2nd Question and Answer 16 April 2020.pdf

Information Management Information Technology Question & Answers

Amendment 5

1 - Please confirm what is included in the Part I, Summary and Misc. Data page limit. Table A does not identify any information that is excluded from the page limit; the answer to Question 65 states that the SF1449, fill-ins, certifications, and amendment acknowledgements are excluded.

Are the SF 1449 and related documents excluded from the 20 page limit?

A. Yes, the Standard Form (SF) 1449, amendment acknowledgements, and the necessary fill-ins and certifications are included in Part 1 and are exempt from the overall page limits.

Amendment 4 and Q&A

Table A and multiple Answers to Questions

2 - Several answers to questions and Table a state that the page limit for Part IV has been deleted. However, Question 83 states that the Part IV page limit is 20 pages. Which is correct?

A. Table A is correct there are no page restrictions/limits for Part 4 Past Performance.

Page 161 and Questions 45 and 66

3 - Please confirm that 10 pt. Times New Roman font can be used in tables, as stated in the answer to Question 45. Page 161 and Question 66 state that the font has to be 12 pt. Times New

Roman.

A. Yes, the font shall be Times New Roman at a font size no smaller than 10. This has been corrected is the Addenda FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors

Page 160 and Question 82

4 - Please confirm that Subcontractor and Teaming information is to be presented in Part I, as stated in Question 82. Amendment 4, page 160 remains unchanged from the original that requires Subcontractor and Teaming information to be in Part IV.

A. Teaming arrangement are to include in Part 1. This has been included in the Addenda FAR

52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors Part 1.

5 – We are preparing a response to the subject solicitation. However, we are getting push-back from our past performance customers in the solicitation’s request that completed past performance questionnaires (PPQs) be sent back to offerors for inclusion in our DHA proposal.

Would the Government consider allowing our customers to submit their PPQs directly to your team? Amendment 4, Revised Attachment 3 PPQ. Instructs offers.

A. Customer-Please complete the following questionnaire to assist this office’s evaluation of the

Offeror’s past performance. A typed (preferred) or handwritten response is sufficient after completion please forward to the government.

6 - I was wondering if the government has considered extending this requirement due to the

COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the majority of our clients being from the DHA and DoD, we are having a difficult time getting a response for the Past Performance Questionnaires. As we are reaching out to our clients, we are being told that their focus has been on other mission critical requirements. It is also apparent that some of our clients are in territories where they have been on stay put order which limits their ability to execute on work requirements.

A. Due to COVID-19 pandemic the Government is extending the due date for proposal submission to Friday 8, May, 2020.

Amendment 4, page 2 and page 162; Q14; and Q22

7 - Amendment 4 (page 2), and answers to Q14 and Q22 state that the second round of questions is due April 3 and proposals are due April 17. However, Amendment 4, Page 162 states that

Questions are due on April 17, but doesn’t provide a proposal due date. Please confirm that questions are due on April 3 and proposals are due April 17.

A. Final submission of questions were due on April 3, 2020 and not on the April 17, 2020.

Amendment 4, page 160 and Q82

8 - The answer to Q82 states that “Any Teaming information and subcontractor information will be included in part 1.” However, page 160 of Amendment 4 still includes the requirement for

Teaming Agreement information and Subcontractor Consent in Part IV and there is no mention in the Amendment of including it in Part I. Please confirm whether subcontractor consent/teaming arrangement information should be in Part I or Part IV.

A. Please reference question 4.

Amendment 4, page 161, Section 3(d); Q45; and Q66

9 - The answer to Q45 states that 10 pt. TNR font is acceptable for tables. However, the answer to Q66 states that fonts can be no smaller than TNR 12 pt., and Amendment 4, page 161, Section

3(d) also is unchanged and states that the font shall be Times New Roman at a font size no smaller than 12 pt. Please confirm that tables and graphics may be in 10 pt. TNR font.

A. Please reference question 3.

Amendment 4, page 162; Q35; Q59; Q62; Q79; and Q83

10 - The answers to Q35, Q59, Q62, and Q79, and the RFP Table A state that the page restriction for Part IV, Past Performance has been removed. However, the answer to Q83 states that the page limit has been increased to 20 pages. Please confirm that there is no page limit for Section

IV, Past Performance.

Amendment 4, Table A and Q65

11 - Table A in the Amended Solicitation and the answer to Q65 provide contradictory information as it relates to what is to be included in the page count for Part I, Summary and

Misc. Data. Table A in the Amended Solicitation does not include any exclusions to the page limitation for Part I, Summary and Misc. Data. The answer to Q65 says, “yes” that the Standard

Form (SF) 1449, amendment acknowledgements, and the necessary fill-ins and certifications are exempt from page count. Please confirm that the SF 1449, provisions and clauses in the solicitation that require offeror fill-in, and the acknowledgement of all amendments are excluded from the 20-page limit for Part I, Summary and Misc. Data.

Amendment 4, Table A and Q83

12 - Q83 states that the Government excludes Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts

Information (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) from the page count for Part IV – Past Performance Submission. Table A in the Amended Solicitation states that there is no page limit for Part IV Past Performance. Please confirm that Quality and Satisfaction

Rating of Contracts Information is excluded from the page limitation for Part IV.

Reference DD254

13 - The form is blank. Can the Government please provide a completed DD254?

A. No, this is completed by the vendor at the time of contract award.

14 - Can the Government clarify the answers to Questions 45 and 66 in the Q and A Round 2?

They seem to conflict. The answer to Question 45 states, “Yes the Government will allow 10 pt.

TNR in tables”. The answer to Question 66 states “The Government will only accept Times

New Roman, at a font size no smaller than 12.”

A. Please reference question 3.

15 - Can the Government clarify the answer to Questions 55 and 83 in the Q and A Round 2?

