M00264-12-R-0002 Amendment 0004.rtf

file_0.wmf file_1.wmf

M00264-12-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

RESPONSES TO Q&A

Responses to Industry Questions For “Engineering, Analytical, Technical, and Business Services for the MCWL”

1.

Reference: C-4.3.1

Question: This section states that the contractor is not required to provide off-site services to MCWL events. Will the government allow some of the On-Site support be done remotely via non-resident workers?

ANSWER: No.

2.

Reference: C - 5.2.6.1

Question: This section requires support at Camp Pendleton, CA and Camp Lejeune, NC for I MEF and II MEF respectively. Is this going to be resident support at the Headquarters staff building or will other office space be made available to the contractor?

ANSWER No; resident support will not be in the Headquarters staff building. Space will be available at the following locations:

Commanding General Command General I Marine Expeditionary Force 11 Marine Expeditionary Force Building 210702, Rm 118 Building H1, Rm 2CS-53 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055 Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-00866

Reference: C - 5.4.3

Question: Is it a requirement of MCWL that a member of the contractor’s team be a Partnership Intermediary to the Military so as to facilitate the most beneficial solutions to the overall team?

ANSWER: No.

4.

Reference: C - 5.4.6.2

Question: This section states “Specific expertise must include, but is not limited to, first-hand experience with operations and maintenance with USMC UASs”. Please clarify if "first-hand" experience also extends to the original equipment manufacturers, engineers and designers of these platforms?

ANSWER: Yes, first-hand experience does extend to the original equipment manufacturers, engineers and designers of these platforms but it is not part of the core function of operation & maintenance.

5.

Reference: Section L- Instructions to Offeror, Technical Volume I, Factor 3: Past Performance, Pgs. 89 & 90 of 95.

Question: The RFP states," The offeror must address (1) the relevant background and experience of Key Personnel, in matrix form, that shows their related experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements who will be assigned to the contract; (2) The relevant background and experience of the non-key personnel in direct support of the PWS, showing experience, expertise, qualifications, and direct correlation to the PWS requirements." Is there a matrix template the government would like us to use to provide this information?

ANSWER: No, there is not a matrix template provided by the Government.

6.

Reference: Section L- Instructions to Offeror, Technical Volume I, Factor 3: Past Performance, Pgs. 89 & 90 of 95.

Question: There does not appear to be a requirement to submit past performance for significant subcontractors. Can past performance for subcontractors be included with this response? If so, will the number of past performance references remain the same or will there be an increase in the number of references requested?

ANSWER: The requirement is for the offeror to submit at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance involving the quality of performing the same or similar service within the last five (5) years. At least two (2) of the references must reflect past performance for the contracts for which the Offeror has served as the prime contractor. However, additional references could be provided where the subcontractor served as a prime.

7.

Reference: Section H- Special Contract Requirements, H-1 Key Personnel, H-1.2, Pg. 57.

Question: The RFP states” Key Personnel are understood to be those four (4) individuals for whom resumes were submitted and evaluated as part of the technical proposal submission…”. In what section of the RFP are key personnel labor categories listed?

ANSWER: See H-1.2, page 90 under factor 4.

8.

Reference: Section L- Instructions to Offeror, Technical Volume II – Business Volume, Pg. 90.

Question: The instructions dictate a page limit of 25 pages for the Business Volume; however, the requirements direct respondents to include backup material documentation in support of labor category rates. (1) Will the backup documentation be counted in the 25 page limit? (2) Is the Government requesting backup documentation to support the proposed base labor rate or is it the expectation that backup documentation supporting the base labor rate and applicable indirect will be provided. (3) Should the backup materials required be included as an attachment or addendum that does not count against the page limit?

ANSWER: 1. Yes, backup documentation will be counted in the 25 page limitation.

2. Yes, the Government is requesting the backup documentation to support the base labor rate.

3. Backup materials should be provided within the 25 page limit for Business Volume II.

Reference: Page 57 of 95, Section H-1.2, Key Personnel: The RFP states: “Key personnel are understood to be those four (4) individuals for whom resumes were submitted and evaluated as part of the technical proposal submission. Key personnel are required to provide support for the following areas:

- Operations Division: LNO Support – I MEF

- Operations Division: LNO Support – II MEF

- Operations Division: Experimental Synthesis Support

- Operations Division: Network Administration and Development Support – Senior Position.”

