ID01150067_Tab_9_Presolicitation_Conference_Q A_02-asked_and_answered_at_conference.pdf

ID01150067 – SETS

Draft Solicitation Questions, v2

January 26 January 26, 2016 Page 1

Note: Questions from v1 have been included, but have been sorted and renumbered so that they appear in the order of the Draft Solicitation.

Edits to v1 questions and answers are shown with strikethrough and blue font. Newly added questions and answers resulting from the Presolicitation Conference are shown in purple font.

Item Reference Question Response QD1 B.1, Page 2 Estimated and Allowable Costs (b) Payment of Fixed Fee:

This paragraph states the Government will determine, on a monthly basis, whether Contractor performance is satisfactory and whether the Contractor devoted the estimated level of effort. Since the work will be performed on a Work Assignment basis, what will the Government’s process be to determine the satisfactory level of effort? Will there be any flexibility in determining a satisfactory LOE, e.g., within a certain percentage of the effort?

Fee is earned by the hour. See also, inspection and acceptance clause, Solicitation Section E.

QD2 B.1, Page 2 Estimated and Allowable Costs (d) Allowable Costs: This paragraph of the contract will list the established indirect billing rates. Because a company’s established billing rates may change over time, is it possible to tie the established billing rates for purposes of this contract to the most current DCMA approved rates rather than listing the rates in the contract? That way, a modification will not be required every time there is a change.

Generally a memorandum for record handles the change in billing rates without need of modification.

QD3

QD11

C.1, Page 3 Section C is entitled "SOW" but points to Attachment J.6.

Attachment J.5 appears to be the base SOW. Section J calls Attachment J.6 "Anticipated Work Assignments." Should section C refer to J.5 only?

Section C is the SOW and the reference should be to Attachment J.5. This will be corrected in the Solicitation.

QD4

QD12

F.2, Page 6 The Period of Performance Schedule in the Solicitation paragraph F.2 is inconsistent with performance schedules provided in J.5 SOW Paragraph 1.3, and J.6.A-D.

Please see Item QD1. We are anticipating awarding the Contract in June 2016; however, all period of performance dates in the SOW will be aligned in the final solicitation.

January 26, 2016 Page 2

Item Reference Question Response

QD5

QD13

F.3 Solicitation paragraph F.3 indicates that travel may be required to Wallops VA, Fairmount WV and Fairbank AK. For planning purposes, can the Government provide the anticipated number of trips annually to each location?

The Solicitation will include a “plug” or stipulated dollar value for travel that offerors will burden with applicable indirect costs. The Solicitation may also include the anticipated number of trips per Contract Performance Periods if Interested Parties deem the information necessary to respond to the Solicitation and to be evaluated fairly in accordance with Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.

QD6 F.3 Since this requirement specifies that NESDIS is also responsible for performing similar work on cooperative missions with other United States Government agencies, foreign governments, and organizations, is there any traveling required by the Contractor? If so, with what agencies, where, and for how long?

Since we are using a plug number for travel for proposal purposes, we are unsure of the purpose of the question.

We know there is one position stationed in Germany.

QD7

QD14

F.3, Page 6 Paragraph F.3 says the Contractor must account for on-site and off-site rates. Attachment J.1 appears to have only columns for 1 rate. Should we add a separate worksheet for off-site rates?

Are Offerors allowed to manipulate Attachment J.1 to fit their standard accounting practices?

We should agree on a format for Attachment J.1, i.e., the Cost Details spreadsheet. The Government proposes Attachment J.1_v1, which will be improved upon before the final version is released for use. You must account for on-site (Government) and Off-Site (Contractor) rates.

No, you may not manipulate J.1. We want to see a standardized response format from all Offerors.

QD8 F.5, Page 7 Estimated Level of Effort: What is the expected turnaround time from the Contracting Officer’s Work Assignment Request for Technical Response and Estimate of Cost and Fee to adding the Work Assignment to the Contract?

The turnaround time would depend largely upon the size and scope of the Work Assignment Request (WAR). A reasonable period, depending on the complexity of the WAR.

January 26, 2016 Page 3

QD9 G.3, Page 9 Progress Reports: The Progress Report is to list each of the

Professional Personnel including Officials of the Contractor.

Would you please define “Professional Personnel” and “Officials?”

We will clarify this further.

