ECS_DRFP_QA 111420.pdf

Electronic and Communication Services (ECS) RFP Number: (M67854-21-R-8001)

Version 1 11.14.20

No. Industry Question/Comments ECS DRAFT RFS Responses

Is this a follow-on and if so please provide contract number?

This effort is a new contract action and is not a follow-on.

2 Is this MATOC a new requirement or a re-compete? This ECS MATOC effort is a new requirement.

3 Cannot find Attachments 6 and 8? Attachment 6 ECS Past Performance Questionnaire_11.09.20; and Attachment 8 Past Performance Proposal_Past Performance Reference_11.09.20 have been updated and uploaded to www.beta.sam.gov

4 Are companies that qualified as a small business under the IT VAR exception below able to bid as a small business?

Please note that dollar values assigned to a NAICS is for services and the other is a reseller of supply items. We are acquiring services so that alternate size standard of 150 would not be appropriate for the ECS effort.

5 What is the suspense for submitting questions?

Per the Pre-solicitation notice:

The Government requests submission of all questions and comments NLT 04 November 2020.

6 Will PM TRASYS evaluate subcontractor capability and past performance in the Final RFP?

No

7 Will PM TRASYS evaluate relevant past performances from non-DoD agencies?

Yes.

8 The Organization currently holds a class 1 firearms license and is applying for Class 9 Firearms. Will receipt of a Class 9 Firearms license at time of award satisfy the requirement?

The Federal Firearms License is not a requirement for the ECS MATOC award. It is only applicable to TOs that have the requirement to have an

FFL.

http://www.beta.sam.gov/

Version 1

9 Will the ECS MATOC be released on SeaPort Next Generation? If so, what’s the expected Final RFP release date?

ECS MATOC will not be released on SeaPort Next Generation. Final RFP release is anticipated for mid to late Q1 FY 21

10 Can offerors utilize the organizational experience of subcontractors to respond to Draft Solicitation Section A.2, Organization Experience, where Offerors are required to describe a single contract for each of the five experience requirements?

No.

11 If a small business forms a mentor/ protege or joint venture with a large business, may that entity compete as a prime?

No. Please note, this effort is a total small business set-aside.

12 Re: Attachment 7 … Pg 126] Attachment 7 states that, “Offerors shall submit all questions in the format provided via Attachment 7 … Only questions submitted using Attachment 7 will be considered …”.

Attachment 7 has not been provided, so are offerors to use their own format for submitting questions at the DRFP stage, and/or will Attachment 7 be provided at the RFP stage?

There is no required format for submission of questions during the Pre-solicitation phase, please use any format.

13 Re: DRFP p127, item 2.c., “Facility Code”] What is the “Facility Code” requested on page 127, item 2.c.?

(2) If it is known that all the work covered by the order is to be performed at an address different from the address represented by the contractor's code, and any contract administration function will be required at that facility, enter in the facility code block the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information PGI 253—Forms 2004 EDITION 253.213-3 organizational entity code for that facility, i.e., H8-1/H8-2 code for a non- Government entity or DODAAD code for a Government entity. (Use DODAAD codes only to indicate “performed at” locations for orders specifying services at a Government location.) If it is known that multiple facilities are involved, enter the codes for all facilities at which work is to be performed, including the contractor's code if work is performed at that

Version 1 address, in the Optional Form 336 Continuation Sheet and mark the facility code block with “See Schedule.”

14 Re: A.2.A the second “1.” And “2.” Paragraphs] While RFP paragraph “A.2.A.2 – Past Performance Proposal” clearly indicates that “Past Performance for proposed subcontractors will not be evaluated, ” RFP paragraph “A.2.A.1 – Organizational Experience” does not contain the same restriction. May subcontractor organizational experience be included in the response to RFP paragraph A.2.A.1 – Organizational Experience?

Please be advised that Past Performance and Organizational Experience are different evaluation criteria.