They seem to conflict. The answer to question 55 states, “There are no page restrictions for Past

Performance (Part IV). “ The answer to question 83 states, “No Page restrictions for Part IV Past

Performance have been increased to 20 Pages.”

A. Reference question 2

Reference Question 82

16 - Can the Government clarify if it intends for the Teaming arrangement information and

Subcontractor Consent to be included under PART IV? Or could this be included as an Appendix to the PART I summary (excluded from the 10-page limit)?

A. Any Teaming information and subcontractor information will be included in part 1.

A. Please reference question 4

Amendment 4, page 160

17 - Section iii(b) on page 160 states “PPQs shall be submitted to the Government as part of offeror’s past performance submission response and will not count towards the overall page count of this part.” Please provide the contact name and email address where offerors should send the PPQs.

A. This information is also provided in the Revised PPQ Attachment 3.

Phillip York -phillip.w.york2.civ@mail.mil, Rhonda Cato- rhonda.r.cato.civ@mail.mil

Carlos Sikaffy- carlos.a.sikaffy.civ@mail.mil.

18 - The response to Question 27 states PPQs ‘shall’ be returned to DHA contracting office from

Agency POC’s. However, the original solicitation, Amendment 4, and the current Word version of the PPQ provided in Amendment 4, states Agency POCs are to return to the offeror and include in our proposal. We have done that for all our PPQs and they are in our proposal. Please confirm the Government will accept a completed PPQ from the agency either submitted in our proposal or sent directly to the DHA contracting officer? Our Government POCs are very much distracted with the Covid-19 response and maintaining operations. We fear going back to them to submit the PPQ again would likely not be appreciated by our clients.

A. No, PPQ must be received from the Government POC and should not be included as part of your final proposal submission.

mailto:-phillip.w.york2.civ@mail.mil mailto:rhonda.r.cato.civ@mail.mil mailto:carlos.a.sikaffy.civ@mail.mil

Attachment 2

19 - It appears that the Government divided the OPM Published Annual Wage w/Locality

(Column D) by 1920 hours to calculate the Minimum Hourly Wage Needed With No Further

Explanation (Column F). However, it appears that a few rows contain a different calculation such as the below 2 rows (Rows 5 and 7). The same annual salary with different hourly wage needed.

This same discrepancy occurred in Rows, 17, 48, 63, 67, 69, 73, 127, and 131. Was this intentional?

A. Please review amended Attachments 1 and 2

Section 1.9 Security Requirements

20 - If all participating members of an SBA approved 8(a) joint venture currently hold a Secret

Level facility clearance (FCL), does this meet the minimum FCL requirement for the joint venture?

A. No, the JV would need to hold a Secret Level facility clearance (FCL).

21 - Will the Government be amending the Instructions to Offerors to remove the Teaming

Arrangement requirement form PART IV Past Performance and including it to the proposal requirement for PART I?

There seems to be numerous discrepancies between Amendment 4 Supply CLINS and Sub

CLINS and Attachment 1 IMIT Price Matrix Revised. Examples include:

CLIN Numbering for Telecommunications Support Services shows SUB CLINS 0006AA through 0006AB being deleted and Sub CLINS 0006AC through 0006AJ as

System/Server/Engineer, Sr. , VTC Help Desk Manager, VTC Support Specialist, VTC Support

Specialist, Sr and Mobility Administrator, Sr. The Revised pricing sheet shows CLINS 0006AA as the System/Server Engineer, Sr (Telecom), 0006AB as the Telecommunication Technicians, 0006AC as the VTC Help Desk Manager, 0006AD as the VTC Support Specialist, 0006AE as the BTC Support Specialist, SR, 0006AF as the Mobility Administrator, and 0006AG as the

Mobility Administrator, Sr…..

CLIN Numbering for the Interagency Support. Amendment document shows Sub CLINS

0007AA through 0007AF deleted with Help Desk Technicians - Tier III, Tier II, System/Server

Location

GS Equivalent

OPM Published

Annual Wage w/

Locality

Hours per

Year

Minimum Hourly

Wage Needed With No

Further Justification

Bethesda, MD 13 STEP 4 $112,930.00 2560 $58.80

Bethesda, MD 13 STEP 4 $112,930.00 2560 $62.92

Engineer, Sr, and Help Desk Technician – Tier III as 0007 AF through 0007AL. The Revised pricing sheet shows CLINS 0007AA through 0007AF as Help Desk Technicians - Tier III, Tier

II, System/Server Engineer, Sr, and Help Desk Technician – Tier III as 0007 AA through

0007AF.

This numbering discrepancy takes place across the Option Years. There are also various other inconsistencies between the Sub CLINS and Revised Pricing Sheet.

22 - Will the Government update the Sub CLINS and Pricing Sheet so they are both in sync?

A. CLIN’s and Pricing Sheet are corrected

Inconsistencies are due to deleted CLIN’s that were updated and cannot be updated.

23 - Would the government provide a Job Description and Qualifications for the SME I added to

Task Area 9: IT Management and Transformation Support Services?

A. Government has added the Job Description and Qualifications for the SME I added to Task

Area 9: IT Management and Transformation Support Services.

24 - Is the Job Description and Qualifications for the SharePoint Developer, Sr in Task Area 7:

Interagency Support applicable to the SharePoint Developer, Sr added to Task Area 1:

Application and Web Development Support Services?

A. The Government has added the Job descriptions the SharePoint Developer, Sr in Task Area 7:

Interagency Support applicable to the SharePoint Developer, Sr added to Task Area 1:

Application and Web Development Support Services.