QD10 G.3, Page 9 Progress Reports: The first Progress Report shall include a detailed work outline of the project and the Contractor’s phased planning of work by reporting period. Since the work will be performed on a Work Assignment basis, will the Government provide a projection of when and what will be procured by reporting period?

Yes, however, these details are better known during performance of the contract.

QD11

QD15

G.4 Solicitation paragraph G.4 defines the GFE provided to the contractor. Will desktops and/or laptops be provided to both on-site (Government site) and off-site (Contractor site) personnel?

The Government anticipates that it will provide all desktops/laptops for both on-site (Government site) and off-site (Contractor site) personnel. Accordingly, there is no requirement for offerors to price desktops/laptops for personnel who will be performing direct labor.

QD12 G.5, Page 9 Government Facilities: The Government may not have enough room at their facility for all contractor personnel.

For pricing purposes, will the Government please provide an estimate of what present of work should be proposed as Contractor Site?

The Solicitation will state the number of desk spaces that will be available on-site for Contractor use in the Government facility.

QD13 G.10, Page 12 Annual Performance Period Close-Out: The Contractor is to propose to the Contracting Officer the de-obligation of any funds in excess of the amount required to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred. It states: “The Contractor agrees that funds in excess of the amount it proposes are necessary to reimburse it for performance costs…” Please explain what this means?

We will re-word this paragraph to add clarity.

January 26, 2016 Page 4

QD14

QD16

H.3.(a), Page 14 This paragraph lists 4 Key Personnel categories. Attachment J.3 provides quantities for the 4 categories. How many key personnel are required to be submitted with the proposal?

How many key personnel for each of the provided Work Assignments (J.6.A-D)?

Paragraph H.3.(a) CAR 1352.237-75 - Key Personnel (Apr 2010) states: "The contractor shall assign to this contract the following key personnel: Program Manager; Project Manager; Subject Matter Expert; and Systems Architect."

Should "key personnel" actually read "key personnel labor categories"?

The Key Personnel categories may be applicable to each Work Assignment. Therefore, it is possible for there to be multiple Key Personnel performing under the Contract at any given time. We will discuss a fair method for determining the number of Key Personnel to be submitted with the Offer.

Let’s discuss.

The Government is considering how to address the Key Personnel requirement. Expect to see the decision in the second draft of the Solicitation.

QD15 H.3, Page 14 Would the Government consider confining the proposal Key Personnel requirements to those labor categories most relevant for managing the overarching contract, i.e.:

Program Manager (1) and Systems Architect or Chief Systems Engineer (1)? Additional Key Personnel labor requirements could then be specified at the time additional work assignments are identified.

We will consider this. The Government is considering how to address the Key Personnel requirement. Expect to see the decision in the second draft of the Solicitation.

QD16

QD28

J.1 J.1 Spreadsheet Tabs for Options 2 through 4 appear to be missing. We assume we can copy the Option 1 Tab and make the appropriate changes to name the option period in the spreadsheet tab?

We will correct the J.1 before the final version is released. Please see the Response to QD17.

QD17

QD29

J.1 The spreadsheet appears to have a typo on the Option 1 Tab. We assume "Base Period Total" annotated on the Option 1 Tab should read "Option 1 Total"?

We will correct the J.1 before the final version is released. Please see the Response to QD28 and

QD17.

January 26, 2016 Page 5

QD18

QD30

J.1 The Government has provided a fairly robust list of labor categories. However, it is our experience that there are additional skills that could be of benefit to the customers’ requirements

Input from industry is necessary to ensure the Solicitation allows for each offeror to propose its Staffing Plan but at the same time sets the baseline (levels the playing field) for evaluation of offers. Interested parties agreed at the Presolicitation Conference to send their recommended labor categories for the Government to consider. Please see the Response to QD8 and QD16.

QD19

QD31

J.3 The entry in the spreadsheet for “Engineer 3” indicates a 14 FTE estimate. Are these 14 FTE all “System Engineer (Aerospace)” or does the 14 apply (spread across) the GIS Specialist, Mechanical Design Engineer and the R&D Engineer? Similarly, are the 8 “Scientist 3” all “Astrophysicist” or does the 8 FTE spread across the other 4 categories under the Scientist 3 header? Are the 15 “Technician 3” personnel all Geospatial Intelligence Analysts (entry is off by one line)?

Columns B and C of J.3 were largely for the Government’s use in creating its cost estimate and will be removed from the Solicitation. The second draft solicitation will set forth the labor categories the Government requires offerors to propose using the J.4 definitions. We are waiting on interested parties to recommend other labor categories.

