participant in the training programs conducted and the name of the organization with which they are affiliated.”

Will the Government please clarify when the report is due, who is to receive the CD and where should it be delivered?

The requirement for a

CD has been removed.

C.5 (pg.13)

Statement of Work, Deliverables

Is it necessary to have the Quarterly Progress Report in

Section C.3.8.1 be delivered on a CD in addition to electronically?

The requirement for a

CD has been removed.

C.3.8.1 (pg.12)

Statement of Work, Deliverable

Requirements, Quarterly Progress

Report.

“The report shall also include the name of each participant in the

Will the Government please clarify any training requirements referred to within this section?

Change to - Progress, meetings, deliverable, work they plan, risks, staffing changings, lessons learned, concerns and issues.

There are no training requirements. Please see the revised Section C.3.

training programs conducted and the name of the organization with which they are affiliated.”

C.3.8.1 and 3.8.2

“The report shall detail completion of deliverables, achievement of objectives and goals of the training programs, and include all quarterly reports data. The products shall be assembled into a complete report, including an executive summary section with recommendations for improving any of the training programs.”

Please clarify where the training programs exist within the

SOW.

There are no training requirements. Please see the revised Section C.3.

Section C.3.1

(Deliverables)

Section C.3.8

(Project Plan)

Section C.4

(Project Manager)

These sections describe required deliverables, project planning, and staffing

The following related questions seek to clarify the staffing and delivery model the Government expects. Please clarify whether the Government has specific expectations and what flexibility the contractor might have.

Does the Government expect the contractor to provide an overall schedule of the deliverables described in Section

3.1 or will the Government provide either general or specific guidance?

Will all deliverables in the table in Section 3.1 be scheduled, or might they be a mix of scheduled deliverables and unscheduled/ad hoc deliverables?

Does the Government anticipate that work would be performed primarily by a core, full-time team or would temporary/surge contractor personnel join as required when (potentially) ad hoc deliverables noted in Section

3.1 are needed?

Contractor is expected to provide an overall schedule.

All CPFF deliverables are anticipated to be adhoc. All FFP deliverables shall be delivered in the timeframe described.

The government expects the work to be performed in a manner that meets the scope, budget, and schedule for the particular analysis requirements at hand.

“It is anticipated that program management support positions will

Are either or both of the two Key Personnel expected to work on-site at a Government facility?

Section F.2.

Section C.2.2 and

Section C.4

Contractor

Personnel be located onsite at Government facilities in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.”

Section C.

Statement of Work C.4 Contractor Personnel

What is the level of experience, education, and/or certifications needed for the key personnel?

The Government is seeking qualified personnel that will make sure the project is executed successfully.

Section C.4, 4.1

Project Manager

“The Lead Technical Analyst shall be a recognized leader in Operations

Research and Analysis”

Would the Government please clarify the attributes and qualifications required for the Lead Technical Analyst to be considered ‘a recognized leader’?

Please see the revised

Section C.4.1.

Page 12 (c) Volume

I – Technical

Proposal

C.4. Contractor Support

4.1 Project Manager

Being that there is no education requirement for the Lead

Technical Analyst, request to know what constitutes a

“recognized leader” in OR and how will this recognition be evaluated?

Please see the revised

Section C.4.1.

4.1

The Lead Technical Analyst shall be a recognized leader in

Operations Research and

Analysis.

Please provide clarity on what factors the Government would consider to be a recognized leader in ORA.

Please see the revised

Section C.4.1.

Section C.4.1

Section C.4/4.1 Project Manager on

Recommend either changing the paragraph header to

“Key Personnel” or break out “Project Manager” and

“Lead Technical Analyst”.

Section C.4.1.1

“The Project Manager shall be a single point of contact for the

Contracting Officer and the

Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR).”

Recommend revising the language to state “The Project

Manager and the Contract Manager shall be the single points of contact for the Contracting Officer and the

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).”

Please see the revised

Section C.4.1.

Section C.4, pg. 12 of 66 and Section

I.11, pg. 37 of 66

“Contract Personnel” section and

“Key Personnel or Facilities (Dec

2003)” section.

Section C.4 describes contract personnel as “Project

Manager”, Section I.11 lists the position as a “Program

Manager”. These terms while interchangeable at times can connote different meanings. Should the Position of

Corrected to Project.

“Program Manger” in section I.11 be changed to “Project

Manager”?

