ID01150067_Tab_10_Draft_Solicitation__2_Q A_04.pdf

ID01150067 – SETS

Draft Solicitation #2 Questions, v4

March 28, 2016 Page 1

The following questions were asked in response to the 2nd Draft Solicitation:

Item Reference Question Response

1. Section A and Section L.6 Please confirm that the email submission address for proposals is “Anthony.pellegrino@gsa.gov”

Confirmed.

2. Section B.2 Payment of Fixed Fee

This section states “The Government will determine, on a monthly basis, whether Contract performance is satisfactory and whether the Contractor devoted the estimated level of effort.” Language indicates that payment of fee amount will be in accordance with the LOE delivered on a monthly basis. A single month is a short time to measure level of effort expended and leaves no time to make up LOE/work as day to day requirements may fluctuate. This places significant risk on the contractor’s ability to meet the exact LOE each month. Government should consider making this an annual LOE requirement to allow the Contractor more flexibility in how the required hours are delivered.

Would the government be willing to change this to an annual LOE requirement?

The Government is buying services. The services are paid for on a cost-plus fixed-fee term basis. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee – Term. As we know, a cost-plus fixed-fee contract may take one of two basic forms— completion or term. The term form describes the scope of work in general terms (the services the Government is buying) and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period, see FAR Subpart 16.306(d)(2). Section B2 is amended.

Because the contractor will invoice monthly for its allowable costs which includes the level of effort devoted to the Contract, that portion or ratio of the fixed fee to the hours devoted may be determined (and earned) on a monthly basis. The total fixed fee will not be known until the end of a Performance Period because fee is earned only for each hour devoted to the Contract. Accordingly, Attachment J1 includes the fee for each labor hour for each labor category and Attachment J2 (and Section B1) includes the total, maximum fixed fee. Overall and to summarize, Solicitation/Contract Section B2, its associated Attachment J2, and FAR 52.216-8 provide for paying the contractor a percentage of the fee equal to the percentage of estimated costs incurred, less withholding.

Finally, because Section B1 and Attachment J2 specify the total fixed fee and because the total fixed fee cannot be exceeded regardless of the total estimated cost, cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost (CPPC) prohibitions and concerns are inapplicable.

3. Section B2 Fixed Fee / Contract Type

Clause B.2 indicates that the contract is Cost Plus Fixed Fee Term. However, the language goes on to state that the Government will determine whether the level of effort was provided and whether the performance was satisfactory. The reference to level of effort is confusing if this is not a level of effort contract. Is the Government buying hours or is the Government buying services?

4. Section B2 Fixed Fee / Contract Type

Clause B.2 indicates that the contractor is “obligated” to deliver certain hours. What happens if fewer or more hours are delivered in a certain period? Does this affect the fixed fee?

March 28, 2016 Page 2

Item Reference Question Response

5. Section C.2. Work Assignments

a) The DRFP states a transition period from July 1- September 8. Will incumbent contracts remain in force for that entire period?

b) What percentage of the incumbent workforce is expected to remain in place during the transition period?

a) It is anticipated that incumbent contracts will remain in place during the transition.

b) They are expected to remain at full performance through the end of their contracts; however, there is no guarantee that the entire Noblis workforce will remain with Noblis.

6. Section C.2. Work Assignments

To assist in development of transition plan materials, will the government provide information on the baseline support currently provided by incumbent contractor personnel? Specifically, how many personnel in what labor categories are currently performing work in support of each Work Assignment area?

How Noblis staffs the incumbent contract(s) is proprietary. The Solicitation requires an Offeror to describe the process, not the specific regarding the incumbent’s labor. Section L6.2.3 is amended.

7. Section C2 Work Assignments And Section L.6.2.3 Management Capability

Both sections define the transition period as July 1, 2016 to September 8, 2016. Should all Offerors’ transition plan reflect a 2-month, 8-day period?

Yes.

8. Section F6 Estimated Work Assignments / Contract Value Table 1

Topic: Clarify funding cycle per work assignment.

Work assignments are supposed to start after transition (September 8, 2016), For GOES-R , there is $1.3M award, $909,870 for a three month period (Oct to Dec 2016) and another $909,870 for a three month period (Jan to March 2017) Question: Does this represent the funding available and that no further funds will be provided during each period?

Recommendation: Please clarify funding profile per Work Assignment.

Yes. Table 1, Section F6 represents the current anticipated funding schedule during the base Performance Period. The Government anticipates additional funds will be identified for allotment to the Contract prior to the 3rd quarter of FY17.

Table 1 is amended to show the Government FY quarters relative to the base Performance Period. It also introduces Work Assignment 0 (WA0), the Transition Plan, which will be issued subsequent to award and details the cost and fee (price) of WA0. The cost and fee of WA0 will be paid proportionally by the four (4) programs identified in Table 1.

March 28, 2016 Page 3

9. Section G.3. Progress Reports & Section G.12.1.1 Progress Reports Pages 11 & 16

a) Does the government intend for there to be two different reports? One for the program, and one for each Work Assignment (WA)?

b) Can these be consolidated into a single report?

a) No.

b) See (a), above.

10. Section G4 Gov’t Furnished Property

Computers: The RFP indicates that at least one computer will be made available for the contractor’s use. However, the quantity and delivery date are not provided. For pricing purposes, what assumptions should the offeror make as to availability of computers to on-site personnel? If the Government will not make computers available, will the Contractor be reimbursed for this expense?