QD20

QD32

J.3 This spreadsheet provides a quantity for each labor category (labor categories provided correspond to J.1 Cost Summary Details). Is it the Government's intention for the Offeror to simply enter the quantity (total hours) for each labor category provided in J.2 in the "Quantity" column in J.1? Is one FTE = 1860 hrs/year?

Yes. The number of hours per labor category must be proposed. FTE counts are not necessarily the same among offerors. Cost realism analysis will adjust for an unrealistic number of hours per year but the number of hours in a year need not be leveled among offerors.

January 26, 2016 Page 6

QD21

QD8

J.3 – Level of Effort by Labor Category

Although multiple types of engineers and scientists are mapped to the “Engineer 3” and “Scientist 3” NOAA labor categories, the quantity only appears mapped to the initial OMB category. Does the Government expect the Engineers and Scientists to span all of the categories or only the first?

Will the Government allow a blended rate for each of these categories that takes into consideration a mix of the different OMB SOCs provided for previous contracts?

Input from industry is necessary to ensure the Solicitation allows for each offeror to propose its Staffing Plan but at the same time sets the baseline (levels the playing field) for evaluation of offers. The Government suggests all offerors bid the same number of FTE in the major OMD SOC but offerors propose their own staffing plan. Columns B and C of J.3 were largely for the Government’s use in creating its cost estimate and will be removed from the Solicitation. They are being removed for the second draft of the Solicitation.

QD22

QD9

J.3 – Level of Effort by Labor Category

At the bottom of table in Attachment J-3 there are a number of additional categories (e.g., Computer and Information Systems Managers) that do not have quantities. What is the purpose of these categories?

The purpose was for the Government to reference the OMD SOCs that were used. We may determine that those additional categories that do not have quantities are not required and therefore will not be included in the Solicitation.

The J.3 is being revised for the second draft of the Solicitation.

QD23 J.3 & J.5 J.5 details several IT Security Requirements. J.3’s labor categories do not seem to substantiate these requirements.

Does the Government intend to add these IT labor categories?

This will be addressed in the second draft of the Solicitation. See also, QD19.

QD24

QD1

J.5 - Statement of Work, Page 2 (1.3)

Under 1.3, the Period of Performance is indicated as March 7, 2016 through March 6, 2021. However, on page 6 of the Draft Solicitation, paragraph F.2, the base period is indicated from July 30 2016 through July 29, 2017. Please clarify which of these is correct.

We are anticipating awarding the Contract in time for a July 30, 2016 – July 29, 2017 base performance period. We will ensure the anticipated award date and Performance Periods are correct in the Solicitation. Please refer to the response to QD4 above.

January 26, 2016 Page 7

QD25

QD39

J.5 SOW Several processes, standards or documents are referenced in the SOW (e.g., SOW 2.1.2 (Configuration Control Process), SOW 2.1.3 (Government Risk Management Process), SOW

2.2.1 (Current SEP, Schedules and TPMs), SOW 2.2.5 (IRT Process), SOW 2.4.4 (Architecture Artifacts), SOW 2.8 (NIST, DoC, NASA and DHS Security Standard Documents)).

Provide all referenced documents in the Bidder’s Library.

Documents referenced in the SOW will be included as an attachment or as a link to the referenced document in the Solicitation.

QD26

QD40

J.5 SOW Reference CAR 1352.237-73 - Should contractors presume that all activities (data, technology and services) are NOT controlled on the US Munitions List (USML)/International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and therefore, defer to the Export Administration Regulations?

The response to this requirement will be addressed in the second draft Solicitation.

QD27

QD41

J.5 SOW Reference CAR 1352.237-73 - Should contractors presume that all interactions (CONUS or OCONUS) will be restricted to US Persons only? (Note: One exception is the requirement to get approval for foreign national access/participation)

The response to this requirement will be addressed in the second draft Solicitation.

QD28

QD42

J.5 SOW Reference CAR 1352.237-73- Does the Government intend to provide export exemption to permit contractors to exchange controlled technical data and perform defense services, if ITAR is applicable to resultant contract/scope of work?

The response to this requirement will be addressed in the second draft Solicitation.

QD29

QD43

J.5 SOW The requirement states the Contractor shall use the “Government furnished Configuration Management tools”.

Please define the CM tools to be furnished by the Government as well as associated SOPs.

The response to this requirement will be addressed in the second draft Solicitation.