9. Question: Please provide the location where the resumes of the Key Personnel identified in Section H-1.2 above should be located in the Offeror’s proposal response.

ANSWER: Key personnel resumes will be included with the Technical Volume.

10. Question: Do the resumes of Key Personnel count against the page limitations of the volume?

ANSWER: No, Key Personnel resumes do not count against the page limitations.

Reference: Page 88 of 95, Section L, #4: RFP states: “11x14 inch for foldouts, matrixes, WBS”.

11. Question: Can the Offeror submit foldouts on 11x17 inch paper, which is the standard paper size for foldout presentation?

ANSWER: No, the required size for foldouts is 11 x 14 for foldouts.

12. Question: Will each 11x17 inch foldout page count as two (2) pages?

ANSWER: The required format is for 11x 14 inch foldouts, matrixes, WBS. 11 x 17 is not acceptable. Each 11 X 14 will count as one (1) page.

13. Question: Is the Offeror to provide a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in their proposal response?

ANSWER: No, this solicitation has a Performance Work Statement which does not require a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). It does require that your proposal demonstrate your capability to meet all requirements in the Performance Work Statement.

Question: If yes, please provide the location/section where the WBS should be located in the Offeror’s proposal response.

ANSWER: If submitted, this should be in the technical volume.

Reference: Page 88 of 95, Section L-4, Proposal Format: The RFP states: “In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD.”

14. Question: Should the Offeror provide both volumes on one (1) CD or a separate CD for each Volume; total of two (2) CDs for submission?

ANSWER: Both volumes shall be on one (1) CD.

Reference: Page 89 of 95, Section L, #4: RFP states: “The offerors technical proposal shall not exceed 90-pages, which includes the Letter of Transmission, Table of Contents and Compliance Matrix; Technical Capability, Performance Execution and Management, and Past Performance Factors.”

15. Question: Do Title Pages count against the page limits set forth in the RFP for both the Technical and Business volumes?

ANSWER: Yes, Title pages count against the limits of the RFP, for both the Technical and Business volumes.

Reference: Page 90 of 95, Section L, Factor 3. Past Performance: RFP states: “Offeror will provide at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance involving the quality of performing the same or similar services within the past five (5) years. At least two (2) of the references must reflect past performance for contracts for which the Offeror has served as the prime contractor.

16. Question: In reference to the use of the word “Offeror” in the above RFP extraction, can the proposed Prime submit one (1) relevant contract reference where they served as a prime contractor and allow the Prime’s proposed major subcontractor to submit one (1) relevant contract reference where they served as a prime contractor to support the criteria set above of “at least two (2) of the references must reflect past performance for contracts where they have served as prime contractor”?

ANSWER: No, Offeror will provide at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance involving the quality or performing the same or similar services within the last five (5) year. At least two (2) of the references must reflect past performance for contracts for which the Offeror has served as the prime contractor. A third reference could be from a subcontractor who previously served as a prime.

Reference: Page 90 of 95, Section L, Factor 3. Past Performance: First paragraph, the RFP states: ““Offeror will provide at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance …” and in next paragraph the RFP states “In addition, Offerors should provide the enclosed Past Performance Questionnaire to the same three (3) previous references.”

17. Question: Based upon the two statements in reference to Factor 3, Past Performance, please clarify how many Past Performance Questionnaires are to be submitted when the Offeror is allowed to submit more than three (3) references. For example, if the Offeror submits a total of five (5) contract references, which meet all the criteria set forth in the RFP, are we required to submit a total of five (5) PPQs that are representative of one (1) PPQ per contract reference.

ANSWER: The Offeror shall provide at least three (3) references demonstrating relevant past performance involving the quality or performing the same or similar services within the last five (5) year. At least two (2) of the references must reflect past performance for contracts for which the Offeror has served as the prime contractor. There should be a minimum of three (3) Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by three different companies. There is no maximum number that may be submitted within the page limits for the technical volume.

Reference: Page 91 of 95, Section L, Factor 4. Price: The RFP states: “Staff positions based upon contingency hires must include a signed letter of offer/acceptance in the Business Volume …”

18. Question: Do the signed letters of offer/acceptance count against the 25 page limit for the Business Volume?

ANSWER: Yes.