Amendment -0004 – 4. General Information page 162.

a. “•Questions: Questions should be submitted no later than 10:00AM. (Eastern

Standard Time) on 17 April 2020. Answers will be published after that date as an update to the original RFP. Any questions received after this date/time need not be answered by the Government.”

b. Face page of SF30 –

“3. Allow for 2nd Q&A period to close on April 3, 2020

4. To extend offers proposal deadline to April 17, 2020”

25 - I am assuming questions are due 3 April and not 17 April?

A. Questions were due April 3, 2020

Page 150; Clause 52.222-17 – Non-displacement of Qualified Workers (EO 13495).

EO 13495 was revoked on 31 Oct 2019 by presidential order.

26 - Is this clause still valid for this solicitation?

A. No, Clause was removed in Amendment 4.

Page 171 (amendment 0004) of the PWS section 1.12.1 Program Manager says the PM must have a PMP certification. Other preferred certifications include ITIL. Must meet security clearance and DoD 8570 certification requirements as described in this contract. A Government

Program Manager equivalent is usually a GS-1101 Acquisition Program Manager, with an APDP

Level III certification.

27 - Does this mean the Program Manager must have CompTIA Security+ Certification? If so, as this is an unusual requirement for a Program Manager, and why is this necessary?

A. The program manager will be on-site, and access to the Walter Reed network. Therefore they too must meet the requirements of the contract.

Please refer to Question 16, in the first Q&A Amendment 4

RFP Amendment 0004 – page 45

a. From SUBCLIN 2006AF

CLIN extended description has changed from VTC Support Specialist (2 FTEs)

To: VTC Support Specialist (1 FTE).

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 5,760.00 from 3,840.00 to 9,600.00.

28 - If the number of FTEs went from 2 to 1, shouldn’t the quantity detail decrease by 1,920 from 3,840 to 1,920?

A. Corrected please see amended Attachment 1 and 2

Information Management/Information Technology Solicitation HT0001420R0001 Question and

Answer submission: a.Question/Response to Question #82

A.Any teaming information and subcontractor information will be included in Part 1.

RFP Amendment 0004, page 160 has teaming information to be provided as #(d) under

Part IV – Past Performance.

29 - Which is Correct?

Pricing Matrix

30 - Shouldn’t the CLINs on the Option tabs be listed as 1XXX and 2XXX to line up with the

CLIN structure on the RFP?

A. CLIN Structure updated to correspond with RFP.

Amended Pricing Sheet - There are approximately 32 discrepancies between just the base year amended spreadsheet (IMIT Pricing Revised) and the CLIN structure in the RFP Amendment

0004. Some examples of issues (and there are MORE but you can see from this there are issues throughout the entire pricing matrix):

a. CLIN 0003AI; should be 0003AJ as there is not a CLIN 0003AI in the RFP

b. CLIN 0006AA; amendment 0004 deleted the line item but the FTE count is still in column D

c. CLIN 0006AB; amendment 0004 deleted the line item but the FTE count is still in column D

d. CLIN 0006AC; amendment 0004 changed the CLIN extended description has changed from System/Server Engineer, Sr to System/Server Engineer, Sr (1 FTE) but the pricing matrix says 0006AC is a VTC Help Desk Manager

e. CLIN 0006AD; amendment 0004 didn’t change the extended description but changed the pricing. The original RFP extended description for CLIN 0006AD was Telecommunications Technician but the pricing matrix for CLIN 0006AD is for VTC Support Specialist

f. CLIN 0006AE; amendment 0004 changed the CLIN extended description from

VTC Help Desk Manager to VTC Help Desk Manager (1 FTE) but the pricing matrix description is VTC Support Specialist

g. CLIN 0006AF; amendment 0004 changed the extended description from VTC

Support Specialist (2 FTEs) to VTC Support Specialist (1 FTE) but the pricing matrix description is Mobility Administrator

h. CLIN 0006AG; amendment 0004 changed the extended description has changed from VTC Support Specialist (6 FTEs) to VTC Support Specialist, Sr (5 FTEs) but the pricing matrix description is for Mobility Administrator, Sr

i. CLIN 0006AH is missing from the Pricing Matrix altogether

j. CLIN 0007AA; 007AB, 0007AC, 0007AD; and 0007AE pricing detail quantity went to 0.00 for these 5 CLINs but the pricing matrix shows FTEs quantities in column D for each of these 5 CLINs

31 - Request a reissuance of the entire pricing matrix to match the CLIN structure in the RFP.

Since there are numerous corrections required, with both the RFP document and the pricing matrix, request the Government issue a conformed RFP.

A. Government has issued an amended Pricing Matrix.

32 - Will the Government please accept completed PPQs that used the original template? Our customers, have already completed, signed, and returned the PPQs to us using the original template in accordance with the original instructions. We are concerned our customers are extremely busy and have their plates full working through challenging circumstances due to the coronavirus pandemic.

A-Yes, PPQ’s however are not be submitted in Part 4 as part of the proposal submission. PPQ’s must be submitted by your customers.

33 - Also, if the customer provides the completed PPQ directly to the Government, is it still a requirement that offerors provide the completed PPQs with our proposals?

A-PPQ’s must not be submitted as part of the proposal. All PPQ’s must be submitted by customer to the government.

Q&A # 38 & 39

34 - What type of data is allowable in the 7 pages allotted for part II – Pricing Matrix? Is that data allowed to be provided in word or .pdf format? (Part II Price)

A-No the government will not allow offerors to provide our justification write-ups for Part II

35 - Will the Government allow offerors to provide our justification write-ups for Part III in word or .pdf format? If so, will the Government please modify table A to specify that Word or

.pdf format is allowed? (Part III Compensation)

A- If your proposed base hourly rate, for a given labor category is below the hourly rate identified in the Labor Category Minimum Compensation Matrix, offeror shall provide a justification showing evidence of why the proposed compensation for workers is adequate to obtain and retain qualified workers.