Past performance addresses the Offeror’s capability to perform and how well the offeror performed relative to the scope, size, complexity and duration of the requirements described in the MATOC RFP.

On the other hand, the Organizational Experience criteria, which is evaluated on a Go/No-Go basis, address whether the Offeror can demonstrate that it meets the Organizational Experience requirements through its performance on specific contract(s) awarded during the past five (5) years.

Past Performance for proposed subcontractors will not be evaluated.

Organizational experience will be updated to reflect the same restrictions.

15 Re: Draft RFP A.2.A, second “1.” Organizational Experience, 4. Organizational Experience #4 – AND – Attachment 8, Past Performance Reference #4 template] There appears to be a disconnect between the A.2.A instructions and the Attachment 8, Past Performance Reference #4 template. The Draft RFP instruction (pg 129 of 136) asks for “… documentation supporting a CMMI assessment …” and the Past Performance Reference #4 template requests a description of “experience performing similar work in scope and complexity to the work described in the PWS … “ and more specifically, “ … experience with all

Please be advised that Past Performance and Organizational Experience are different evaluation criteria.

Please be advised, the Government understands the confusion with the Past Performance attachments. Past Performance Attachments have been updated and uploaded to the www.beta.sam.gov, to avoid confusion.

Attachment 4 Organizational Experience Information Sheet, is ONLY associated with the Organizational Experience requirement and has not been provided. Attachment 8 has been provided and is related to Past Performance requirements and shall ONLY be used for the Past

Version 1 levels of maintenance on the training systems pursuant to the PWS.” The template does not provide space for the requested CMMI assessment documentation. Please clarify the CMMI experience response requirements indicating: (1) the specific requirement to provide CMMI assessment documentation, along with how to include that in the template; and (2) if the intent is to describe experience in the application of CMMI or something else

Performance requirements. The DRAFT RFP instructions (pg 129 of 136), “4. Organizational Experience #4: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)” are ONLY associated with the Organizational Experience, Attachment 8 Past Performance Proposal_Past Performance Reference_11.09.20, CMMI Scope and Complexity requirements are as follows: “ECS contractors will be responsible for capability maturity model integration (CMMI) identified in any TO issued pursuant to the PWS. Offerors should describe their experience performing work similar in scope and complexity to the work described in the PWS and include references to the solicitation. The Government is more likely to find that there is a reasonable expectation Offerors will successfully perform ECS if Offerors provide details regarding their experience with all levels of maintenance on the training systems pursuant to the PWS.”

If the industry partner elects to submit past performance related to the CMMI area, please follow the guidance provide in DRAFT RFP Section A.2A2 Past Performance Proposal; A.2.B; and Attachment 8 Past Performance Proposal_Past Performance Reference_11.09.20.

Organizational Experience is not being requested during the Pre-solicitation posting.

16 Re: Updated Announcement published 10/26/2020, Voluntary Past Performance Information] Should the Past Performance that was provided in an early submission be included again in the final proposal, as a duplicate of what was submitted earlier?

The Final solicitation will provide the final requirements and industry partners are encouraged to follow all guidance identified in the solicitation.

17 Re: Draft RFP A.2.A, paragraph “1.” Organizational Experience, and subparagraphs, pg 128 of 136] Throughout Draft RFP A.2.A, paragraph “1.”

Organizational Experience, and subparagraphs, references are made to Attachment 4. Attachment 4

Please be advised, the Government understands the confusion with the Past Performance attachments. Past Performance Attachments have been updated and uploaded to the www.beta.sam.gov, to avoid confusion.

Version 1 was not provided in the update that was released on 10/26/2020. It appears that Attachment 8 is the correct attachment for accomplishing the actions related to Attachment 4, such that Attachment 8 is actually the Attachment 4 that the Government is referencing. Please confirm if the presently titled Attachment 8 should actually be titled as Attachment 4, or if there is a different explanation

Attachment 4 Organizational Experience Information Sheet, is associated with the Organizational Experience requirement and has not been provided.