Reference: Attachment 2, NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST FOR N00024-12-R-0002 ACQUISITION.

19. Question: The provided Attachment 2, NDA, does not have the correct acquisition number. Should the Offeror fix the reference to the acquisition number to M00264-12-R-0002? Is the Offeror to submit signed NDAs by the proposed personnel with their submission? If so, where should these NDAs be provide and are they included in the page limitations of the volume?

ANSWER: A revised Individual Non-Disclosure Agreement will be attached as an amendment to the solicitation. The NDA will be submitted by the awardee only. It is included with the solicitation document for informational purpose at this time.

Reference: Sections C-5.2.3 and C-5.2.4, page 18/19 of 95:

20. Question: The PM's duties will be "dual hatted" ...." Is it the government’s intent to dual-hat the Program Manager as a Program Manager and as a Public Affairs Officer?

ANSWER: Yes. This position is that of a Program Management/Public Affairs Support.

Reference: Section C-5.2.4, page 19 of 95:

21. Question: Is the government’s intent to dual-hat the Multi-Media position as a Public Affairs Officer and provide Multi-Media Graphic designing?

ANSWER: Yes. This position is that of a Public Affairs Support/Multi-Media Graphic Design.

Reference: Page 57 of 95, Section H-1.2:

22. Question: Is the government’s intent for Key Personnel to be limited to the following: LNO Support - I MEF, LNO Support - II MEF, Experimental Synthesis Support, and Network Administration & Development Support (Senior) within the Operations Division?

ANSWER: Yes.

Reference: Page 47, (the government’s) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Section 2, bullet 2.

23. Question: (the COR will) “Document Contractor performance in accordance with the QASP and the approved Contractor Quality Plan (QP)”. Is the “Contractor Quality Plan” on page 47 the same as the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) required on page 91, Factor 2? If not, please describe the expected scope of the contractor Quality Plan.

ANSWER: No. The contractor is required to provide a Quality Plan in accordance with the QASP. See section 2.2, page 46 of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

Reference: Page 43, section c, 7.2 ; Page 46 section e, 7.1; Page 47, section 2, bullet 2; Page 62, H-9.1; Page 91, Factor 2; Page 94, Factor 2.

24. Question: Please clarify references to the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) as “government QASP” or “contractor QASP”.

ANSWER: Referenced Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan should be construed as Government and states that surveillance of contractor performance is the method used by the Government to determine whether the contractor is effectively and efficiently complying with all terms and conditions of the contract. Factor 2 references the evaluating of each offeror’s performance execution and management capability as it relates to the offeror’s understanding of … Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

Reference: Page 91, Factor 2 states:

25. Question: “The proposal shall clearly address the Offeror’s understanding of the following performance and management capabilities: (1) How the offeror will perform contract management, modification management, subcontractor interaction and management, Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and OCI Mitigation Plan; Does this mean the offeror shall demonstrate understanding of the government’s QASP? Does this mean the offeror is writing a contractor QASP demonstrating an understanding of quality assurance surveillance planning the contractor will conduct to mirror the government’s quality assurance surveillance planning?

ANSWER: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate an understanding of the Government’s OASP which is the basis for assessing overall performance. The offeror is preparing a Contractor Quality Plan that demonstrates the understanding of the Government’s QASP.

26. Question: Will overall experience be accepted in lieu of education?

ANSWER: No, overall experience will not be accepted in lieu of education.

27. Question: Please verify that a signed offer / acceptance is required and NOT a letter of intent or a letter of commitment for 4 key personnel. Should we need a signed offer, we will need our Key Person to sign an offer after he has applied for the position, etc. The offers should be generic not to include financials or we can have the real offer signed and then “black out” the specifics regarding salary, benefits, PTO, etc.

ANSWER: Yes, a signed offer/acceptance is required as stated. However, you can black out any specifics on salary information.

Reference: Page 91:

Completeness. The Offeror must sign the SF1449, acknowledge all amendments, and include a compliance matrix and Table of Contents corresponding to their proposal submission. At a minimum, the following areas must be addressed:

-Offer is valid for 90 days from (Date of Submission);

-No exception to any Terms and Conditions has been taken, or if so, clearly cited;

-Acknowledge any amendments to the RFP;

-CCR validated / NAICS 541990 compliant;

-Signed Offer of $XXXXXXX for BY/ 2-Options provided;

-CLIN pricing and supporting documentation is provided;

-Staff positions based upon contingency hires must include a signed letter of Offer/acceptance in the Business Volume

Reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be based on competition received and/or Government Estimate.