--PDF format is preferred--

Q&A #54

36 - Does the annual salary in Attachment 2 represent the total annual salary an employee could receive from their employer?

A-Yes the total salary represents annual salary.

Amendment 4, Section 5.10, Page 181, Attachment 1-Price Matrix, and Attachment 2-

Compensation Matrix

37 - Should offerors disregard the labor category descriptions for Clinical Curriculum Developer, Service Management Lead, and System Architecture SME since these labor categories are no longer listed in Attachments 1 or 2.

A. Yes, See revised Attachment 2 and 3.

38 - Reference Attachment 2 Compensation Matrix. The Project Manager, Sr has 1280 hours (1)

FTE for the Base Period. Attachment 1 Price Matrix has 3680 hours (3) FTE’s for the Project

Manager, Sr in Task 9. Can the Government confirm which number of hours/FTEs are correct for the Base Period for the Project Manager, Sr.?

A. See revised attachment 2 Compensation Matrix.

39 - Reference Attachment 2 Compensation Matrix. The Government is utilizing the GS OPM

Annual Wage w/localities as a basis for the Minimum Hourly Wage in Attachment 2. It appears that Attachment 2 is calculating the Minimum hourly wage by taking the OPM Annual Wage divided by 1920 for most positions listed. However, on the OPM website, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/how-to-compute-rates-of-pay/), the minimum hourly wage is calculated by dividing the

Annual Salary by 2087. As Contractor’s, it is customary to calculate the hourly wage by dividing the annual wage by 2080. The calculation to get to 2080 is (8 hours a day times 5 days in a week to equal 40 hours a week) 40 hrs. week times 52 weeks equals 2080. Based on this information, can the Government update/revise their hourly wage calculation in Attachment 2 to be in-line with standard accounting practices?

A. No, the Government will utilize 1920 Hours per year.

40 - Please clarify if teaming information should be included in Part IV (per the RFP instructions) or Part I (per the Q&A #82 response).

A. Please reference Question 4

41 - For Part IV (a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts, can information (i.e. reports) be included as an embedded attachment to Part IV Section (a)? Or should the full report be included?

A. Offeror should provide information that demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and/or quality of completed and/or ongoing contracts.

42 - The Memo released dated 25 March 2020 state the deadline for 2nd round questions were due 3 April 2020; however, Amendment 4 of the RFP states questions are due 10 AM – 17 April

2020 (the same time of the proposal deadline). Please confirm if this was a typo or if questions may be submitted up to 17 April 2020.

A. 3 April 2020

Q 55, 59, 62 and 79

43 - All indicate that the page restriction for Volume IV Past Performance has been lifted.

However, Q 83 indicates there is a page limit of 20 pages. Can you confirm if there is a page restriction for Volume IV and if so, what the limit is?

A. Reference Question 2

44 -For Part I, please clarify if our reps and certs in SAM are up to date and completed within 12 months, do we need to complete and submit any additional forms? If so, can you specify which forms?

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/how-to-compute-rates-of-pay/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/how-to-compute-rates-of-pay/

A. Review Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors.

(a) The offeror shall provide a concise summary of contents of the entireproposal.

(b) Standard Form (SF) 1449. Complete blocks 12, 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the terms and conditions as written in the solicitation.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions and in the on-line

Representations and Certifications at www.sam.gov. For other provisions and clauses in the solicitation, the offeror is required to submit the pages that require an offeror fill-in.

(d) Submit an acknowledgment of the all solicitation amendments, if issued.

(e) Teaming: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement.

45 - Please confirm that only the following volumes are required as part of the proposal submission and no technical response is needed: Part I – Summary and Miscellaneous Data; Part

II – Price Submission; Part III – Compensation Submission and Part IV – Past Performance

Submission.

A. Review Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors for solicitation requirements.

46 - Indicates that offerors are allowed to use 10pt TNR in tables. However, Q.66 indicates that only 12pt TNR is allowed. May offerors use 10pt TNR in tables and graphics?

A.Yes, the font shall be Times New Roman at a font size no smaller than 10. This has been

The DD-254 is blank.

47 - Was the DD-254 intentionally left blank? Or, will one be posted before the proposal due date for security requirements references?

A. The government will not post DD254 before the proposal date. The successful offeror will complete and submit the D254

Pages 38 of 226, Summary of Changes. CLIN 2002AA System/Server Engineer (5 FTEs) 7680 hours. Actual SF30 text: “The pricing detail quantity has increased by 3,840 from 3,840 to

7,680.” Pages 45 of 226,CLIN 2006AF VTCSupport Specialist (1 FTE) 9600 hours.

Actual SF30 text: “The pricing detail quantity has increased by 5,760.00 from 3,840.00 to

9,600.00.”

48 - The calculated hours for 5 FTEs is 9600, not 7680. To specify correct hours and maintain consistency with Price Matrix, please correct the text to “The pricing detail quantity has increased by 5,760 from 3,840 to 9,600.”

http://www.sam.gov/

The calculated hours for 1 FTE is 1920, not 9600. To specify correct hours and maintain consistency with Price Matrix, please correct the text to “The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 1,920.00 from 3,840.00 to 1,920.00.”

A. Corrected see amended Attachment 1 and 2.

49 - There are many inconsistencies across the contract periods between CLIN numbers on the

SF 30, and also between the SF30 and the Price and Compensation Matrixes. This occurs especially within the x007 and x008 SubCLINs. It appears that several SubCLINs were deleted from the original SF1449 of 2/20, and in the Amendment 4 SF30 the SubCLINs that followed those deletions were not renumbered. However, they were renumbered in the Price and

Compensation Matrixes.

A. Both Amendment 1 and 2 have been corrected to match the RFP.

Please review and clarify these discrepancies.