Attachment 8 Past Performance Proposal_Past Performance Reference, is not intended to be Attachment 4 Organizational Experience Information Sheet. Attachment 4 is associated with Organizational Experience and NOT Past Performance.

If volunteering Past Performance is submitted, Attachment 6 ECS Past Performance Questionnaire_11.09.20; and Attachment 8 Past Performance Proposal_Past Performance Reference_11.09.20, have been provided to support all voluntary Past Performance submissions.

Organizational Experience is not being requested during the Pre-solicitation posting.

18 Re: Attachment 8, Past Performance Reference #1:

Software Development Experience] Attachment 8, Past Performance Reference #1 makes reference to Training System Operator functions in two places in the Scope and Complexity Section. Is this a typo, or is the intent to limit the Software Development Experience discussion to applications involving Training System Operator functions only? That is, the guidance provided in the other Scope and Complexity boxes is not specifically limiting, and all of the other guidance only relates, in general, to the Past Performance Reference areas for which they are given.

The Government concurs that this is a typo in Attachment 8 and will be revised and posted to www.beta.sam.gov. Please note the term “Training System Operator” shall be replaced with “Software Development.”

19 Q. Section 3, Requirements, in the Draft PWS outlines a broad set of tasks that individual TOs may cover.

Some of these requirements have specialized qualifications - e.g., FFL and bilingual personnel. Does the government expect that MATOC offerors must cover all requirements listed in Section 3 of the PWS, or does the government have an expectation on the

MATOC offerors must cover all requirements listed in Section 3

Version 1 percentage of coverage of the requirements in Section 3 for successful offerors?

20 Regarding the Government’s ability to self-initiate off-ramping of MATOC awardees who do not bid towards TOs: will non-bidding against TOs with specialized requirements - e.g., bilingual personnel or holding of an FFL - count towards the ability of the Government to self-initiate off-ramping a MATOC awardee?

Pursuant to the MATOC RFP instructions, the Government may elect to off-ramp and on-ramp MATOC awardees at its sole discretion. Please be advised that the Government’s exercise of its right to off-ramp and on-ramp will be reasonable and based on the specific facts at the time of the proposed off-ramp or on-ramp action. To that end, the Government seeks to maintain the maximum pool of MATOC awardees to ensure that it receives the benefits of competition throughout the MATOC period of performance. Please reference General Information Section 12 for additional information regarding on-ramp and off-ramp. In this section, there is no discussion of off ramping for the conditions related to non-bidding against TOs with specialized requirements.

21 Can the Government expand upon its acquisition strategy for this MATOC along the following issues:

how many vendors does it want on the MATOC? How many TOs does it plan to release annually? Are all vendors meant to be qualified on all requirements or just a subset of requirements? Is the intent to have all vendors qualified to compete for all TOs or will there be TOs that some vendors are not expected to qualify and compete for

Pursuant to the MATOC RFP, the Government will make MATOC awards to all qualifying offerors. The criteria in the ECS MATOC solicitation will be used to determine whether an offeror is a qualifying offeror. The Government will issue TOs to support its specific ECS requirements. Four TOs are currently planned to be released during FY

21. There is no set amount of TOs planned to be released annually. The Government intends to immediately post new requirements through the GPE as referenced in General Instructions Section 8 Task Order Procedures. Not all small business vendors will be specialized in all ECS MATOC requirement areas, however, IDIQ awards will be made to all qualified offerors as identified in the ECS MATOC solicitation. There are no minimum or maximum proposal restrictions related to TO proposal submissions for qualified offerors that are awarded an IDIQ under the ECS MATOC.TO solicitations will be issued pursuant General Instructions Section 8 and FAR subpart 16.5. TOs will be competed based on the specific criteria identified in the TO RFP. To that end, TO RFPs cannot and will not utilize qualifying offeror criteria to make TO awards. All ECS MATOC awardees are encouraged to participate in any subsequently issued TO RFP.