January 26, 2016 Page 8

QD30

QD33

J.5 SOW J.5 SOW paragraph 2.1 defines the role of the project manager. From the description it seems that this is the Program Manager listed in J.3 and described in J.4.

Clarify whether this paragraph refers to the Program Manager that is listed as (1) in the J.3 "Level of Effort by Labor Category" attachment, or the Project Manager which is listed as 9 FTE in J.3.

The response to this requirement will be addressed in the second draft Solicitation.

QD31

QD34

J.5 SOW J.5 SOW Para 2.1 states that "the contractor shall designate an on-site Project Manager to coordinate day-to-day activities and to act as the technical interface to the COR.

The Project Manager and COR will be co-located." The Project Manager is listed as a Key Person in H3. J3 outlines 9 Project Managers. Are all 9 Project Managers designated as Key and collocated with the COR?

Please see Response QD14QD16.

QD32 J.5 SOW Numbering: Are subsections 2.8.1 and 2.8.3 part of 2.8?

Subsection 2.8.3 appears to be missing tasks (b) & (c). Text for subsection 2.9 seems to be missing.

We will review and correct numbering.

QD33

QD5

J.6 Anticipated Work Assignments

This section contains various anticipated work assignments.

What is the process for issuing new Work Assignments?

The Government will issue Work Assignments via a Work Assignment Request (WAR). A WAR is similar to a Task Order Request for Proposal whereby the Government issues the WAR and requests the Contractor to provide a Staffing Plan and, if required, to provide a detailed Technical Response to performing the requirements of the WAR. Recommend Solicitation language or use a facsimile of the Ordering Clause for ID/IQ contracts.

QD34

QD6

J.6 Anticipated Work Assignments

In the Anticipated Work Assignments, are the dates provided draft dates since they are not in agreement with the PoP in F.2?

Yes. The Anticipated Work Assignments are a very close approximation of the type of services the Contractor will provide. A Staffing Plan and a Technical Response to the anticipated Work Assignments are not required with the Offer.

January 26, 2016 Page 9

QD35 J.6A CIO SOO J.6 paragraph 1 states that three FTEs are required and all three are key personnel needing resumes, which appears to conflict with the key personnel clause of the RFP. Will the government allocate additional page count for these three resumes? Are they required with proposal delivery or at the time of the WA award?

The Solicitation does not require a proposal for the Work Assignments. The Work Assignments are representative of the type of services that will be required by the Contractor pursuant to the Contract.

QD36 J.6.A, J.6.B, J.6.C, J.6.D It is not clear if the Government is providing these Work Assignments (Task Orders) for informational purposes or if the Offeror is to provide either a technical/management or cost proposal against the requirements.

Please see Response QD35.

QD37 The Government response to the above question indicates that the work assignments in Attachments J.6 A-D are provided as representative of the type of work to be required pursuant to the contract and that no proposals for the work assignments are required. Can you please confirm therefore that offerors should use Attachment J5 SOW as the basis for developing their response to the Corporate Experience, Staffing and Cost proposals? Is it the Government’s desire that offerors should describe their experience managing an IDIQ of similar size and scope?

The SOW will be amended to include the anticipated Work Assignments thereby making it clearer that the anticipated Work Assignment are requirements of the Statement of Work and not separate task orders or contract. The desire of the Government is within the four corners of the Solicitation.

QD38

QD37

J.6B GOES-R SOW Please provide the definition of DPLH, and the estimated hours.

The Anticipated Work Assignments will be cleaned up and included in the Solicitation. See also Response QD35 and QD36.

QD39 J.6B The deliverable states that a task management plan is due within 10 days of receipt of each Task Objective Statement.

Could the Government further define this as “10 business days”?

Yes, we will further clarify whether it is business days or calendar days.

January 26, 2016 Page 10

QD40

QD38

J.6C OPPA SOW The telework paragraph appears to be a cut and paste from an existing BPA contract.

The Anticipated Work Assignments will be cleaned up. Telework is permissible and the terms will be detailed in the Solicitation, i.e., not in an anticipated Work Assignment. Please see response to QD35. Please see Responses QD37, QD36, and QD35.

QD41

QD2

K.6, Page 30 Section K.6 defines the NAICS code and small business size standard. Does the Government intend to provide small business contracting goals for this procurement?