50 - The CLIN / SubCLIN numbering structure for all labor categories for Option Periods 1 and

2 on the Price Matrix are inconsistent with the CLIN / SubCLIN numbering structure of the SF30

Option Periods 1 and 2.

Will you please correct the Price Matrix Option 1 and 2 numbering to match the SF30 numbering?

SF30 – SubCLIN 0009AD Project Manager, Sr (3 FTEs) 3,840 hours

Compensation Matrix – Project Manager, Sr 1,280 hours

51 – Will you please correct the Compensation Matrix hour entries to match the SF30?

HT001420R0001-0004 (SF30) / Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire Revised

SF30 p. 160 of 226 / Past Performance Questionnaire p. 1 of 7

FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors / (m)(2) PART IV – Past Performance Submission (c) /

Item 6 of 11

PART I (A) Contract Identification / Item 12 of 12

The referenced SF30 and PPQ sections both ask for exactly the same information: “Labor

Categories (including brief description of labor category) and number of workers per labor category”

52 - Due to potential competition sensitivity on contracts submitted for Past Performance, we request an addition to the SF30 Instructions for PART IV Item 6 to allow a reference to the Past

Performance Questionnaire for that contract, in lieu of also providing that information in PART

IV. The PPQ will be identifiable to DHA by having the matching Company, Agency, and

Contract Number.

A. No, comply with current solicitation requirements outlined in Addenda FAR 52.212-1

Instructions to Offerors.

53 - Proposed text: ‘In lieu of the PART IV Labor Categories, Descriptions, and Workers, please refer to Past Performance Questionnaire submitted for Company <Company Name> to Agency

<Contracting Agency Name> for Contract <Contract Number>.”

A. No, comply with current solicitation requirements outlined in Addenda FAR 52.212-1

Instructions to Offerors.

Pages 159-160 of 226

FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors / (m)(2)(2) PART III – Compensation Submission /

(m)(2)(iii) PART IV – Past Performance Submission

Section Numbering “(m)(2)(2)” for PART III

Section Numbering “(m)(2)(iii)” for PART IV

54 - SF30 p. 160 of 226 - FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors / (m)(2) PART IV; Q&A #83

Answer states “No Page restrictions for Part IV Past Performance have been increased to 20

Pages.”

55 - Please correct this answer – it confuses the Part IV page count as either “no page restrictions” or “20 pages”. “No page count” is consistent with Table A and other Part IV references.

SF30 p. 160 of 226, “PPQs shall be submitted to the Government as part of offeror’s past performance submission response, and will not count towards the overall page count of this part.”

56 - The Past Performance Questionnaire instructions are that the referring Agency’s respondent is to submit the PPQ directly to DHA’s WRNMMC CO team. Since the Offeror will no longer have access to the completed PPQ, Section (b) is impossible to comply with, and irrelevant.

Please delete this section, or correct it to explain that the PPQs are sent by the Contracting

Agency and are not included in Part IV. Amendment 4, Revised Attachment 3 PPQ. Instructs offers of the following:

A. Customer-Please complete the following questionnaire to assist this office’s evaluation of the

Offeror’s past performance. A typed (preferred) or handwritten response is sufficient after completion please forward to the government

Q&A #82 Answer states “Any Teaming information and subcontractor information will be included in part 1”. This contradicts the SF30 Instructions that state that Teaming information goes in PART IV.

57 - Will you please clarify the Q&A answer as to Part IV teaming information, instead of Part I.

P. 161 of 226 , FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors / (m)(3)(3)(d). SF30: “(d) Page margins shall be a minimum of 1 inch top, bottom, and each side. The font shall be Times New Roman at a font size no smaller than 12.

Q&A #45: Answer states “the government will allow 10 pt. TNR in tables.”

58 – Will you please correct the SF30 to match Q&A #45.

59 - The File Names are of format “Part I” … “Part IV”. Is it also expected, or allowed, to append the Solicitation Number and Offeror Company name to the File Name (e.g.

“Company_HT001420R0001_File I”?

If so, please change the SF30 section to indicate that.

A. Yes, Company_HT001420R0001_File I is acceptable and has been updated in Addenda to

FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors

P. 162 of 226, The Question due date is shown as 10:00AM. (Eastern Standard Time) on 17

April 2020.

60 - This is the proposal due date. Will you please correct the SF30.

A. Due to COVID-19 pandemic the Government is extending the due date for proposal submission to Friday 8, May, 2020.

Q&A #57 Question

61 - This Q&A answer is confusing, as it possibly implies that the Offeror “shall” (i.e. “must”) submit past performance for at least one contract performed as the Prime and at least one contract performed as a Subcontractor.

Should the answer say instead that the Offeror and Subcontractors may submit contract(s) performed as either the Prime or as a Subcontractor? Please clarify.

A. Comply with current solicitation requirements.

From 1st Q& A

Q.57) Can the Offeror submit past performance performed as subcontractor or must all experience be as a Prime? With the Answer as: Offeror shall submit past performance for both prime and subcontractor may submit contract(s) performed as either the Prime or as a

Subcontractor.

62 – Please answer updated and clarified.

A. The Offeror may submit contract(s) performed as either the Prime or as a Subcontractor

P. 168 of 226, 1.6 Period of Performance

63 – Will you please correct the Base period start date in the section to “01 AUG 2020” for all

Task Areas?

A. Government has corrected base period start date to 01 AUG 2020.

1.12.1 Program Manager

DoD has published a chart of equivalent certifications for CompTIA Security+, with variations for IAM Level I and IAT Level II.

64 - Would DHA accept one of these equivalents as the default, and if so, should it be for IAM

Level I or IAT Level II?

A. We require COMPTIA Security+, Security+ is a very rigid, very specific certification that meets our organizations requirements. We can only accept this certification.

65 - For the Program Manager specifically, as an equivalent, would it be IAM Level I or IAT

Level II?