Recommendation: We recognize that this question was asked and answered on the prior draft. However this draft does not incorporate that answer. Please clarify.

All Direct Labor personnel will be assigned a Government Furnished Computer whether working on-site, or off-site.

11. Section G9 The invoice instructions suggest billing by the total hourly rate through profit by labor category. We understand the contract type to be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee. In our experience under this type of contract, only total costs are billed.

The invoice instructions align with the Government’s intention to pay the contractor a portion of the fixed fee on a monthly basis. Because fee is earned only if an hour of labor is devoted to the Contract and accepted by the Government, the amount of fee may vary by each month of the Performance Period. Attachment J1 details the reimbursable costs and fee for each labor hour. In no event will the total fixed fee be greater (more) than the fixed fee stated in Section B1 and Attachment J2 of the Contract. See also, Item 2.

12. Section H1

There are fifteen CAR referenced clauses in a table on the referenced page. Out the fifteen listed, seven of these clauses have an asterisk next to them. What is the intent of the asterisk?

These were unintentional and have been removed.

March 28, 2016 Page 4

13. Section H1.1 The DRFP states the requirement that the Program Manager and Chief Engineer Key Personnel must have a Top Secret Clearance at time of award. None of the first four Work Assignments (WA1-WA4) state the needs for clearances, indicating only the need to handle sensitive but unclassified information. To support consideration of the best qualified key personnel in light of the overall SOW, will the Government consider reducing the requirement for TS cleared key personnel at the time of the award to address either the Program Manager or the Chief Engineer?

No.

14. Section H3 Key Personnel This section states “The contractor shall assign the following four (4) key personnel to manage the contract as a whole.” One key personnel is a Subject Matter Expert, which in J3 is defined as a “Recognized Industry leader for a given area of expertise.” We believe this definition does not align well with the Section H3 requirement to have a SME that covers the entire breadth of contract requirements (“contract as a whole”). Would the government consider either deleting the SME as a key personnel at the contract level, or specify what specific area you want the contract level SME to be proficient in.

No.

15. Section H.4. Observation of Legal Holidays

The word “Government” has been removed. Is it the intention that the contractor will not work on identified holidays? Not telework?

Section H.4. has been updated

March 28, 2016 Page 5

16. Section H6 and Section L6.2.6, OCI Certification

Clause H.6 indicates that an OCI certification is required to state that the offeror is not aware of any facts which create any actual or potential OCI relating to the award of this contract, or, alternatively, current information on the existence of any actual or potential OCI and a mitigation plan.

Does the Government plan to provide the exact certification to be submitted, or is the Contractor’s format acceptable?

Re-read Section H6 and use your own format for the OCI Statement.

17. Section I, FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Based on the inclusion of the clause in Section I, a Small Business Plan is required. We could not find any reference as to which volume should include it, or a page count requirement. Can the Government please provide this information? Would the Government consider excluding the Small Business Plan from the page count?

Please read Section M3, paragraph (k).

18. Section L.6.1. Cost Proposal (Part A)

This section stipulates that the Cost Narrative be submitted in both MS Word and PDF formats and that the Cost Details be submitted in both Excel and PDF formats. Please confirm that the Cost Details are required to be submitted in 2 different formats;

i.e., Excel and PDF.

Confirmed.

19. Section L.6.1 Other Costs The solicitation, in L.6.1 (Part A), states that, "the Offeror shall explain the basis or bases for the Other Costs and a compelling explanation of Other Costs…". However, Attachment J1 includes an amount of $100,000 per year for ODCs and also a statement, "A stipulated amount for Travel and ODC has been provided for evaluation purposes only."

Will the Government please confirm that Offerors are to propose the amount included in J1 for ODCs and that a cost basis is not required?

An Offeror shall propose and explain the basis or bases for any Other Direct Costs that are unique to the performance or required for the performance of the Contract. An explanation is not necessary for the stipulated ODCs because the stipulated ODCs are the same for all Offerors.

March 28, 2016 Page 6

20. Section L.6.1 Direct Labor The previous version of the DRFP required bidders to provide, as part of their basis of estimate, comparable direct labor comparisons from three contracts of similar size and scope in the Washington DC area. Given that this requirement has been removed:

a) What method will the Government use to evaluate that direct labor rates are reasonable for this geographic area?

b) Is the Government open to a solution in which many staff work from locations outside the MD-DC- VA area, as this could skew the overall direct labor cost?

The Comparable Contracts requirement has been eliminated.

a) The Government uses Cost Realism analysis for this cost-plus fixed-fee type contract, see FAR Subpart 15.4. Generally, “reasonableness” is used to determine whether cost or price is too high, as opposed to too low. In this case, cost is an evaluation factor and therefore the competitive nature will militate against cost or fee being too high.

Competition usually determines whether cost and price are reasonable (also, the total fixed fee is limited by law). Cost Realism, on the other hand, considers, among other things, whether a cost or price is too low. Cost Realism also assesses cost reasonableness because it includes an assessment of what the Government “should realistically” pay and the Government should not (will not) realistically pay an unreasonable cost. Cost Realism is necessary (and required by law) because this is a cost-plus fixed-fee type contract and the Government is required to reimburse the contractor is actual, allowable and allocable costs and not necessarily the estimated costs proposed (more on this in the answers to Items 22, 23 and 24).

b) See Sections F3 for the primary place of performance. The specific place of performance is not specified by the Government, see also FAR 52.215-6 Place of Performance in Section K.