Section L (4), Factor 4. Price – Incidental Services

28. Question: The labor categories identified in the table for CLINS 0102 and 0202 combine functions that are not comparable in duties or pay scale, and therefore, place significant risk on the contractor with respect to covering the costs associated with supporting the requirements. We respectfully request a redistribution of labor categories to separate the Engineer/Scientific/Program Management functions.

ANSWER: No. The requirement of combined functions for labor categories identified in the table for CLINS 0102 and 0202 are for the option year’s incidental services which have not been redistributed.

Reference Section L (4), Factor 4. Price – Incidental Services

29. Question: The labor categories identified in the table for CLINS 0102 and 0202 separate the Scientific and Research Analysts into distinct labor functions. This appears to be in conflict with Sections C-6.4 and C-6.5, which provide for Senior Engineer/Analyst and Engineer/Analyst labor categories. Please consider combining the two disciplines into a single Incidental Services labor category, or offer guidance on the preferred approach to cross-walking the positions.

ANSWER: No, the labor categories will not be combined. CLIN 0102 is for incidental Services, with instructions that the table in Section L, Factor 4 entailed “Price” shall be filled in by the Contractor. As stated in Section L, Volume II, Factor 4, the offeror shall complete the firm fixed-priced CLIN’s 0001, 0101 and 0201 for support service to include supporting documentation that includes labor categories, fully burdened labor rates and labor hours. Incidental Services, are firm fixed-priced labor hour CLINS. Clause 52.216-31m, Time and Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements-Commercial Item Acquisition, incorporated by reference, applies only to those CLINs, as the Government contemplates a Firm Fixed-Price and Labor Hour type of contract.

The requirement for educational/experience under C-6.4, Sr. Engineer/Analyst is higher than that requirement listed under 3-6.5 Engineer/Analyst.

Reference: Page 39 of 97, Labor Categories Section C – 6.1.1, RFP states: “...The following Sample Labor Categories represent an estimate of the scope of support that will be required. “

30. Question: Are the labor categories listed in Section C – 6 the only labor categories authorized?

ANSWER: No. Contractor can propose equivalent labor categories as long as it is clear that the functions coincide with the stated labor categories.

31. Question: When I read 52.219-1 (a) (2) and (a) (3), I am not sure which applies to this solicitation. Is the small business size $7.0M or 500 employees? Thank you.

ANSWER: 52.219-1

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541990.

(2) The small business size standard is $7.0.

32. Question: Can you provide the name of the incumbent contractor?

ANSWER: Chenega Federal Systems, LLC.

33. Question: Can you provide the current contract number and the current contract value?

ANSWER: M00264-07-D-0001 is the current contract with a value of $34,377,352.89 for a five (5) year period of performance.

34. Question: Does the current incumbent contractor have the ability to bid the current solicitation?

ANSWER: All 8(a) contractors are eligible to submit proposals. But Chenega Federal Systems, LLC, does not have 8(a) status

35. Question: Can you confirm the current number of Full Time Employee’s?

ANSWER: There are currently 40 FTEs.

Reference: Clearance Requirements - Sections C-5.2.3, C-5.2.4 and C-5.2.5, pages 18 -19

36. Question: Please provide the clearance requirements for the Program Manager and Experimental Synthesis Support.

ANSWER: Secret.

Reference: Factor 3. Past Performance.

37. Question: Will the government please confirm that a Joint Venture’s past performance submission should consist of three past performances between the companies partnered in the joint venture?

ANSWER: Yes.

Reference: Page Allocation, Section L.

38. Question: Will the government consider excluding the table of contents, compliance matrix and transmission letter from the allowed page counts in both the Technical and Business Volume to allow offerors to more completely respond to the RFP requirements?

ANSWER: No.

Reference: Signed Letter of Offer – Section L Factor 4-Price, page 91.

39. Question: Will the government consider excluding the signed letters of offer from the allowed page count (25 pages) in the Business Volume to allow offerors to more completely respond to the RFP requirements?

ANSWER: The signed letters of offer are not considered in the limitation of page count, as long as it’s for Key Personnel.