Yes. The Small Business contracting goals for this procurement are found in NOAA Procurement Memorandum 2016-03 dated December 10, 2015 and will be incorporated into the Final Solicitation

QD42 K.6, Page 30 Is it the Government’s intention to use the Department of Commerce’s Fiscal Year 2015 goals for small business and socio-economic subcontracting for this procurement (Woman Owned, Small Business 30%; SDVOSB 3%, etc…)?

Please see response to QD41 above.

QD43

QD17

L.1, Page 39 Solicitation Section L, paragraph L.1, states that if subcontractors are proposed, cost information for each subcontractor shall be furnished in the same format and level of detail as prescribed for the prime offeror. Does this indicate that one version of "J.1 Cost Summary Details" should be provided for the prime contractor, and a separate J.1 Cost Summary Details spreadsheet provided for each subcontractor? Since the subcontractor will not share proprietary detailed cost data with the prime, will the Government accept subcontractor spreadsheets delivered in sealed packages?

One version of the J.1 Cost Summary Details should be provided for the prime contractor and any subcontractors. The data for those subcontractors who do not share their respective proprietary detailed cost data with the prime contractor will show the fully burdened rate. The proprietary data can be shown on separate sealed package from the subcontractor(s). The Solicitation will state that cost details are not required for subcontracts valued at less than the threshold for certified cost and pricing data. We can discuss a better format for the J.1 Cost Summary Details with the goal of having all offerors submitting substantially similar Cost Summary Details.

January 26, 2016 Page 11

QD44

QD7

L.1, Page 44, Subcontracts

The Government requires cost information for each subcontractor at the same level as for the prime. Does this apply to all subcontractors no matter what size, or only to subcontractors that fall over a specified cost threshold (e.g., significant subcontractors)?

What dollar value are you suggesting is a “significant subcontract”? What information would you (the prime) use to determine your subcontractor’s rates are fair and reasonable?

Please see the response to QD43 above.

QD45

QD18

L.3, Page 43 Solicitation paragraph L.6.1, first paragraph, indicates the Cost proposal consists of two parts (1) Cost Narrative and (2) Cost Details. Cost Narrative is limited to "(10) sequentially numbered pages." Can we assume the Cost Details provided in Excel and PDF have unlimited page count?

Yes, but the format and details provided should be substantially the same among offerors and contain only the numbers and formulas used to develop the estimated cost and fixed fee. It is anticipated the cost will be comprised of direct labor, applicable burdens, stipulated, estimated cost of travel, any Other Direct Costs, and fee (profit). The cost details provided in Excel and PDF will not have unlimited page count. The contents of the Excel file should be limited only to mathematical calculations and formulas.

Textual explanations of cost should be completed in the Cost Narrative only. You may not put text boxes in the Excel spreadsheet as a means of supplementing the Cost Narrative in excess of the page limits.

QD46

QD19

L.6.1 Solicitation paragraph L.6.1 specifies that the basis of estimate is restricted to three comparable contracts, which must have been performed in the Washington DC area. This requirement severely restricts a contractor's ability to cite a highly relevant program that may have been performed in another geographic region. We recommend deleting the "Washington DC area" requirement.

The purpose of the Comparable Contracts is to assist the Government in determining the realism of the proposed labor cost. The price of labor in the Washington, DC area may be different than the price of labor in another area and therefore not a good basis to determine the proposed labor rates (salaries) is realistic.

January 26, 2016 Page 12

QD47 L.6.1, Page 43 Section L.6.1 states: The Offeror shall include in its Cost

Narrative and Cost Details: Direct Labor – 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. A “Comparable Contract” is being performed currently or has been completed within the past three (3) years, is similar in scope to the requirements of this Solicitation, and is being performed or was performed in the Washington, DC area (the “Comparable Contracts”).

Would the Government consider allowing Offerors to utilize salary survey data (ERI, salary.com) as an alternative to establish the basis for direct labor rates?

The Comparable Contracts help the Contracting Officer evaluate whether the cost is realistic. The Comparable Contracts data is not evaluated by the Government.

QD48

QD20

L.6.1.a, Page 43 In Section L.6.1.a, the Government is requesting Bidders to provide estimated cost of direct labor for three (3) Comparable Contracts as a basis for the estimated cost for similar in scope to the requirements of this Solicitation…” In accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1 Proposal analysis techniques, if the Government is attempting to perform a Price Analysis on Bidders cost proposal, without requiring submitting certified cost or pricing data, the Government should be comparing/evaluating the overall price proposed to overall historical prices paid by the Government for similar scoped efforts, rather than evaluating/comparing individual cost or profit elements of a given proposed price.