A. For the specific requirement for Program Manager under Section 1.12.1, Security+ (DoD

8570) should be acquired, but will not be expected on day one.

5.9 TA9 – “Information Business Operations” is incorrectly referred to as “IT Management and

Transformation Support Services” in various other places in the SF30 (e.g. in Section 5.10 p.

209) and possibly other solicitation documents. This was corrected in Q&A #68.

66 - Please correct the inconsistency wherever it appears.

A. Government has corrected inconsistencies within the solicitation.

P. 177-180 of 226 / 2-56 of 226 - 5.1-5.9 PWS Task Area 1-9 Descriptions - Change Summary

-5.5 TA5 – Network Operations Support Services still lists obsolete “SME I”

-5.8 TA8 – Clinical Informatics Support Services still lists obsolete “Clinical Curriculum

Developer” & “SME II”

-5.9 TA9 – Information Business Operations still lists obsolete “SME II”, “Service Manager

Lead”, and “System

Architecture SME”

-5.9 TA9 – Information Business Operations is missing “SME III”.

67 - Please remove the obsolete from ALL Labor Categories and add missing ones for the respective Task Area descriptions, as shown above and ALL other areas. Also, remove any corresponding obsolete LCs / CLINs from the Task Areas in the Price and Compensation

Matrixes.

A. Government has revised Attachments 1 and 2.

P.195 of 226, 5.10 PWS Contractor Descriptions and Qualifications

“Task Area 6: Network Operations Support Services” should be “Task Area 5: Network

Operations Support Services”

68 - Please correct the TA mis-numbering.

A. Government has revised numbering within the PWS.

The Price and Compensation Matrixes have entries for CLIN 0008AB – “Clinical Applications

Trainer (Cerner)”

That CLIN/SubCLIN appears nowhere in the SF30, either in the CLIN Summary of Changes, the

PWS, or any of the Part 7 Attachments (e.g. Workload).

69 - It appears that somehow the contract total of 145 FTEs is accounted for in the documents.

But please correct the missing “Clinical Applications Trainer (Cerner)” in the appropriate sections of the SF30

A.Attachment 2 Compensation Matrix Revised

Base Tab

Row 51 has Rate value $80.03

Row 63 has Rate value $62.38

70 – Wil you please correct the Rates to the same value? Please correct the Rates on the

Compensation Matrix as a whole.

A. Government has revised Attachment 2 Compensation

Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire Revised

71 - There appears to be no Solicitation Number reference (HT0014-20-R-0001) on the form.

Does DHA intend to add this to avoid any possible confusion as to which Solicitation the PP is for?

A. HT0014-20-R-0001 referenced on the top left of the SF30 and the Amendment # is located in block 2 Amendment modification number.

Attachment_1_IMIT_Price_Matrix_Revised;

Base Year, Option 1, Option 2

72 - Is the Government directing the escalate of 2.5% after the Base Year and each Option Year?

A. FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items (h)

The government will evaluate quotations for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that a quotation is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

73 - Will the government please clarify the use of 10 pt. font size, Times New Roman font style for tables and visuals?

Yes, the font shall be Times New Roman at a font size no smaller than 10. This has been

Amendment 4

Page 160 Part IV, iii (c) Past Performance Information

74 -Paragraph iii (c) bullet requests “Verified, up-to-date name, mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone number of the contracting officer (Point-of-Contact)” Please clarify whether the

Government requires the contact to be the Contracting Officer or whether offerors should use their primary point of contact who may not be the Contracting Officer.

A. Your primary POC are listed below.

phillip.w.york2.civ@mail.mil, Contract Specialist rhonda.r.cato.civ@mail.mil, Contract Specialist carlos.a.sikaffy.civ@mail.mil, Contracting Officer

Government answer to Q27 PPQs – Yes, Performance questionnaires shall be returned to DHA contracting office from Agency POC’s. However, Amendment 0004 “(m) Proposal Preparation

Instructions (b) Performance Surveys/Questionnaires states, PPQs shall be submitted to the

Government as part of offeror’s past performance submission response, and will not count towards the overall page count of this part.

mailto:phillip.w.york2.civ@mail.mil mailto:rhonda.r.cato.civ@mail.mil mailto:carlos.a.sikaffy.civ@mail.mil

75 - We have already received all of our PPQ’s from our government POCs. To avoid duplication of effort and confusion with our government POCs, may we submit PPQ’s that have already been completed and received with our proposal submission?

A. No, PPQ’s should be directly received from the Government POC’s listed on the PPQ and

PPQ’s should not be submitted as part of their final submission.

Government answer to Q32 PoP clarification – The government has corrected the discrepancy.

Anticipated Full performance start date is 1 August 2020. (1) 8 Month Base Year (2) 12 Month

Option years.

76 - Please clarify the period of performance. The updated base period and options period of performance in Amendment 04, Section 1.6 Period of Performance states the base year period of performance is 8 months.

A. Anticipated Full performance start date is 1 August 2020.

(1) 8 Month Base Year

(2) 12 Month Option years

Reference updated base period and options period of performance in 1.6

Government answer to Q34 transition period: The period between the award date and full performance start date constitutes the transition-in period. The transition-in period is estimated to be 30 calendar days. The Transition Period start date is anticipated to be 01 JUL 2020.

77 - The transition period is anticipated to begin 01 July 2020 and continue for a period of 30 days. If incumbent or non-incumbent personnel are on-boarded and begin work under the new contract after 01 JUL and before 01 August, will the contract start date in the base period CLIN provide contract coverage for those contractor personnel? Will a task order be awarded for the transition period?

A. No, Full performance start date is 1 August 2020.

No, the contract will not be awarded for the transition period. No, Full performance start date is 1

August 2020.