Section C.4.3

Security, pg 13 of

Some of the work under this effort will be completed at contractor facilities and that work may require the processing and/or storing of classified information. What level of Facility Clearance (FCL) and level of safeguarding are required for the prime and subcontractors?

It is anticipated that a secret level facility clearance will be required. Please see the revised Section C.4.3.

C.4.3.1 and C.4.3.2

(pg.13)

Statement of Work, Contractor

Personnel, Security

“4.3.1. If classified work is required under this SOW, DHS will provide specific guidance to the Contractor as to which work will be conducted in a classified manner and at which classification level.”

“4.3.2. Contractor personnel in technical and program management are required to have a minimum

“Secret” level clearance, and those personnel who will be handling

“Top Secret” information are required to have a “Top Secret” level clearance or, as required by

DHS, Special Access level clearance as appropriate based upon the materiel handled and scope of the individual deliverables.”

Will the Government please clarify whether any classified support is to occur off DHS premises and issue appropriate directives if so?

It is anticipated that a secret level facility clearance will be required. Please see the revised Section C.4.3.

Section E.2

The CO, or their authorized representative (e.g., COR or

Contract Specialist), shall be afforded a period not to exceed

Recommend reducing the review/acceptance period to no more than 14 calendar days.

The period will not be reduced.

thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of final deliverable items for inspection and acceptance or rejection unless otherwise specified.

Section E.2.

Evaluation and Acceptance of

Deliverables

“The CO…shall be afforded a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a final deliverable items for inspection and rejection unless otherwise specified.”

If the Government modifies the CLIN and pricing approach to be FFP using the acceptance of deliverables as the basis of pricing and payment (per our recommendation above), then we recommend reducing this review time to five (or perhaps ten) business days. A

30-day review period in this FFP model would effectively delay invoicing and payment by up to 30 days for accepted deliverables. Alternatively, the Government could allow invoicing for FFP deliverables upon submission of the deliverable.

The pricing approach will not be changed and the period will not be reduced.

H.1 Accounting system Recommend removing this requirement The requirement will not be removed.

H.8

Personnel provided by the

Contractor shall have the skills and technical background necessary to successfully complete the tasks outlined in

Section C.

Recommend the government provides minimum qualification standards for skills and technical background

The Government requires that the contractor identify the qualifications and skills necessary to meet the SOW requirements.

Section H.9.b.1

“If this Contract requires settlement of indirect cost rates, it will be closed within thirty-six (36) months of the month in which the contracting officer receives evidence of physical completion as defined above.”

Contract closeout may not be possible within thirty-six

(36) months. Recommend stating that the “contract will be closed within sixty (60) days of receipt of final indirect rates for the contract period of performance.”

Please see edits to

Section H.10.

H.9 (b)(1)

This Section states the following: “If this Contract requires settlement of indirect cost rates, it will be closed within thirty-six (36) months of the

DCAA is responsible for finalizing our indirect rates.

Typically Contractors do not receive their final indirect rates from DCAA for 5, 6, or even 7 years after the

Contract has ended. Therefore, the requirement to close

Please see edits to

Section H.10.

month in which the contracting officer receives evidence of physical completion as defined above.”

the Contract within thirty-six (36) months after evidence of contract completion would not be a requirement that

Contractors would seem to be able to meet. Could the

Government revise Section H.9(b)(1) to read as follows:

“If this Contract requires settlement of indirect cost rates, the Contract will be closed within 120 days after DCAA has finalized the Contractor’s indirect rates.”

Section I .1

FAR Clause 52.204-15 Service

Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite – Delivery Contracts

(JAN 2014)

Is an IDIQ contract type expected?

This contract will not be an IDIQ.

I.1 (pg.25)

Contract Clauses, Clauses

Incorporated by Reference, FAR

52.211-11 Liquidated Damages

Given that FAR 52.211-11 applies only to the Program

Management FFP CLIN, Contractor does not believe this clause is applicable to the described activities associated with the Program Management CLIN as no specific deliverables have been identified. Accordingly, will the

Government remove this clause?

Deliverables for the FFP

CLINs have been identified in Sections

C.3.1 and C.3.2.

Page 24, Section I Contract Clauses

Will the Government consider including clause 52.244-6

Commercial Item Subcontract? This would allow an

Offeror to procure the off-the-shelf services of

Commercial Item subcontractors who would not otherwise be able to bid on a cost reimbursement contract.

The clause has been added, but Offerors are reminded that prime contractors are fully responsible for the behavior of their subcontractors and for compliance with all contract terms and conditions.