March 28, 2016 Page 7

21. Section L.6.1 Direct Labor Previous draft stated that “The basis for the estimated cost of direct labor shall detail that the same or similar element of direct labor is currently being or was sold to the Government on three (3) Comparable Contracts.”

The 2nd draft does not reference this. Does this mean that offerors can utilize other bases of estimate for direct labor rates, such as ERI Salary Survey data?

Yes.

22. Section L.6.1(d) and (e) Cost Proposal (Part A) And Section M.2.2

Section L.6.1 (Cost Proposal) states that J1 has been populated with estimated hours, and Section M2.2 (Cost Evaluation [Cost Factor]) states that the Government will determine “the Offeror’s understanding of the work.”

How will the government determine from an Offeror’s Cost Proposal, “the Offeror’s understanding of the work,” if the hours per labor category are prepopulated?

Unit prices, i.e., labor rates, may be found to be unrealistic and therefore indicate that an Offeror does not understand requirements.

March 28, 2016 Page 8

23. Section L6.1(e) Cost Proposal (Part A)

This section states “Offerors shall submit pricing for all lines of the J1, regardless of the quantities shown for that line. Offers submitted with blank lines will be considered incomplete. The prices proposed by the Offeror on Attachment J1 will be used to create a ceiling rate for each labor category. Rates lower than the ceiling rates proposed, negotiated (if applicable) and awarded in Attachment J1, may be proposed for Work Assignments.”

A Contractor should be entitled to reimbursement for all allowable costs under a Cost-Reimbursement type contract.

Can the government please confirm that the ceiling rates proposed by the Offeror on Attachment J1 are for the purpose of pricing the Work Assignments and not the maximum reimbursable cost by labor category in execution?

A Contractor is entitled to reimbursement for all allowable costs under a Cost-Reimbursement type contract. However, an allowable cost must be reasonable and only those costs evaluated and ultimately awarded under the Contract are deemed reasonable. Any cost in excess of the ceiling cost for any cost element of the Contract is not deemed or “per se” reasonable and is therefore not deemed allowable. The Contractor will bear the burden of proving the allowability of a cost that exceeds the ceiling rate on Attachment J1. Until the contractor meets its burden, any cost in excess of the ceiling rates of Attachment J1 shall be unallowable. See, FAR 31.201-3 Determining Reasonableness.

March 28, 2016 Page 9

24. Section L6.1(e) Cost Proposal (Part A)

Per Section L6.1(e), "The prices proposed by the Offeror on Attachment J1 will be used to create a ceiling rate for each labor category." and per Attachment J1, "The prices proposed by the Offeror on the J1 create a ceiling rate for each category." Would the Government please clarify what is meant by "ceiling rate" when this contract is expected to be awarded on a CPFF basis? Per FAR Part 31, Contractors will follow their approved accounting practices and all costs (inclusive of direct labor and any indirects) would be reimbursable on a CPFF contract. Offerors should not be held to a ceiling rate per labor category. FAR does not appear to provide for the use of a ceiling rate on labor categories or the components of a labor category (e.g. direct labor, overheard, fringe, G&A, etc.) under a CPFF type contract whereby a contractor can be denied allowable and allocable incurred labor costs.

See Q23 above.

25. Section L.6.1. Cost Proposal (Part A)

Will the Government please confirm that Offerors will not be required to provide the below information for any Subcontractors with a value less than $750,000?

- identification of the proposed subcontractor

- identification of the products or services

- an explanation of why and how the proposed subcontractor was selected including the extent of competition obtained

- the proposed subcontract price, the Offeror's cost or price analysis thereof

- identification of the type of subcontract used

Not confirmed. Although a separate Attachment J1 is not necessary for a subcontract valued at <$750,000.00, the Offer shall submit the information set forth in Section L6.1.

March 28, 2016 Page 10

26. Section L.6.1. Cost Proposal (Part A)

The DRFP states: "Subcontracts. Attachment J1 shall be provided for any subcontracts with a value greater than $750,000.00. “Sealed Packages” may be submitted by the Closing Date and Time (Section A(iv)) to respect proprietary data.". Does the $750K threshold to include only the base period of performance, or to include all option years?

The $750,000.00 threshold applies per Performance Period. Attachment J1 shall be provided if a subcontract has a value greater than $750,000.00 in any Performance Period.

27. Section L.6.1. Cost Proposal (Part A)

For subcontractors with a value greater than $750,000, that are not disclosed and do not have an indirect rate structure, would the Government confirm that it is acceptable to just include the subcontractor's proposed rate in the Offeror's proposal rather than having the subcontractor complete Attachment J1?

If the proposed subcontract is other than a cost-type contract, e.g., labor hours, then Attachment J1 should include only the fully burdened labor rate in the Price column.

28. Section L.6.1. Cost Proposal (Part A)

This section states that Subcontractors may submit ‘Sealed Packages’ to protect proprietary data. Please confirm that subcontractors are to submit their proprietary ‘Sealed Packages’ directly to the Contracting Officer via email and CD/DVD per the instructions in SECTION A –

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM.

Subcontractors may submit Sealed Packages directly to the Government via email and CD/DVD. If a subcontractor wants to provide its sealed package to the prime to be submitted with the offer, it may.