Reference: Font Requirements for Tables

40. Question: Will the government allow smaller font requirements for tables?

ANSWER: No, the government font requirement is stated in Section L as Arial, 11 point font.

Reference: Resumes and Staffing Matrix, Factor 3. Past Performance, page 89.

41. Question: We understand the government would like us to provide a staffing matrix on key and non-key personnel. Would the government like resumes for these individuals as well?

ANSWER: Resumes are required for Key Personnel only. Additional resumes will count against the page limitation.

Reference: Resumes and Staffing Matrix, Factor 3. Past Performance, page 89.

42. Question: Will the government consider excluding resumes/staffing matrix from the 90 pages allocated to Volume I to allow offerors to more completely respond to the RFP requirements?

ANSWER: No.

Reference: Section L, Factor 4. Price, Table for CLINS 0102 and 0202

43. Question: Are the hours in this table for informational purposes only, or shall contractors propose the hours as they appear in the table?

ANSWER: No, the hours in this table are the maximum hours. The contractor shall propose based on these hours.

44. Question: Page 19 C-5.2.4.1 – Can you clarify the phrase “dual hatted” in this task?

ANSWER: Dual Hatted refers to accomplishing all tasks defined in paragraph C 5.2.3 and C 5.2.4.

45. Question: Page 19 C-5.2.4.1 – What printing resources and graphics tools (i.e., Plotter/printer, software applications, etc) are available at MCWL as government furnished equipment?

ANSWER: Equipment furnished will be a desktop and two (2) PC based computers, a Plotter, Disk Duplicator, a printer, a printer/scanner and an EGX-350 Engraver.

46. Question: Page 21 – C-5.2.8.2 – Is the contractor responsible to track all skill sets and training certifications for government and contractor personnel? Are contractor training certifications reimbursable costs under this effort

ANSWER: The Contractor is responsible for tracking contractor training/certification. Tracking is not required for skill sets and certifications of government personnel. No reimbursable costs for training. The contractor will be responsible for all training costs of his employees. This will not be a reimbursable cost.

47. Question: Page 21 – 22 - C-5.2.7.2. and C-5.2.8.2 Since the skill sets and certifications are very similar between the Senior and Junior Network Administration and Development Support billets is each person required to have these specific skill sets and certifications or do the paragraphs address skill sets and certifications required of the contractor provided IT support personnel?

ANSWER: Yes. Each person supporting performance requirements C5.2.7.2 and C5.2.8.2 are required to have the specific skill set and certification as stated in the solicitation.

48. Question: Page 29 - C-5.5.1.2 – Is the current Experiment Schedule available as government furnished information (GFI) for use in developing this proposal?

ANSWER: No.

49. Question: Page 29 - C-5.5.1.3 – Is the current MCWL Campaign Plan (MCP) available as government furnished information (GFI) for use in developing this proposal?

ANSWER: No.

50. Question: Page 38 - section C - 6 CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND/OR EXPERIENCE - It states in qualifications that a person “Requires a minimum of xx years of experience, comprehensively demonstrating knowledge and understanding of MAGTF operations at the MEU, MEB, and MEF level”. Does that mean a person needs xx years of experience of comprehensively demonstrating knowledge and understanding of MAGTF operations at the MEU, MEB, and MEF level or does it mean xx years of experience and a comprehensively demonstrated knowledge and understanding of MAGTF operations at the MEU, MEB, and MEF level?

ANSWER: xx years of experience and a comprehensively demonstrated knowledge and understanding of MAGTF operations at the MEU, MEB, and MEF level.

51. Question: Page 61 - Para H-10 - Will the MEF LNO personnel be supported by the host commands? Will the LNOs be provided IT resources, telephones, office space, printing, fax/copy, and seating during the performance of this contract?

ANSWER: Yes. The LNO personnel will be supported by the host commands and will be provided all necessary resources and space needed to carry-out the tasks while resident in the host command.

52. Question: Page 88 – Section L 3 – When and where will responses to the submitted questions be posted for use in proposal development?

ANSWER: These responses are being published on Federal Business Opportunity (FedBizOpps.Gov) as an amendment to the solicitation.

Reference: MCWL Eng, Analytical, Technical and Business Services RFP Questions.