Section I.6.e.1

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this contract concerning inspection or acceptance, if any data delivered under this contract are marked with the notices

Should it be assumed that the absence of (g)(4) means it is also a “RESERVED” paragraph? (g)(3) is marked as a

“RESERVED” paragraph.

The current version of

FAR 52.227-14 has now been incorporated by reference.

specified in paragraph (g)(3) or

(g)(4) if included in this clause,”

Section I.7.52.247-

67 Submission of

Transportation

Documents for

Audit (Feb 2006), Paragraph (a)

“The Contractor shall submit to the address identified below, for prepayment audit, transportation documents on which the United

States will assume freight charges that were paid”

Will an address be provided?

The documents shall be submitted via email to the individuals identified.

Section I.8.b.1

“Within forty-five days after contract award, the Contractor shall submit for approval its IT Security

Plan,”

Is this calendar days, or business days?

This clause has been removed from the RFP.

I.11 (pg.37) Contract Clauses, Key Personnel or

Facilities

In order to ensure desired resources are available to the

Government throughout the life of the contract and discourage Offerors from submitting Key Personnel who maybe significantly committed to other efforts as a Part

Time Equivalent (PTE), it is recommended that the

Government clarify that Key Personnel are required to provide Full Time Equivalence (FTE) support under this effort.

Section C.4.1 has been revised.

Section I.11

The Key Personnel or Facilities under this Contract (Alphabetical by last name) are: Program Manager, Lead Technical Analyst

In C.4 the PM was called Project Manager vs. Program

Manager. Recommend consistency with the position names.

The inconsistency has been corrected.

I.11(b)

The Key Personnel or Facilities under this Contract (Alphabetical by last name) are:

(TBD) Program Manager

(TBD) Lead Technical Analyst

Please clarify if the two positions in this paragraph are considered “key”.

This clause lists the Key

Personnel.

Section K.

K.1.

“(a)(1) The North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541720.”

NAICS code listed in the draft is 541720 which is

Research and Development in Social Sciences and

Humanities. We recommend consideration of code is

541990, All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical

The NAICS code has been changed.

Services which seems more in line with the requirements of this effort.

Section L.2, c and

Section L.6

Section L.2, c Submission and L.6

Point of Contact for Proposal

Submission

Section L.2 states that proposals are to be “submitted in paper media in sealed envelopes or packages”. However, Section L.6 states that proposals must be submitted to the contacts listed in Box 8 of the SF33 via email. Will you please clarify that electronic submission of the proposal is compliant?

Please see the revisions to Section L. Electronic submission of proposals is required.

L.6 (d) (3)

“Due to the limitations of information technology infrastructure, submissions or single files that exceed five (5) megabytes (MB) in size must be compressed (“zipped”) to 5 MB or less or submitted via multiple messages.”

Would the government consider 10 MB as size limit rather than 5 MB?

No. If the size exceeds 5

MB, the additional files should be sent via additional messages.

Section L.8 (c)

Cost proposals shall provide a

“Detailed breakout of all costs elements including labor, materials, overhead, G&A, and proposed profit/fee.”

Are Subcontractors required to provide this information as well? Since a detailed breakout would be proprietary, Subcontractors would not be able to include this information in their proposals to Prime Contractors. If this information is required from Subcontractors, can the

Government provide instructions for the Subcontractors to submit sealed packages?

Please see the revision to

Section L.9.

L.9 page size and format on page 52

Recommend specifying minimal font size of 11pt for text and 8pt for graphics and tables.

Please see the revision to

Section L.8.

Section L.9 Page Size and Format paragraph Is there a specific font type and size that is required?

Please see the revision to

Section L.8.

Section L.10 (a),

pg. 52 of 66

“The offeror’s submission shall consist of three (3) volumes with the maximum number of each proposal

Volume as listed in this Section.”

Does page count include Cover Page, Table of Contents, List of Figures, Cross Reference Matrix or Acronym List?

Cover pages and tables of contents will not count against the page limit for each Volume.

Section L.10, c Section L.10, c

States “Items in the table below marked with an asterisk

(*) are optional and do not count against page limitations.” There are no “*” in the Volume I or Volume

II tables. Please clarify the information that is optional.

Section L.9.

Page 53, Section

L.10.c

Volume I – Technical Proposal -

Technical Approach, Experience, and Management Approach

Can the Government please provide instructions for the requirements associated with the Technical Approach, Experience, and Management Approach that is encompassed in the 20 page limit?