29. Section L.6.1 Cost Proposal (Part A) Subcontracts

RFP states any subcontractors with a value greater than $750K must provide Att J1 in a sealed package.

Is the $750K based on the proposed price based on WAR pricing or the J1 – pricing based on allocation of hours by labor categories?

See Item #26.

March 28, 2016 Page 11

30. L6.1 Cost Proposal (Part A)

The solicitation states that the cost narrative is limited to ten sequentially numbered pages. Would the Government consider removing the page restriction to allow for ample space for Offerors to respond to all of the Cost Volume requirements, such as the basis for the estimated cost of Direct Labor, Indirect Costs detail, Subcontractor information, ODC detail, and all other textual explanation of costs?

Ten pages are adequate to provide the necessary cost narrative. Subcontractor Sealed Packages are also limited to ten (10) pages each and do not count against the Cost Narrative page count.

31. L6.1 Cost Proposal (Part A)

“The Cost Narrative format is MS Word and PDF and is limited to ten (10) sequentially numbered pages.” In order to provide the government adequate information for determination the offeror will need additional pages to provide justification for their direct labor mapping to government labor categories, compelling information on the reasonableness of the proposed indirect costs, and proper subcontractor price analysis. We recommend that the government allow for unlimited pages (or increased page count) to provide the government with adequate information to determine price realism and reasonableness.

See Item #30.

March 28, 2016 Page 12

32. L6.1 Cost Proposal (Part A)

a) We respectfully request that the Government consider increasing the cost narrative page count limitation from 10 to 30 pages or allow required documents to be considered appendices that do not count against the page limitation. Given the amount requested information and the varying estimating methodology structures that Offerors must comply with consistent with their respective Government-approved disclosure statements, the 10 page limit may be insufficient for Offerors to provide compliant responses.

b) In addition, Subcontractor Sealed Packages (if included with prime proposal) and Offeror's subcontractor cost or price analyses to be treated as Appendices excluded from the cost narrative page count limitation.

See Item #30.

33. Section L6 Proposal Content and Proposal Format, subparagraph (e) The Proposal and Section L7 Proposal Format and Page Count Limitation and Explanation Pages 45 & 50

Section L6 instructs offerors to submit Part A and Part B of the proposal as 2 separate documents.

However, Section L7 indicates only one Cover Page and one Table of Contents is required. Since Parts A and B are to be submitted as 2 separate documents, is it acceptable for each Part to include its own Cover Page, Table of Contents and Glossary?

It is not required, but it is acceptable to have a cover page and a Table of Contents and Glossary for each Section (A and B).

March 28, 2016 Page 13

34. SOW 2.4, Systems Engineering, and Section L.6.2.3 (2),Transition Plan Pages 8 and 48

a) Can the government identify the current repositories containing relevant systems engineering documentation, including systems definition studies, concepts of operations, systems requirements documentation, interface control documents, etc.

b) Are these items maintained in government or contractor repositories?

c) How and when will such repositories be made available during the transition?

Offerors should assume full access to all Government data, etc., outlined in the SOW and related Work Assignments necessary to perform the Contract immediately after award of the Contract.

35. Section L.6.2.3(2)(c) Transition Plan

a) Who are the incumbent contractors for the initial work assignments referenced in Section L6.2.3(2)(c)?

b) For each of the four (4) WA’s, will the government consider providing the current staffing by labor category? And if not, are you looking for each offeror to provide the staffing by labor category for each

WA?

a) Noblis.

b) No. The Solicitation does not require staffing for each

WA.

36. Section L.6.2.3(2)(c) Transition Plan And Attachments J7-J10

Work Assignment 1 (J7) provides the anticipated staffing level for transition. Would the Government please provide the same level of detail for Work Assignments 2, 3, and 4? This information is needed for development of the Transition Plan.

The question misstates the requirements of the Solicitation. Work Assignment 1 does not provide the anticipated staffing level for transition. Rather, it provides the anticipated staffing level for performing Work Assignment 1. The Government does not agree that the anticipated staffing levels of the Work Assignments are required for development of the Transition Plan.

37. Section L.6.2.3 Management Capability, Transition Plan

The Government states that transition starts July 1, 2016. Therefore the transition period is part of the base period. Should we assume the government does not want pricing specific to the transition period?

The Transition Plan/transition period is not separately priced.

March 28, 2016 Page 14

38. L.6.2.3 Management Capability (3) Subcontract Management Plan, L.7 Proposal Format and Page Count Limitation and Explanation Pages 48 & 50

The proposal content table on page 50 includes both a Subcontracts and a Purchasing Management Plan, while the text of L.6.2.3, Management Capability (Part B3) does not include the Purchasing Management Plan (B3.3). Can the government confirm that the Purchasing Agreement Management Plan should be deleted from the Proposal Content Table on page 50?

Yes, confirmed. The requirement is for only a Subcontract Management Plan.

39. Section L.6.2.3 Management Capability (Part B3) Staffing Plan

The current language does not provide specific information to allow for a detailed staffing plan.

Shall we assume that this staffing plan is specifically for the four initial tasks (J7-J10)? Or, is the Government’s intention for bidders to describe their approach to staffing for the life of the contract?