C-1.1. While the support services required under the scope of this contract is known, the incidental tasks required in the option years is not specifically defined.

53. Question: Should the contractor assume that the LOE for the option years will require that same as the base year?

ANSWER: Yes. The same level of effort in the base year will be required for the option years for performance of the contract. The level of effort is described in the requirements section under C-5 for each individual task.

Reference: C - 5.2.4.1. The PM’s duties will be “dual hatted” and provide support of the Command’s PAO.

54. Question: Given the requirements of the task PM and range of support required for the Command’s PM, does the government envision that a single FTE functions and both PM and PAO lead support for all PAO activities?

ANSWER: The government envisions that a single FTE function, performing dual hatted, for both the PM and PAO lead support as stated in section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 will be required.

55. Question: C-5.2.4.2. What is the LOE expected for the multimedia Graphic Design support on-site at MCWL.

ANSWER: All tasks are delineated in Section C 5.2.4 Public Affairs Support/Multi-Media Graphic Design. The offeror shall submit his proposal based on the level of effort to perform these tasks.

56. Question: Can this support be provided from our local Stafford Office?

ANSWER: No. Onsite support is required.

57. Question: C-5.5.1. What roles will MCWL organic personnel play in planning/executing experiments?

ANSWER: All Personnel will participate in planning/executing experiments.

Reference: C-5.5.1.8.

58. Question: What are the M&S tools MCWL anticipates the Contractor using for analysis, if any? Are those software programs available for use/installation at Contractor sites or only on-site at MCWL? What is the V&V process, if any, for Contractor provided/developed M&S tools?

ANSWER: The current analysis tools are ARENA and EXTENSIM. However, MCWL will utilize additional tools as required to enable experimentation goals. These tools will be used on-site at MCWL or we will contract with an agency possessing a certified modeling and simulation tool to provide support. We do not expect the support contractor to provide/develop M&S tools to support MCWL. Therefore, no Validation, Verification and Accreditations (VV&A) process is required.

Reference: C - 7.3. Deliverable products and delivery schedules will be as specified in the contract and each subsequent modification.

59. Question: How soon in advance does the government expect deliverables will be identified and tasked to the contractor?

ANSWER: Deliverable products and delivery schedules will be as specified in the contract and each subsequent modification as soon as possible after the new requirement is known.

60. Question: What is the anticipated LOE for each Division and associated Support Tasks?

ANSWER: See section C.5 Requirements of Support for each Division.

61. Question: What are the anticipated travel requirements? CONUS / OCONUS?

ANSWER: This is an unknown requirement. The majority of services will involve some travel. Refer to section 4.2.1 for travel.

62. Question: Will the Government provide any GFI, such as accesses/licenses/ subscriptions to scientific, social, political, etc. type data? If not, does the Government anticipate ODCs to cover any necessary expenses?

ANSWER: Yes. The government will provide appropriate accesses/licenses/subscriptions as necessary.

63. Question: For implementing experiments, can contractor facilities be used for designing and building any hardware prototypes?

ANSWER: No. Onsite work is required.

64. Question: Is there an incumbent and, if so, how many FTEs are currently supporting the divisions highlighted in the PWS?

ANSWER: See response to Question 32 and 35.

65. Question: G-1.2. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (DEC 2002), the Government shall make contract financing payments via electronic vouchers submitted by the contractor using Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) upon completion of work. The COR acting on behalf of the Contracting Officer is authorized to reject any invoices submitted incorrectly, and advise the Contracting Officer of the same. Completion of work is pretty vague; I would think we would be paid off of a milestone schedule or monthly?

ANSWER: Invoicing will be set-up on a monthly basis.

66. Question: G-4.3 Billable Hours. All work shall be performed in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contractor shall only bill or invoice the Government for employee hours actually spent performing contract work required by the PWS. As such, the Contractor shall not bill for any holidays, sick leave, vacation leave, training, lunch periods or other breaks, or any other hours not spent specifically performing the required work. All Contractor invoices shall include the appropriate employee time sheets that must support the hours being billed for that month. Additionally, no hours shall be billed for labor categories or labor rates not included as part of the contract. The replacement of key Contractor personnel shall be made by formal contract modification signed by the Contracting Officer. I thought this was a FFP award?

ANSWER: This is a Firm Fixed Priced contract. Paragraph G-4.3 is instructions for the incidental services which are labor hours, not FFP.