The Government will perform Cost Analysis for this cost type contract. The Comparable Contracts will show the historical cost of labor in the Washington, DC area for performing services similar to the SETS requirement.

QD49 L.6.1, Page 44 Would the Government consider providing an annual plug number for all ODC’s delineated under “Other Costs”?

No, we will provide an annual plug number just for travel. Other Direct Costs that an offeror requires to perform the contract shall be included in the Cost Proposal.

QD50 L.6.2, Pages 44-45 Within Sections L.6.2, the Government has identified Parts B1 through B4 and B6. Does the Government intend to add a Part B5 to the response requirements?

Yes we will be fixing the numbering of these sections accordingly.

January 26, 2016 Page 13

QD51

QD21

L.6.2, L.7 Solicitation paragraph L.7 states that "the last page of the Non-Cost Proposal which will necessarily be a Natural Number less than or equal to “31”." However, the page counts defined for the Non-Cost Proposal in paragraph L.6.2 equal "39".

"Section L.7 contains text that reads “…until the last page of the Non-Cost Proposal which will necessarily be a Natural Number less than or equal to “31”. The page counts listed in L.6.2 indicate that the total page count should be “39”. Are there sections referenced in L.6.2 that do not count against the page limits?

Corporate Experience: 15 pages Key Personnel Qualifications: 6 pages Management Capability: 8 pages (Staffing Plan 5 pages + Transition Plan 3 pages) Past Performance: 10 pages 15 + 6 + 8 + 10 = 39

The Solicitation will be carefully reviewed before it is issued and will (hopefully) be free from errors.

QD52 L.6.2(b), Page 45 Recommendation – Regardless of the number of key personnel proposed, recommend that the Government change the requirement to reflect no more than 2 pages per resume as opposed to a total page restriction for the section.

The Government may change the page count once it determines the requirements relating to Key Personnel.

QD53

QD3

L.6.2 (c), page 45 Under (c) Management Capability, (1) Staffing plan asks that the bidder detail the labor categories and Education, Knowledge, Skills and Abilities of each Labor Category.

Given that the total number and type of Work Assignments are not yet known, are these labor categories and staffing levels the same as provided in Attachment J-3?

Yes. It is anticipated that offerors may have different names for the J-3 labor categories and different levels within each category; however, the number of FTE must be proposed.

Interested Parties are requested to suggest Solicitation language for this requirement.

January 26, 2016 Page 14

QD54

QD4

L.6.2 (c), Page 45 Under (c) Management Capability, (2) Transition Plan, the Government requests major components and milestones of the Transition Plan. For the purposes of developing the Transition Plan, will the Government provide a list of the predecessor contracts that will be transitioned after award of SETS, and the approximate transition start date(s)? Also, will the Government provide guidance regarding the anticipated length of the contract transition?

Presently, all work being performed by Noblis will be performed by the SETS contractor. As existing NOAA contracts end, they may be added to the SETS contract. The Transition Plan will be evaluated only as it relates to work being performed by Noblis and as identified in the Solicitation.

The transition start date will be upon award. The Offer will propose the length of the Transition Plan and the length of the Transition Plan is a consideration under the Management Capability evaluation factor for award.

QD55 L.6.2 (c), Page 45 The response to the above question (previously numbered as QD4) appears to limit the information that will be available to the Government evaluators in considering the quality of offerors’ transition plans. Given the likelihood of future work assignments involving other tasks and incumbents, would the Government consider revising its requirements to focus more generally on Offerors’ transition methodologies, plans and practices? If not, will the Government provide additional information on Noblis’ current work to assist Offerors in detailed transition planning?

We are considering both: we may change the evaluation factor for the transition plan or we may provide full details of what will need to be transitioned at the time of award.

January 26, 2016 Page 15

QD56 L.6.2(d),Page 45 Given the complexity and breadth of the SOW, would the

Government consider increasing the number of past performance citations to 5, with additional citations for significant subs (defined as sub priced at greater than 5% of total labor costs)?

If the Government agrees with the above increase, would the Government consider increasing the page count to 4 pages per citation?

No.

N/A

QD57 L.6.2, Page 45 Does the current Noblis contract provide all of the services contemplated under the SETS contract? Can the Government provide the number of FTE’s supporting NOAA requirements under the current NOBLIS contract?