Government answer to Q magnitude of effort: Magnitude of effort relates directly to the number of FTE’s and the total contract value.

78 - Will the government accept the Miriam Webster definition of magnitude; i.e. “great size” or

“the importance, quality, or caliber …”?

A. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and identify aspects (scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity) of the contracts deemed relevant and how they relate to the submitted effort.

79 - Is there a storage timeframe for the data storage requirement?

A. No, storage timeframe for the data storage requirement.

80 - It is understood that there are currently 121 incumbents and 145 are desired. Are the other twenty four (24) positions expected to be onboarded during the base transition period or after?

A. Recruitment of the remaining positions should take place during the Transition period.

81 - The incumbent is bidding this effort and is aware of existing salaries and or labor rates. This is a unique advantage that allows the incumbent to justify lower LCAT rates for certain categories – lower rates being paid for today. The incumbent is a unique position to argue that some labor categories can be staffed below the LCAT base on the rates they may be providing the government today. The government has access to existing LCAT, Direct, and fully loaded labor rates. To better level, the proposal playing field and provide a better response from all offerors, will the government provide either base rates from the incumbent effort and/or DL rates billed to the government from the incumbent based on existing LCATs?

A. No, the Government will not provide base rates from the incumbent effort and/or DL rates billed to the government from the incumbent based on existing LCATs.

82. Please confirm a Compensation Plan is not required as a part of this submission.

A.Compensation plan Attachment 2 are to be included as part of the submission.

The evaluation criteria include a listing of evaluated elements: (1) Compensation, (2) Price, (3)

Past Performance which could be interpreted as order of importance. The following paragraph

83 - Can the government confirm that the numbering does not indicate order or importance/weighting and that the narrative following the numbered elements is accurate?

A. Refer to Addenda 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items. .

84 - Please provide the DD 254

A. DD254 is provided as a PDF attachment in https://beta.sam.gov/.

In accordance with the original RFP instructions, we worked diligently with Agency POCs to acquire completed, signed PPQs to include with our submission. It is very difficult to ask government officials to repeat this task in these very challenging times.

https://beta.sam.gov/

85 - Will the Government allow completed and signed PPQs included with submission OR PPQs sent directly to the DHA Contracting Office?

A. No, PPQ’s should be directly received from the Government POC’s listed on the PPQ and

PPQ’s should not be submitted as part of their final submission.

86 - Please confirm the font size for tables and graphics is 10 pt TNR

There are several instances where the “GS Equivalent” and corresponding “OPM Published

Annual Wage” do not equate to the “Minimum Hourly Wage” (SharePoint Developer, Sr;

Network Engineer, Sr; Information Assurance Analyst, Sr; Information Assurance Engineer, Sr;

SME II; SME III: Program Manager, Sr). In these cases, the Minimum Hourly Wage reflects a different Annual Wage and does not map directly to a GS Equivalent.

87 - Which should bidders use as the minimum for rate calculation and/or justification purposes

– GS Equivalent/OPM Published Annual Wage or the Minimum Hourly Wage?

A. Attachments 1 and 2 have been amended.

88 - The Government stated that the minimum hourly rates (OPM salaries divided by 1920) were correct. For example, in the revised Attachment 2 Compensation Matrix the hourly rate for the row 3 Database Administrator, Sr is $67.73 which equates to $130,043.00 divided by 1920.

However, as stated in question 54 it is standard industry practice to divide salaries by 2080 hours per year. The standard 2080 hours would include the 1920 direct billable hours with an additional 80 hours of company paid holiday and 80 hours of company paid leave.

A. For the IMIT requirement the government is utilizing 1920 Hrs.

For the Telecommunications Technician, the Minimum Hourly Wage provided in column F represents a salary of $83,045 (and maps to the provided GS Equivalent 10 Step 9), whereas the

OPM Published Annual Wage provided in column D of $85,231 maps to a 10 Step 10.

89 - Which GS Equivalent and OPM Published Annual Wage / Minimum Hourly Wage combination is correct? Which should bidders use as the minimum for rate calculations and/or justification purposes?

A. $83,045 is correct and is updated in Amended Attachment 2 Compensation Matrix.

90 - Q8 and 5.4 in PART 5 SPECIFIC TASKS are in conflict. Please clarify if cybersecurity is part of this solicitation requirements.

A. Cybersecurity is part of this solicitation requirements as outlined in 5.4

91 - CLIN extended description “Queue Manager”. However, is identified on the Attachment 1 as SUBCLIN AI. Please advise.

A. See amended Attachments 1 and 2.

92 - Is changed to deleted and QTY 0. However, identified on the Attachment 1 and 2 as

“System/Server Engineer, Sr (Telecom)” and 1,280 hours. Please advise.

93 - Is changed to deleted System/Server Engineer and QTY 0. However, identified on the

Attachment 1 and 2 as “Telecommunications Technician and 2,560 hours. Please advise.

Reflects “System/Server Engineer, Sr (1 FTE) and hours changed to 1,280. However, identified on the Attachment 1 and 2 as “VTC Help Desk Manager” and hours of 1,280. Please clarify.

94 - Reflects description change of “VTC Support Specialist” quantity of hours 1,280 as identified on Attachment 1. However, identified on Solicitation’s original Attachment 1 and 2 as

“Telecommunications Technician”. Please advise, for the detail description does not note as changed.

95 - Reflects “VTC Help Desk Manager” and quantity decrease of hours 1,280. However, identified on the Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 as “VTC Support Specialist, Sr” and hours of

6,400. Please clarify.

96 - Reflects “VTC Help Desk Specialist” and quantity decrease of hours 1,280. However, identified on the Attachment 1 and 2 as “Mobility Administrator” and hours of 2,560. Please clarify.