The Government does not agree that the Solicitation does not provide specific information for Offerors to propose a Staffing Plan. See Section L6.2.3

40. Section L6.2.4 Past Performance

This section limits an Offeror to no more than two

(2) past or current contracts limited at no more than 10 pages. We believe that is sufficient to demonstrate a Prime’s Past Performance but would not allow an Offeror to demonstrate the Past Performance of its Significant Teammates/Subcontractors (defined as those over $750,000). Would the Government consider allowing Offerors to submit one additional Past Performance citation limited to 5 pages, for each Significant Teammate/Subcontractor, up to a maximum of 3 additional?

See Section L6.2.4. Offerors may provide whatever information, consistent and in accordance with Section L6.2.4, for the Government to evaluate Past Performance as set forth in Section M2.3.

41. Section L6.2.4 Past Performance

“Contracts with past performance information reported to CPARS and transmitted to PPIPRs are preferred but not mandatory.” How is this preference evaluated/scored?

The Government is not evaluating whether past performance information has been or is reported in

PPIRS/CPARS.

March 28, 2016 Page 15

42. Section L.6.1. Cost Proposal (Part A) and Attachment J.1

Per the Section L6.1 reference, may an offeror add columns to the J1 as needed to incorporate its fringe benefits costs if not included in its Overhead?

Yes. However, maintain the integrity of Attachment J1.

43. Section L6.7 Proposal Format and Page Count Limitation and Explanation

The table on page 50 outlines a B.3.3 Subcontracts and Purchasing Management Plan and a section B.3.4 Purchasing Agreement Management Plan.

Neither of these two sections is listed anywhere else in Section L. Please confirm that both these sections need to be replaced by a single section B.3.3 titled "Subcontract Management Plan".

See Item #38.

44. L7. Proposal Content and page limitations table

The table references L6.2.3.4 (B.3.4 – Purchasing Agreement Management Plan), however, there appears to not be a corresponding L6.2.3.4 section.

Will the Government please clarify?

See Item #38.

45. L7. Proposal Content and page limitations table

The table entry for L6.2.3.3 references B.3.3 – Subcontracts and Purchasing Management Plan, but the corresponding L6.2.3.3 entry appears to only be the Subcontracts Management Plan. Will the Government please clarify?

See Item #38.

46. L7

Table includes B3.3 – Subcontracts and Purchasing Management Plan (3 pages) and B3.4 – Purchasing Agreement Management Plan (3 pages). L6.2.3.4 is referenced but is not included.

See Item #38.

47. L7. Proposal Content and page limitations table

The total page count limitation for Management Capability section of table equals 17, however, the page count limitations in section L6.2.3 Management Capability only add up to 14. Will the Government please clarify?

The table has been corrected and the count remains at 14.

48. L7 The table appears to contain two erroneous entries.

Should Item B.3.3 be titled Subcontract Management Plan, and presumably there shouldn’t be an item B.3.4?

See Item #38

March 28, 2016 Page 16

49. Section L7 OCI Plan The table in L7 indicates that the OCI Statements are to be submitted as part of Section B6 of the Non- Cost Proposal. If an offeror does have to submit an OCI Plan, should it go in the same section and is it also exempt from page count?

Read Section H6. Yes to section and page count.

50. Section M.2.2

M2.2 (b) and (c). How will these two items be evaluated? The offeror is not required to cost the actual work assignments, and the Labor Categories (for the most part) include Experience and Education requirements? Also, the staffing baseline, including hours per Labor Category, is provided to the Offeror on J1.

Section M2.2 is substantially revised to provide more details of the Cost Analysis, including the cost realism analysis, the Government will conduct. Overall, the FAR 15.404-1 cost analysis is undertaken to ensure the price(s) are fair and reasonable (not too high). The cost realism analysis of the cost analysis is used to determine the most probable cost of performance for each Offeror (not too low). Although the Government has provided the labor categories and estimated hours, the price for a labor category may be unrealistic (too low), reflect a misunderstanding of requirements, (too high or too low) or indicate an inconsistency between performance and cost (can’t get that level of service at those prices).

Furthermore, cost and fee may also indicate the likelihood of non-performance (recruit and retain). Overall, the cost realism analysis is not an “evaluation” as much as it is an analysis that is used to determine the most probable cost and possible the risk of non-performance. Academically, it may be better to use the term “Cost Analysis” for the Cost Proposal rather than “Cost Evaluation” because the Cost Proposal is more analyzed than it is evaluated.

March 28, 2016 Page 17

51. Section M2.3 and M3 Past Performance and Source Selection Process

Section M2.3 (d) states that the Past Performance evaluation will include the past performance of the Offeror in complying with subcontracting goals.

Section M.3 (k) specifies the process of the Contracting Officer obtaining and negotiating a Small Business Subcontracting plan with the apparent awardee. Since this Plan must meet the goals set forth in J11, will the Government be evaluating an Offeror’s Cost Proposal to verify the Offeror has proposed Subcontractors in the required Designations and at the levels (percentages) specified in J11? Section M currently does not address this.

No. The Government is not evaluating the Cost Proposal against Attachment J11. However and although speculative, the Government cannot imagine how the small business plan will be accepted if it doesn’t bear a rational relationship to the Offer.

March 28, 2016 Page 18

52. Section M.3 (a) and (c) Evaluation of Cost Proposal

The Government indicated that it will consider awarding to other than the lowest priced offer and other than the highest technically rated. The Government also indicated that it will conduct a cost realism analysis to determine performance risk. Can the customer clarify the weighted factor of cost realism as compared to highest technically rated and lowest price? When compared to technical analysis, will the lowest price get a higher score or a lower score?