We do not understand how this question relates to the requirements of the Solicitation or will assist offerors in drafting a proposal.

QD58

QD22

L.6.2.a, Page 44 Is it the Government’s intent that the proposal section entitled “Corporate Experience (Part B1)” shall describe the offeror’s approach to deliver services defined in Attachment J.5, SOW, or that the offeror shall describe its approach to how it will deliver services for each of the Work Assignment defined in Attachments J.6A-J.6D? If the latter, we recommend that the page count be increased from 15 pages to 30 pages to fully address the scope of the program requirements.

No. Section L.6.2.a does not request the offeror to state its “approach to deliver the services defined . . .”. Section L.6.2(a) requires the offeror to (1) Detail the services proposed for this Solicitation; (2) Detail its corporate experience performing services that are similar to the scope and magnitude of the services proposed for this Solicitation; and (3) Detail how its corporate experience relates the services proposed for this Solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Corporate Experience to assess (1) the understanding of Government requirements; (2) the quality of the proposed services; and, (3) the likelihood of successfully performing the prospective Contract.

January 26, 2016 Page 16

QD59

QD23

L.6.2.c Page 45 The Government identifies the requirement for a Transition Plan. However, no time frame for the Transition Period is provided. Please provide a time frame for the transition period.

The Transition Plan is included in the evaluation of the Management Capability. The duration of the Transition Plan is necessarily part of the Management Capability and is therefore unique to the offeror.

QD60

QD24

L.6.2.c Page 45 Will the Transition Period be considered a separate contract?

No. What is the benefit to the offerors, the Contractor, and the Government if the Transition Plan were considered a separate contract?

QD61

QD25

L.6.2.c Page 45 Are there no requirements to describe how the contract and team will be organized and managed to perform the SETS tasking?

The Government believes this is part of Corporate Experience and Management Capability.

QD62 L.6.2(c)(1), Page 45 J.5 details several IT Security Requirements. J.3’s labor categories do not seem to substantiate these requirements.

Does the Government want the Offeror to detail the staffing plan for the entire SOW (J.5), or based solely on J.3 labor count?

Interested Parties are requested to provide additional labor categories that they believe are required to perform the contract.

QD63

QD26

L.6.2.d, Page 45 Solicitation paragraph L.6.2 (d) states "not more than two

(2) current contracts" for Past Performance citations. Given the extensive nature of the requirements in the SOW J.5 and Work assignments in J.6, this seems restrictive.

The Government is not sure how more contracts is less restrictive than fewer contracts. If an offeror has no relevant past performance record, it will receive a neutral rating.

QD64

QD44

L.6.A, Part A, Page44 The Cost Narrative portion of the Cost Proposal is limited to 10 sequentially numbered pages. Offeror’s are to include evidence of accounting system adequacy as an attachment to the Cost Narrative, with a limit to three pages. Do these 3 pages count against the 10 page limit for the Cost Proposal (Part A)?

No. The evidence of an adequate accounting system is not included in the page count. The Government may require a Government approved accounting system in the final solicitation. The Solicitation will state that a Government-agency approved cost accounting system is required.

January 26, 2016 Page 17

QD65

QD45

L.6.1 and Attachment J.1

Attachment J.1 includes a column for ‘Bill Rate.’ Will this ‘Bill Rate’ become a ceiling rate on the awarded CPFF contract? How will this ‘Bill Rate’ be evaluated?

Only those costs proposed are subject to Cost Realism analysis. Therefore, only the costs proposed and awarded are per se an allowable cost of the contract, the effect of which is a ceiling rate. The Government accepts that some direct costs may be an estimate of that same cost; however, the burden will be on the Contractor to prove an actual cost is reasonable, and therefore allowable, if an actual cost exceeds the “Bill Rate”. See also, J.1_v1

QD66

QD46

L.6, Page 42 Paragraph L.6 identifies what pages of the proposal are included in the page count. Is it permissible to include a table of acronyms/glossary and a cross reference table in the proposal that will not be included in the page count?

Let’s discuss what other information offerors would like to provide with their respective offers. The Solicitation will state that a table of acronyms/glossary and a cross reference table will not be included in the page count.

QD67

QD27

M.2.3.C, Page 51 Solicitation paragraph M.2.3.c evaluation criteria do not include evaluation of the offeror's Transition Plan.

The Transition Plan will be evaluated as part of the Management Capability.