Offerors should address the requirements found in

Sections C and M.

Section L.10 (c)

Volume I –

Technical Proposal

There are no specific instructions for the technical approach, experience, and management approach in

Volume I. Can we assume that bidders should simply address Section C and the evaluation criteria for those factors?

Offerors should address the requirements found in

Sections C and M.

Page 53, Section

L.10.c

Volume I – Technical Proposal -

Technical Approach, Experience, and Management Approach

Is the Government open to increasing the page limit of

Volume I - Technical Proposal to 30 pages (not including the resumes) to allow the offeror to expand upon their approach to the 11 Knowledge Areas and Management approach?

No.

L.10(c)(5)(C)(D)

(pgs.53-54)

Instructions to Offerors, Proposal

Volumes and Contents, Volume I –

Technical Proposal

(C) In the event an award decision is based on named key personnel…

(D) If the offeror is selected for award….

We recommend the Government keep both sections to signal Offerors that the practice of “personnel bait and switch” will not be tolerated; however, in recognition that delays in awards have an effect on all contractors’ ability to ensure availability of proposed staff, we recommend the Government consider a modification to the language in section (D) that would provide the awardee a short period of time (such as 7 days) to find an acceptable replacement to the Government at the same or lesser cost/price to what was originally bid before the

Government will terminate.

“Will terminate” has been revised to “may terminate.”

L.10(c)(5)(C)(D)

(pgs.53-54)

Volumes and Contents, Volume I –

Technical Proposal

(C) In the event an award decision is based on named key personnel…

(D) If the offeror is selected for award….

Recommend changing (C) to (B) and (D) to (C) The formatting has been fixed in this section.

Section L.10.4.C

“The total number of references will be dependent on the number of proposed subcontractors, but the

Offeror must submit a minimum of five (5) references for itself if it has no subcontractors/partners.”

Does this mean the Contractor may submit less than five

(5) references for itself if it has subcontractors/partners?

Section L.10.d

In the table titled “Volume II”, the

Primarily Applicable Evaluation

Factor(s) reference ‘6’ for Past

Performance References and List of

Ongoing or Completed DHS

Contracts.

Should this number be ‘5’?

The table has been revised.

L.10 (d) (3)

“The following chart summarizes the information required to be submitted:”

Could the government please clarify the Primarily

Applicable Evaluation Factor(s) for Volume II – Past

Performance? The Table lists Factor 6, but Section M contains Past Performance as Factor 5.

The table has been revised.

L.10.(d)(3) Volume II Past Performance requirements chart

There is an error in the tables for Vol 2 - Past

Performance. It indicates that the Primarily Applicable

Evaluation Factor is 6, but referencing Section M, the

Applicable Evaluation Factor should be 5.

The table has been revised.

Section L.10.d

“Further, Offerors must include a list of all on-going or completed contracts with the DHS within three

(3) years from the date of the proposal for itself and its proposed subcontractors/partners.”

What content should be included in the list of ongoing or completed DHS contracts? We recommend the following:

i. Reference Name (Company or Entity)

ii. Program Title

iii. Contracting Agency/Private Company

iv. Contract Number/Task Order Number (if applicable)

v. Type of Contract

vi. Period of Performance

Please see revisions to

Section L.9.

Page 54, Section

L.10.d

Volume II – Past Performance: List of

Ongoing or Completed DHS

Contracts

Request clarification on “List of Ongoing or Completed

DHS Contracts.” Does the Government require a complete list of all contracts with DHS that are ongoing/completed or only contracts relevant to this RFP?

Also, does this requirement include those completed/ongoing contracts by any/all teaming members?

L.10(d)(4)(D)

(pg.55)

Volumes and Contents, Volume II –

Past Performance, Past Performance

Volume Contents and Instructions

“. . . offerors must include a list of all on-going or completed contracts with the DHS within three (3) years from the date of the proposal for itself and its proposed subcontractors/partners.”

Should the list include only Prime contracts that are on-going or completed within the last three years of the proposal or can it include both Prime and Subcontracts where the end customer is/was DHS?

L.10 d.4.(C)

Further, offerors must include a list of all on-going or completed contracts with the DHS within three (3) years from the date of the proposal for itself and its proposed subcontractors/partners.

1 Please clarify the information to be provided for each contact.

2 Please clarify if DHS wants “contracts” only or does the term include task orders and purchase orders.

3 Please clarify if the data required is for prime contracts only.

L.10 d.4.(C)

The Offeror must provide a minimum of five (5) references for itself and each of its proposed subcontractors.