Cost and Non-Cost are not weighted. For example, it is not the case that Cost is worth 40% and Non-Cost is worth 60%. However, the Non-Cost Factors when combined are more important but not significantly more important than Cost.

In practice, the Government performs tradeoffs among the competing offers. The Government is not simply taking the lowest price technically acceptable offer and looking to see if other higher priced offers are worth the additional cost (i.e., this is not LPTA). The Government will tradeoff the non-cost factors and cost of each offer to determine which is the best value. In this case, the Government is stating that the Non-Cost Factors, when combined, are more important but not significantly more important than Cost. Likewise, the Government will not necessarily award to the most technically superior contract without considering the cost.

53. Section B and Attachment J1 Column O

The listed Worksheets include a column for each Labor Category labeled ‘Bill Rate’ which implies a Time and Materials (T&M) or Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FPLOE) type of contract. However, Section B of the contract indicates the award will be on a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Term basis. Please clarify contract type. If not T&M or FPLOE, please explain how the ‘Bill Rate’ will be utilized during execution of the contract.

The Government does not agree Section B or Attachment J1 implies a T&M or FPLOE type contract. “Bill Rate” has been amended to “Price”. See also Item 23.

March 28, 2016 Page 19

54. Attachment J1 The government pricing model is requiring the offeror to develop a total bill rate (total loaded labor rate through profit). Should this read “bid rate” versus “bill rate”?

See Item #53 and #23.

55. Attachment J1, Cell B3 Cell B3 is labeled ‘Contract Level (4) KEY Personnel’.

Since each labor category, whether Key or not Key, will have fee dollars assigned to it (see J1_Cost_Summary_Details_v3.xlsx, Columns M and N on the first five worksheets), what is the label in Cell B3 intended to convey?

We do not understand the reference to Cell B3.

56. Attachment J1 Why are there 2 separate groups of labor categories by WAR levels?

Because the Key Personnel apply to all Work Assignments whereas the other personnel may apply to one or more Work Assignments. It was really just to differentiate between Key Personnel and non-Key Personnel.

57. Attachment J1 Should the offeror add rows/hours for program functional support including security, contracts, subcontracts, finance?

The Government and interested parties discussed, and settled upon, the labor categories that may be required to perform the requirements of the Contract. Attachment J1 reflects the labor categories agreed upon. If an Offeror requires other direct costs (including labor) to perform the Contract, it shall propose such other direct costs as required by Section L (e.g., Section L6.1).

58. Attachment J1 and L.6.1 Page 47 states “Once the solicitation is issued in its final form, Offerors will not be permitted to alter the format or layout of the J1 provided”. The ability to add additional columns is required to cover items like Cost of Money, Fringe and other adders.

The Government modified the quoted statement to permit alterations to Attachment J1. Offerors may add columns to Attachment J1 to reflect other indirect costs (adders) as required to properly account for all components of cost. Please maintain the overall format and integrity of Attachment J1 to ensure consistency among the competing Offers and to assist the Government with a thorough and efficient analysis (evaluation) of the Cost Proposal (emphasis added).

March 28, 2016 Page 20

59. Attachment J1 a) Can the J1 pricing template be modified (by adding additional columns) to fit our standard accounting practices?

b) Additionally, can we modify the J1 template by adding additional pairs of rows (onsite and offsite) for any labor categories that an Offeror assigns hours to a Teammate/Subcontractor? For instance, if we assign hours to two Teammates in the Project Manager labor category, we would need to add two pair of rows under the original Project Manager labor category rows to show the pricing for those two teammates.

c) Can we also add a column entitled “Subcontractor Fully Burdened Cost” to the J1 Pricing template just before the columns for indirect rates? This would capture their total costs upon which the Prime then applies the correct burdens.

a) Yes, see Item #58.

b) Yes, see Item #58.

c) Yes, see Item #58 as well.

Again, the point is to have relatively consistent, completed Attachments J1 to assist the Government with evaluating/analyzing the Cost Proposal. Provide the information that is required to fully account for all costs (and fee) as required by Section L while preserving the overall format and integrity of Attachment J1.

60. Attachment J1 It is likely that an indirect rate structure that works for one contractor will be problematic to employ for others even within a given team. Would the Government consider providing the flexibility to adjust the columns for indirect rates as appropriate for the bidder, assuming all indirect rates are explained within the required cost narrative?

Yes. This question well states the Government’s intention with Attachment J1: adjust the columns and add/delete columns as necessary and appropriate for the Offeror while maintaining the overall integrity and purpose of having relatively similar Attachments J1. Cost Proposals with relatively similar formatting assist the Government with a thorough and efficient cost analysis/evaluation.

61. Attachment J1 Although the template provides a location to identify whether a Labor Category is provided by the Prime or a Subcontractor, it does not appear there is a way a Labor Category could be shared between companies on any given team. May the template be altered to split the Level of Effort of any Labor Category to reflect sharing between teammates, so long as the total hours supplied by the Government do not change?

Yes.

March 28, 2016 Page 21

62. Attachment J1 The Government-provided J1 template only has column for overhead. Can contractor modify the template by adding columns for burdens other than those shown?

Yes.

63. Attachment J1 The Government provided a list of labor categories to be proposed. Are we allowed to add labor categories beyond the list provided by the Government?

See Item #57.