Reference: It is mentioned in section C - 5.3.3.1 (in addition to a few other sections), that an SSBI with TS/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level information is required.

67. Question: is TS SCI eligible acceptable here?

ANSWER: No. Section 5.3.4. states that a SSBI with TS/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level information is required.

68. Question: Will description be provided for the Graphics-Media LCAT?

ANSWER: Yes as an amendment to the solicitation under section 6.8.

69. Question: Are we restricted to only those LCATs in table in paragraph C-6.1.1 of the RFP?

ANSWER: Refer to question 30, Offeror can propose equivalent.

Reference: The government should clarify all clearance requirements to provide offerors’ with the capability to select the proper qualifications from among the labor force. This is especially important for those positions requiring SSBI and SCI access.

70. Question: General: Some of the descriptions of the labor requirements include specific clearances and others do not. Please clarify for each position (page 16, SOW)

ANSWER: Each position requires a Secret Clearance. Some positions may require additional clearances as well. Those are identified within the PWS.

Reference: The requirements in the position description, given the emphasis on other PM responsibilities as set forth in Section L, are virtually impossible for a single individual to fulfill. The government should clarify and prioritize the requirements of the PM role rather than simply provide an exhaustive list of potential tasks. As written, this requirement significantly favors the incumbent contractor position.

71. Question: Public Affairs Support/Multi-Media Graphic Design: “….PM’s duties will be ‘dual-hatted’…..” This is an excessive level of responsibility; will the government consider revising this? (page 19 C-5.2.4.1/2)

ANSWER: No. Dual Hatted refers to accomplishing the tasks defined in paragraph section 5.2.3, 5.2.3.1, and 5.2.3.2.

72. Question: Why is the government specifying specific USMC-centric MOS requirements? This is an unreasonable requirement, when combined with other qualifications cited in the paragraph, creates a virtual impossibility to staff to with a single individual. It significantly favors the incumbent contractor position. (page 19, C-5.2.4.2)

ANSWER: These are preferred not required qualifications. The PWS is revised to delete specification to MOS requirement mention in C-5.2.4.2.

Reference: There is an unreasonable level of specification with the certifications and standards stated in these sections that preclude any equitable consideration of proposed staffing. This requirement, as written, significantly favors the incumbent contractor and offers no real description of the execution of responsibilities for this position.

73. Question: General, “The following skill sets and/or certifications are required…” This is an excessive level of responsibility; will the government consider revising this? (page 21, C-5.2.7.2/C-5.2.8.1/C5.2.91).

ANSWER: No. The skill set and certifications as stated in the solicitation are required.

Reference: Is this a task order contract, e.g., ID/IQ, or does the government intends to execute a conventional contracting strategy? The guidance set forth at paragraph. H-7, Modifications, further confuses this issue and will affect the way an offeror responds in their management discussion. Conventional modifications will be treated differently from a conventional task order model.

74. Question: Modifications: General Comment. Is this an ID/IQ task order contract? (page 45, E-1.1 – E-1.5).

ANSWER: The government intends to make a single award; firm fixed priced (FFP) and Labor Hours (LH) contract as stated in Section L, 1. Incidental services shall be acquired via modification. This is not an IDIQ task order contract.

Reference: This is a FFP contract. How does this interpretation of ‘billable hours’ fit into this type of contract interpretation. It appears to reflect a cost or T&M recovery basis and is incongruent with a FFP requirement.

75. Question: Invoicing / Billing Procedures: Billable Hours. This doesn’t match the commercial, FFP nature of the intended contract. (page 53, G-4).

ANSWER: This will be a Firm Fixed Priced award with not to exceed labor hours under the incidental services CLIN.

Reference: This paragraph conflicts with the time to staff ‘Target Standards’ in the QASP on p. 49. The standards in the QASP are more reasonable.

76. Question: General: “Contactor shall fill any positions…..” This is inconsistent with the QASP. (page 58, H.2.4)

ANSWER: Page 58, H.2.4 is addressing replacement of Key personnel and page 49 addresses staff stability maintained at 90%.

This paragraph conflicts with the time to staff ‘Target Standards’ in the QASP on p. 49. The standards in the QASP are more reasonable.