Version 1

22 Will TOs be further set aside for specific socio-economic categories?

The Government will analyze the responses from the ECS small business prime contract holders. If the Government determines that the conditions in FAR 19.502-2 exist. The Government may elect to further restrict an order to one of the appropriate socio-economic categories identified in Section 9. If it is determined that the conditions in FAR 19.502-2 do not exist, the requirement will be open as a small business set-aside fair opportunity order amongst all ECS MATOC small business prime contract awardees.

23 Will SB vendors be allowed to team with large businesses in pursuing individual TOs?

Yes, providing that the MATOC awardee meets all of the requirements delineated in FAR clause 52.219-14, Limitation of Subcontracting, (MAR 2020), FAR 52.219-6 (MAR 2020) and (DEVIATION 2020-O0008).

24 Will the Government publish draft evaluation criteria for comment prior to the RFP?

No.

25 Draft ECS MATOC RFP in paragraph 1.4 (Organizational Experience #4: Capability Maturity

Model Integration (CMMI)) it states:

“The Offeror shall complete Attachment 4 (note:

cannot locate this attachment to reference), and provide documentation supporting a CMMI assessment of level 2 or greater. If the Offeror does not meet a minimum CMMI level 2 assessment the Offeror shall provide a plan with appropriate schedule to achieve a minimum CMMI Level 3 assessment. An Offeror must meet this requirement, and cannot rely on a CMMI assessment provided to any other entity.”

Please note the Pre-solicitation guidance, “As part of this Notice, the MARCORSYSCOM, PM TRASYS, releases a DRAFT Request for Proposal (RFP) and a DRAFT ECS Performance Work Statement (PWS) for review and comments by our industry partners. The contractor should supply questions or comments to the documents indicating ability to meet specified requirements, specific items requiring clarification for responsive industry proposal, and specified requirements which un-necessarily drive system procurement or lifecycle cost. There is no page limit for receipt of questions or comments. Received questions or comments will be considered by the Government for basis of modification to the subject documents.”

In addition, the following was also provided “As a result of the Government’s aggressive acquisition timeline in supporting our Fleet Marine Corps Forces, the Government requests that interested industry partners provide Past Performance information IAW 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAR 2018) A.2. A. Section 10 (a-

e) Past Performance Proposal Information of the DRAFT RFP, to include

Version 1 the submission of Attachments 6 and 8 as appropriate. Satisfaction of this request is voluntary but highly encouraged in order to support an award in early 2nd Quarter FY 21, or sooner.

Voluntary Past Performance submissions shall be due on the date and time identified in BLOCK 8 Page 1 of the FINAL Solicitation.”

Please note there were no requirements to satisfy the Organizational Experience requirements identified in the Pre-solicitation posting.

26 In the draft PWS, a Marine Corps CDT is mentioned. Was the requirement supposed to be under the Army CDT contract? Is a new MCDT requirement expected under the ECS MATOC?

The information referenced in the ECS MATOC PWS identifies the overarching requirements for the effort.

27 How many ECS MATOC awards are expected?

FAR 15.304 allows the Government to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors. “Qualifying offeror” is specifically defined in FAR

2.101 as an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

28 The notice on Beta.Sam said “The first task order, will immediately following award of the ERS COMS- Systems MATOC”. Should that have said the first task order, will immediately following award of ECS MATOC? What is the first expected task order that will be immediately following the award? It may make sense to include that as a sample task in the ECS MATOC RFP since it is expected to be immediately following

The Government has identified an error with the posting. The referenced items should be related to the ECS MATOC effort and incorrectly reference the ERS COMS-Systems MATOC. The ERS COMS-S MATOC utilizes a similar acquisitions strategy and was inadvertently inserted in the Pre-solicitation.

Observation noted regarding the sample task. The Government IPT has defined the best acquisition strategy that supports the Marines and all stakeholders.