64. Attachment J1 Question: The J1 template does not allow blending of the subcontractor and prime rates for the same labor categories. Will the Govt allow blending of rates?

Recommendation: We recommend revising the template to allow the contractors to blend multiple rates for the same labor category to establish one ceiling rate or allow contractors to add rows to propose multiple rates for the same labor category and allocating the total hours by subs and prime.

No.

65. Attachment J1 Will the Government please clarify if Offerors need to include each subcontractor name under the 'Company (Prime/Sub)' column or if only 'Sub' or 'Prime' needs to be include? If all subcontractor names are required, additional rows may need to be added to J1.

The name of the subcontractor must be included (e.g., the Government needs to verify the prime’s submission is consistent with subcontractor sealed packages).

Attachment J1 may be altered as set forth above and in Section L.

66. Attachment J1 Prime/Sub column. For the “Work Assignment Level” personnel (yellow), if an offeror is proposing personnel in one labor category from both the prime and subcontractors, should the line be duplicated (with total hours adjusted) to show how many of each labor category are from Prime and how many are from a Sub?

Yes, and see previous answers related to Attachment J1.

March 28, 2016 Page 22

67. Attachment J1 Will the Government please create a separate line for each FTE for each time period with a summation line for unique labor category? For example: The Project Manager On-site would have 7 lines each with 1880 hours with one summation line that sums up all 7 individual lines, and the Project Manager Off-site would have 1 line with 1880 hours. This would allow Offerors to propose different subcontractors with different salaries/indirect rates and allow the government evaluate all rates for reasonableness.

Additionally, it would allow the Government to match the prime’s submission with the subcontracts sealed packages.

An Offeror may alter Attachment J1 to reflect the staffing (i.e., prime/subcontractor name).

68. Attachment J1 Per the call out box on page 47, "If an interested party wished to have lines or columns added to the J1 for use during the solicitation phase, the Government requests that those additions be requested now, during this second draft." The following are suggestions to be included into J1 to accommodate an Offeror's cost buildup based on its approved accounting system and to also allow Offerors to accurately portray their proposed team in its entirety . . .

You may amend Attachment J1 as stated herein and in Section L.

69. Attachment J1 Will the Government please add four blank columns in addition to the existing columns already in the J1 attachment so Offerors can be compliant with the DCAA approved indirect rate pools? This is to account for Fringe Costs, Fringe %, material/subcontractor handling costs, and material/subcontractor handling %. Without these columns, Offerors are not able to account for all of their indirect costs.

You may amend Attachment J1 as stated herein and in Section L.

March 28, 2016 Page 23

70. Attachment J1 Are the plug values for Travel and ODCs in each Tab (worksheet) of J1 inclusive of an Offeror’s burdens?

Or are Offerors supposed to apply the appropriate burdens in the spreadsheet?

The stipulated amounts for ODC & Travel are not fully burdened. Offerors should apply their applicable burdens and show the fully burdened cost (no fee) for the stipulated ODCs and Travel.

71. Attachment J1 Will the Government please confirm the formula in cell L5, summary tab of attachment J1 is accurate?

Formula has been removed from J1

72. Attachment J1 Cost Summary Details And Section F4 Travel

Whereas Section F4 (Travel) specifically states that that the Contractor is not entitled to Fee (profit) on travel, we found no such language concerning fee on ODCs.

Are Offerors allowed to propose Fee on the ODC plug numbers in J1? If so, the shading in those cells should be removed.

The Contractor is not entitled to fee (profit) on the cost of travel or on the cost of stipulated amount for ODCs.

73. Attachment J2 In the J2 template, wA1 through WA7 for the base period in July is blacked out? Please explain why it is blacked out.

Work Assignments will begin, at the earliest, in September 2016. Only transition activities will be undertaken between the date of award and approximately September 8, 2016. Attachment J2 is amended to show WA0 – Transition Plan.

74. Attachment J2 Please confirm that the J2 template is not part of the pricing deliverable in the proposal and that it will be used after award to display fee by WAR.

Confirmed.

75. Attachment J2 Pricing required on J1 is not broken out by Work Area. Sheet J2 requires input of fee by month and Work Assignment. Is J2 to be completed upon award?

That is correct. The J2 template is provided for illustration purposes at this time and is not required to be submitted as part of the pricing deliverable in the proposal package.

The J2 will be used only after award and during the issuance of WARs, discussion of the WAR proposals, and issuance of the Work Assignments.

March 28, 2016 Page 24

76. Attachment J3 Labor Category Definitions

In this section, there are several labor categories that do not have minimum years of experience specified, while many do. These include Program Manager, Project Manager, Subject Matter Expert, Systems Architect, Engineer (only levels 1, 2 and 3), all Scientist levels, all Technician Levels, and Administrative Assistant.

Was this the government’s intent?

J3 has been modified to add education or experience for every labor category.

77. Attachment J3 Labor Category Definitions

Not all Labor Categories have minimum experience/requirements. Would the Government please add minimum qualifications for all Labor Categories to ensure all Offerors are assuming the same requirements?

J3 has been modified to add education or experience for every labor category.

78. Attachment J3 Several Labor Categories (PM, ProjMgr, SME, Systems Architect, Engineer 3, 2, 1 and Scientist 3, 2,

1) do not include Education and Experience Requirements, while the remaining 18 Labor categories do include these requirements (including the Chief Engineer (Engineer 5). Will the Education and Experience Requirements be added for all labor categories?