77. Question: General: “Contactor shall fill any positions…..” This is inconsistent with the QASP (page 62, H-12).

ANSWER: Page 62 H-12 of the QASP deals with special contract requirements regarding non-disclosure of information, not replacement of personnel.

78. Question: There are several references to ‘commercial item’s FAR 12k. Is the intent to include commercial services under this stated interpretation? (page 88, Section L). .

ANSWER: Yes.

79. Question: These subfactors/elements are both part of Performance Execution and Management vice Technical Capability. How are these requirements different from Factor 2, element (1)? (page 89, Section L, Factor 1: Technical Capability (3) and (4)).

ANSWER: The solicitation does not identify separate “subfactors” or “elements”. The Offerors shall address each Factor as required in Section L, and each Factor shall be evaluated as stated in Section M. While there may be some overlap between Factor 1 and Factor 2, Factor 1 focuses on the Offeror’s capability to understand, handle, approach and control the contract requirements. Factor 2 focuses on planning managing and execution of the contract requirements.

Reference: Factors in Section L are for rating submitted proposals for Technical Capability, Performance Execution and Management, and Past Performance to make the award.

The evaluation factors do not specify a standard that will be applied to ascertain compliance. This section reiterates Section L, instructions, but fails to define what constitutes meeting, exceeding or ailing to meet the standard for rendering an evaluation rating. Omitting such criteria potentially creates a gap in the consistency of an evaluator’s interpretation of offeror responses. An example that might be applied to correct this for Factor 1: The government will evaluate the offeror’s strategy for successfully meeting the PWS requirements by employing a sound task order/contract management strategy that ensures a balanced, effective technical staffing model aligned with the priority of requirements set forth in the PWS.” This would provide a basis for evaluating an offeror’s total response, vice each constituent element and ensure a more cohesive path to consensus. The other factors should be treated in the same manner.

80. Question: Evaluation – Commercial Items: Since the RCO has used the UCF format for the previous parts of the solicitation, should this be considered Section M? (page 92, General)

ANSWER: Evaluation Factors for Award are set forth in Section M and are listed as such. The chart labeled “Combined Technical/Risk Ratings for Factor 1 and 2” sets forth and defines what each evaluation rating means. For example, to receive an “Outstanding” rating for Factor 1, Technical Capability, the evaluators must find that the, “Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.”

Reference: This doesn’t pertain to technical capability and belongs in Factor 2; it is incongruent with evaluating the technical capability of an offer. How can the government evaluate this capacity under this factor since it does not map to the SOW?

81. Question: Ref: (3) The offeror’s knowledge and understanding to effectively and efficiently manage the contract requirements? (page 92, Factor 1)

ANSWER: Offeror shall include in his proposal how he intends to manage contract requirements. As part of Factor 1, the Government will evaluate the technical capability of the Offeror to know and understand contract requirements so they can be effectively and efficiently managed. The Offeror’s proposed management and performance execution will be evaluated as part of Factor 2.

Reference: This doesn’t pertain to technical capability and belongs in Factor 2; it is incongruent with evaluating the technical capability of an offer.

82. Question: How can the government evaluate this capacity under this factor since it does not map to the SOW? Ref: (4) The Program Manager’s ability to maintain the visibility and control of all levels of support? (page 92, Factor 1)

ANSWER: The Factor does map to the Performance Work Statement in Section 5.2.3.1 of the PWS which states that the contractor shall provide on-site Program Manager (PM) capability to oversee the support services provided in this contract. Specific tasks include, but are not limited to: (1) Managing the contractor’s personnel supporting MCWL; (2) Serving as the liaison between the MCWL COR; (3) delegate tasks assigned to the contractor personnel; (4) Compiling and providing monthly reports on the tasks and activities of the contractor’s personnel; (5) Serving as the liaison between MCWL and the contractor’s office to identify and resolve any problems, questions, or issues of concern that exist or may arise, related to assigned tasks or contractor personnel support; and (6) Assisting in providing support to MCWL as required in support of its overall missing, e.g. fast-response reports, facilitation of ad-hoc meeting, etc. As part of Factor 1, Technical Capability, the Government will evaluate the technical capability of the Offeror’s proposed Program Manager to maintain the visibility and control of all levels of support. Evaluation of Factor 1 will focus on capability; evaluation of Factor 2, Performance Execution and Management, will focus on proposed management and execution.

(End of Summary of Changes)