1. Please clarify if past performance references for sub are for first tier subs.

2. Please clarify the number of past performance references you expect from a prime to have sufficient experience to be considered a prime contractor.

Please see revisions to

L.10(d)(4) (pg.55)

Volumes and Contents, Volume II –

Past Performance, Past Performance

Volume Contents and Instructions

“Additional information regarding...The Offeror must provide a minimum of five (5) references for itself and each of its proposed subcontractors. The total number of references will be

We recommend the Government reconsider this requirement given the following rationale:

At 5 PPs per prime/team member, it is likely that the submission could contain 50+ past performances per offer and 150+ pages of content for review. This would require significant effort on the part of the

Government to assess the strength, reliability and validity of each past performance citation.

It is unlikely that small businesses would possess five past performances over a three year period “involving dependent on the number of proposed subcontractors…” similarly challenging requirements, of similar size, scope, and complexity to those outlined in the

SOW”(Section M.2.Evaluation Factors pg.62). This would result in the potential for diminished Past

Performance scores for highly qualified bidders.

Given the above items, the Past Performance scoring would then significantly favor smaller Teams led and composed of very large companies that are more likely to possess such multiple large past performances. This would significantly disadvantage more diverse teams comprised of mid-sized and small businesses.

Increases the likelihood that teams possessing highly relevant mid and small businesses may be forced to default to “neutral” ratings or be deemed noncompliant or not use such businesses all together

Accordingly, we recommend alternative past performance criteria which favors demonstration of quality over quantity by focusing the Government’s assessment efforts:

A minimum of five (5) past performance citations over the past three years from the Team of which:

A minimum of two (3) past performance citations over the past three years are required directly from the Prime contractor serving as a prime (must be prime citations)

A minimum of one (1) past performance citation over the past three years is required from every subcontractor (can be prime or first tier subcontractor citations)

Require each citation to also include the average price rate (total labor funding/total labor hours) in addition to the contract dollar value and current or actual dollar value in order to allow the Government to further assess relevance to this effort

If the Offeror submits past performance information for an indefinite delivery contract, require the Offeror to identify a specific task order under the indefinite delivery contract

Require a two page summary of the Team’s Past

Performance qualifications and relevancy to the required efforts

Section L.10, (d)

Volume II-Past

Performance, (4), (C), pg. 55 of 66

“The Offeror must provide a minimum of five (5) references for itself and each of its proposed subcontractors.”

Would the government consider reducing the minimum number of subcontractors’ past performance citations to three (3), since many small business may not have 5 relevant past performance citations?

Please see revisions to

Section L.9.

Page 54, Section

L.10.d.4.c

Volume II – Past Performance

The Offeror must provide a minimum of five (5) references for itself and each of its proposed subcontractors. The total number of references will be dependent on the number of proposed subcontractors, but the Offeror must submit a minimum of five (5) references for itself if it has no subcontractors/partners.

Request clarification on the minimum number of past performance. Is it the intent of the government to require a minimum of five past performance for the offeror as well as each of its teaming partners? For example: A team consisting of the Prime and three teaming partners would require a minimum of 20 past performance? Or is the requirement a minimum of five past performance for the entire team?

Please see revisions to

Section L.9.

Section

L.10(d)(4)(C)

“The Offeror must provide a minimum of five (5) references for itself and each of its proposed subcontractors.”

Are five references required for subcontractors who provide a niche skill? Small businesses may provide an important specific skill, but will be hard-pressed to provide five references of similar size, scope, and complexity to this contract. This could discourage use of small businesses and valuable niche teammates by diluting the overall team experience and past performance ratings. Would the government consider calling for five references from large businesses teammates with a broad performance role, and fewer references for small business teammates and teammates with niche roles?

Section L.10 (d)

Volume II – Past

Performance (4)

(D), pg, 55 of 66

“Evidence of performance-based methodologies in past performance must be provided where available.”

Would the government provide a definition or example of what is meant by “performance-based methodologies.”

Please refer to FAR 37.6 and other guides produced by the Office of

Federal Procurement

Policy and other government agencies on this subject.

Section L.10.e

In the table titled “Volume III”, the

Primarily Applicable Evaluation

Factor(s), all Files Sections reference the Primarily Applicable

Evaluation Factor(s) as ‘7’.

Should this number be ‘6’?

The numbers of the evaluation factors have been revised.

L.10 (e) (4)

“The…