J3 has been modified to add education or experience for every labor category.

79. Attachment J3 Labor Category Definitions

Can experience be substituted for any of the education requirements?

J3 has been modified to add education or experience for every labor category.

March 28, 2016 Page 25

80. Attachment J.3 Labor Category Definitions

Scheduler 3 / Information Systems (IS) Operations Coordinator 3 There appears to be a conflict within the Definition/Description. In the body of the description it states “May require an associate's degree with 2-4 years of experience in the field or in a related area.” However, the last line of the description states, “Requires Bachelor’s degree in any field plus 10+ years’ experience.” Please clarify which years of experience offerors should use to propose staff.

Correction has been made to J3.

81. Attachment J.3 Labor Category Definitions

Scheduler 2/ Information Systems (IS) Operations Coordinator 2 There appears to be a conflict within the Definition/Description. In the body of the description it states “May require an associate's degree with 2-4 years of experience in the field or in a related area.” However, the last line of the description states, “Requires Bachelor’s degree in any field plus 6-10 years’ experience.” Please clarify which years of experience offerors should use to propose staff.

See Item #80.

82. Attachment J.3 Labor Category Definitions

Scheduler 1/ Information Systems (IS) Operations Coordinator 1 There appears to be a conflict within the Definition/Description. In the body of the description it states “May require an associate's degree with 2-4 years of experience in the field or in a related area.” However, the last line of the description states, “Requires Bachelor’s degree in any field plus 0-6 years’ experience.” Please clarify which years of experience offerors should use to propose staff.

See Item #80.

March 28, 2016 Page 26

83. Attachment J4 SOW, Section 2.4.1 Mission Systems and Operations Documentation

Section 2.4.1stipulates that “The Contractor shall prepare mission systems and operations documentation. “ One might infer that the Contractor would need to become intimately familiar with any or all system and subsystems to generate such documentation. Is it the Government’s intent to have the Contractor learn all operations or, like all other SOW items, to ‘support’ the development of operations documentation?

The language should be modified to state; “The Contractor shall support the preparation of ….”

Attachment J4 is modified.

March 28, 2016 Page 27

84. Attachment J4/SOW pgs.

14-15 Section 2.8 IT Security

The 3 March 2016 version of the SETS SOW removed the requirements for Radio Frequency Support (Paragraph 2.8.3, Radio Frequency Support in the January version of the SOW). However, the radio frequency support requirements remain within Attachment J7 Work Assignment #1 OCIO-S, Attachment J8 Work Assignment #2 GOES-R Ground System Maintenance and Sustainment Support, and Attachment J10 Work Assignment #4 OSGS Systems Engineering and Programmatic Support.

a) Is it the Government’s intention to remove the radio frequency requirements from all solicitation documents, to include each of the Work Assignment packages? Specifically:

J7_Work_Assignment_1_CIO_v1.pdf (Paragraph 2.1)

J8_Work_Assignment_2_GOES-R_v1.pdf (Paragraph 2.2.6)

J10_Work_Assignment_4_OSGS_v1.pdf (Paragraph 2.4.1)

b) If the radio frequency support tasking will be removed from all SETS RFP in their entirety, does the OCI statement made at Industry Day regarding RFIMS – “…any Contractor involved in performance of services under the SETS contract shall be precluded from consideration for award of any system, major components of and system, or any services which SETS contract helps develop, evaluate or administer” no longer apply to the RFIMS procurement?

Attachment J4 is amended. Radio Frequency support is included in the Statement of Work, see Attachment J4.

See the changes to the associated Work Assignment as well.

March 28, 2016 Page 28

85. Work Assignment #1, #2 and #4 require Radio Frequency Support however, Radio Frequency Support was removed from the J4 SOW. Will Radio Frequency Support be part of the SETS J4 SOW?

See Item #84.

86. Attachment J4/SOW pgs.

14-15 Section 2.8 IT Security

The Draft #1 SOW Section 2.8.3 was entirely removed from the Draft RFP #2 SOW. However, Work Assignments #1, 2, and 4 contain requirements for RF Support.

How does the Government intend to address RF support as a requirement in the overall SOW?

See Item #84.

87. Attachment J4, item 2.8 IT Security

Subsections 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 do not seem to flow from IT Security requirements.

Should these requirements be listed as 2.9 and 2.10?

Please review the modified J4.

88. Attachment J4 Statement of Work

Attachment J4’s Header erroneously reads “Attachment J5 – Statement of Work”. Header needs to be changed now to “Attachment J4 – Statement of Work”.

Header corrected.

89. Attachment J4 & J5 Will the Government please reconcile the following?

DRFP-2 Part III Section J reference and electronic file name refer to the J4 SOW but hardcopy reflects J5 SOW

DRFP-2 Part III Section J reference and electronic file name refer to the J5 NDA but hardcopy reflects J10 NDA

DRFP-2 Part III Section J reference, electronic file name, and hardcopy refer to the J10 Work Assignment OSGS but conflicts with hardcopy J10 NDA noted above Note – dependent on the final resolution, other changes may be required in the solicitation.

Corrected header in the SOW document Attachment J4.

Corrected header in the NDA form Attachment J5.

Attachment J10 header is correct as Work Assignment

OSGS.

March 28, 2016 Page 29

90. Attachment J5 Non- Disclosure…