QD68

QD10

General Will the NOAA SETS contractor support source selection of Pro Tech IDIQs? What Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) approach would be acceptable to NOAA for a contractor that supports both SETS and Pro Tech?

Please restate this question. Are you asking whether the SETS Contractor may be precluded by an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) from performing task orders against the ProTech ID/IQ contract? Other potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest may arise for future NOAA work as well and must be identified as early in the acquisition process as possible.

The NOAA SETS contractor is likely to be involved in some capacity in the ProTech contract. Organizational Conflicts of Interest are addressed on a case-by-case basis.

QD69 General Will the awardee of the SETS contract be limited in the Pro- Tech Satellite Domain contract due to potential OCI?

It is possible but every OCI is handled on a case-by-case basis.

January 26, 2016 Page 18

QD70 General With no specified response to the SOW required, how will the Government evaluate the offeror’s ability to satisfy the Government’s requirements?

Recommendation: Delineate the requirement to address capability to meet the SOW requirements under Corporate Experience and expand the page count to a maximum of 40 pages.

The Government does not agree that “no specified response to the SOW (is) required.”

QD71 General How will the contractor’s process(es) and procedure(s) for initiating and managing new subcontracts, vendor agreements, purchasing agreements, etc, and the resultant reporting requirements, be captured in the RFP in order to fully account for the degree of subcontracting expected in this procurement. Specifically, where in Section L is the requirement and where in Section M is the evaluation method stated that will capture this element of the procurement?

Recommendation: Expand Section L.6.2c to include these processes and procedures, and delineate in Section M.2.3.C(2) that “the quality of proposed services” includes the quality of the Contractor’s process(es) and procedure(s) for initiating and managing new subcontracts, vendor agreements, purchasing agreements, etc…

The Solicitation will include additional language that Management Capability includes an assessment of the process(es) , etc. for subcontracts and purchasing agreements.

January 26, 2016 Page 19

QD72 General Will the SETS contract contain SETA-similar requirement for supporting such project functions as earned value management, risk assessment, configuration management, etc?

If so, are there any potential conflicts foreseeable with system engineering quasi development / incremental enhancement requirements or test and integration activities?

If so, how will they be mitigated, or will they?

The Government suggests the SOW be reviewed.

QD73 General How well documented are the current flight and ground systems?

Very well documented.

QD74 General Since the requirement specified the following:

These Systems include computers, communications, Radio Frequency (RF) equipment and the associated hardware and software.

These Systems include those yet to be built and existing systems requiring maintenance, upgrades the physical infrastructure supporting the Systems.

The question is not clear. Please rephrase.

QD75 General Under the guides of the sustainment requirement for the SETS contract, will there be contractor tasks requiring hardware fabrication, software customization, equipment builds, including testing & systems integration; and / or acquisition of special hardware, equipment or services?

Please specify how the answer to this question will assist with submitting a proposal?

QD76 General What are the current hardware and software specifications? Please specify how the answer to this question will assist with submitting a proposal?

QD77 General What are the required upgrades for the current specifications?

Please specify how the answer to this question will assist with submitting a proposal?

QD78 Corporate Experience Can team members experience be included in the overall Corporate Experience?

Yes

January 26, 2016 Page 20

QD79 Transition Period During the conference and through the question response, you stated that you would not give a time frame for transition, as that is one of the factors that will be evaluated. At the same time, the only contract that will be used for transition plan is Noblis’ contract. My concern is that this gives an unfair competitive advantage to Noblis, since they can literally state that transition will take zero days. No other offeror can beat that.

I have seen with other customers mandate a 30-60 day window for transition, which then allows each offeror to pick an amount of time they think they can do it in, and why. Would you consider promulgating a transition window timeframe?

The Government does not agree that Noblis has an unfair competitive advantage. The Government will evaluate the transition plan in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

QD80 Slides 12-16 (OCI) and Slide 71 (General Activities) of Pre- Solicitation Slide Package

The OCI section (slides 12-16) of the pre-solicitation conference slide package is pretty explicit that contractors that develop ground systems for NOAA/NESDIS would have an OCI situation if they participate on a winning SETS bid, however, the General Activities (slide 71) seems to imply that the SETS contractor will provide “Architecture to Design to Implementation”. These activities normally fall to the development contractor which contradicts the slides regarding OCI. Please clarify if the SETS contractor will or will not be developing new ground system components for

NOAA/NESDIS.

The SETS contractor will not be developing new ground systems or components for

NOAA/NESDIS.