97 - Reflects “VTC Help Desk Specialist, Sr” and quantity decrease of hours 6,400. However, identified on the Attachment 1and 2 as “Mobility Administrator, Sr” and hours of 1,280. Please clarify.

98 - Reflects quantity decrease of hours to 2,560. However, not identified on the Attachment 1 or

Attachment 2. Please advise

99 - Reflects “Mobility Administrator, Sr” quantity decrease of hours to 1,280. However, not identified on the Attachment 1 and 2. Please advise

100 - Reflects “VTC Support Specialist” quantity deleted, 0 hours. However, is identified on the

Attachment 1 and 2 as “Help Desk Technician – Tier III” and hours of 1,280. Please advise

101 - Reflects “Help Desk Technician – Tier III” quantity deleted, 0 hours. However, is identified on the Attachment 1 and 2 as “Help Desk Technician – Tier III” and hours of 1,280.

Please advise

102 - Reflects “SME II” quantity deleted, 0 hours. However, is identified on the Attachment 1 &

2 as “Help Desk Technician – Tier II” and hours of 1,280. Please advise

103 - Reflects “SME II” quantity deleted, 0 hours. However, is identified on the Attachment 1 and 2 as “Help Desk Technician – Tier II” and hours of 5,120. Please advise.

104 - Reflects “SharePoint Developer, Sr” Deleted, 0 hours. However, is identified on the

Attachment 1 and 2 as “System/Server Engineer, Sr” and hours of 1,280. Please advise.

105 - Reflects “Help Desk Technician - Tier III” and decreased hours to 1,280. However, is not identified on the Attachment 1 and 2. Please advise.

106 - Reflects “Help Desk Technician – Tier II” and 1,280. However, is not identified on the

Attachment 1 and 2. Please advise.

107 - Reflects decrease of hours to 5,120. However, is not identified on the Attachment 1 and

Attachment 2. Please advise.

108 - Reflects “Help Desk Technician – Tier II “and decreased hours to 1,280 hours. However, is not identified on the Attachment 1 and Attachment 2. Please advise.

109 - Reflects “System/Server Engineer, Sr “and decreased to 1,280 hours. However, is not identified on the Attachment 1 and Attachment 2. Please advise.

110 - Reflects “Help Desk Technician – Tier III” and 1,280 hours. However, is not identified on the Attachment 1 and Attachment 2. Please advise.

111 - Reflects “Project Manager, Sr (3 FTEs)” and decreased hours to 3,840 hours. Also, Attachment 1 labor and hours correlate. However, Attachment 2 has only 1.280 hours. Please advise.

Period of Performance -

112 - All Task Areas in PWS Section 1.6 period of performance reflect the Base Period as: 01

APR 2020 – 31 MAR 2021. Current understanding of revised Base Period is: 01 AUG 2020 – 31

MAR 2021. Please advise.

A. Section 1.6 Revised and correct with period of performance

113 - Period of Performance – Transition-in

Current understanding of revised Base Period is: 01 AUG 2020 – 31 MAR 2021 and does not include a transition-in. Or is transition-in included as part of the first two months, however, now incorporated into the revised Base Period. Please Advise.

Task Area 1: Missing ‘SharePoint Developer, Sr’. This position is understood to be added to this specific task. Please advise

A. Reference corrected PWS

114 - Task Area 6: Networks Operations Support Services (Page 195) should be: Task Area 5:

Networks Operations Support Services.

Also this task (Task Area 5) includes ‘SME I’ (Page 197). This position is understood to be deleted from this specific task. Please advise

115 - Task Area 6: Includes ‘Informatics Specialist’ (Page 198) and ‘System/Server Engineer’

(Page 199). These two positions are understood to be deleted from this specific task. Please advise.

116 - Task Area 7: Includes ‘Sr. VTC Support Specialist‘, ‘SME II’, ‘Sr. SharePoint Developer’, (Pages 202 - 204) and ‘System/Server Engineer’ (Page 199). This position is understood to be deleted from this specific task. Please advise

117 - Task Area 8: Includes ‘SME II’, (Pages 208). This position is understood to be deleted from this specific task. Please advise

118 - Task Area 9: Includes ‘SME II’, ‘Service Management Lead’, ‘System Architecture

Subject Matter Expert (SME)’ (Pages 212 -213). These two positions are understood to be deleted from this specific task. However, ‘SME I’ is identified as CLIN 0009AE (Attachment 1).

Please advise.

A. Reference corrected Attachment 1 and 2

Attachment 2- IMIT Comp:

119 - Row 123: Project Manager, Sr, Bethesda, MD, Hours per Year =1,280.

Results in an overall FTEs for total labor is 143 and Total Hours of 183,000

120 - Attachment 2 – 0009AD Senior Project Manager 3,840

Results in an overall FTEs for total labor is 145 and Total Hours of 185,600

121 - Compensation for the Information Assurance Analyst and the Information Assurance

Analyst, Sr. have the same GS Equiv. 13 STEP 6 and Salary of $119,775. Please advise.

Q49) Compensation for the SharePoint Developer and the SharePoint Developer, Sr have the same GS Equiv. 13 STEP 4 and Salary of $112,930. Please advise.

122 - Compensation for the System/Server Engineer, Sr. differs (Row) 115 than Rows 15, and

93. Please advise/clarify?

States that offers shall submit past performance for both prime and subcontractor. However, the evaluation methodology for the Past Performance Factor, under paragraph (b) states that the evaluation may take into account subcontractors what will perform major aspects of the requirement.

123 - Should past performance be considered for all subcontractors or just those performing major aspects of requirement?

A. The Government may take into account past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition

124 - States that performance questionnaires shall be returned to the DHA contracting office from Agency POCs. However, if offerors have already collected questionnaires to include in their proposal, as previously instructed, can these questionnaires already received be submitted in the proposal so that offerors do not…