29 Will there be a 30, 45, or 60 day proposal turnaround time from ECS MATOC RFP release?

The turnaround time for proposal preparation will be less than 30 days.

The Government considers that the Pre-solicitation posting prepared our industry partners with an advance read of the requirements. The Pre-solicitation posting also request input from industry regarding the

Version 1 solicitation. The submission due date will be identified in Block 8 of page 1 of the solicitation.

30 Can you provide more detail on the timing for the final ECS MATOC RFP release due to the upcoming holidays?

The Government anticipates solicitation release mid to late Q1 FY 21, with a goal of releasing before the holidays.

31 How many task orders are expected under the ECS MATOC and will a forecast of those efforts be provided?

The Government anticipates an immediate TO award after the award of the ECS MATOC IDIQ awards. The Government does not have a forecast to share with our industry partners. If that information becomes available, the Government will post additional information on www.beta.sam.gov.

32 Can you provide examples of the type of support that this contract requires? Example - Daily onsite maintenance support for xx simulators

The scope of the ECS MATOC is intended to be broad in nature and entails sustainment support for all existing and any future USMC training systems and any corollary Foreign Military Sales. Requirements are anticipated to include but not limited to Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS), software development, cybersecurity and other non- PDSS support and materiel support.

What military bases are involved in this work?

Location of contractor performance depends on the task order requirement and may or may not require base access. Military bases include Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) locations.

34 What simulator devices are on each military base? The Government is unable to provide a specific answer to this question.

Devices are located throughout all military bases.

35 Will the contractor be required to perform minor or major modifications to the simulator devices? Describe some recent modifications?

systems and any corollary Foreign Military Sales. Requirements are anticipated to include but not limited to Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS), software development, cybersecurity and other non- PDSS support and materiel support.

Version 1

36 Does full maintenance documentation exist at each military base to allow a new contractor to learn how to support the devices?

No. The amount of Government Furnished Information (GFI), if any, will vary based on the training system in question. A list of any GFI that will be provided and will be included with the task order RFPs.

37 Will the contractor be performing software upgrades on a regular basis? What software languages are used in these devices?

systems and any corollary Foreign Military Sales. Requirements are anticipated to include but not limited to Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS), software development, cybersecurity and other non- PDSS support and materiel support.

There are numerous software languages that are utilized in training systems. A non-exclusive list of those more commonly used are Java, Java Script, C, C#, C++ and Perl.

38 Is software source code available for each device No. The amount of Government Furnished Information (GFI), if any, will vary based on the training system in question. A list of any GFI that will be provided will be included with task order RFPs.

39 These type of contracts often supply a sample task order as part of the RFP, can you supply a sample task order to help contractors understand the work?

The Government IPT has defined the best acquisition strategy that supports the Marines and all stakeholders. A sample task will not be included in the final solicitation. The PWS is provided to provide an understanding of the requirement.

40 Page 131 of 136 B.3 Proposal Submission Instructions Item 3 refers to A.2.A.9 (Organizational Experience) however it is listed as 1. on page 128 and A.2.A.10 (Past Performance) is listed as 2. on page 129 of the document. Please confirm these sections should be renumbered to A.2.A.9 and A.2.A.10.

The Government agrees that the number system is incorrect and will be updated to reflect A.2.A.9 for Organizational Experience and A.2.A.10 for Past Performance. The Final solicitation will reflect the noted revisions.

41 Will the Government allow industry to submit digitally due to COVID-19 concerns?

The Government is considering electronic submission due to COVID-19.

Updates will be provided in the final solicitation.

42 SF1449 General Information Item 10. Is the Contractor Manpower Reporting Application link correct or has it been switched to www.sam.gov? It is stated as www.sam.gov in the PWS 3.1.24.

General Information Section 10 is incorrect and will be updated in the final solicitation. The correct link, www.sam.gov, for Service Contract Reporting will be is identified in final solicitation. The www.sam.gov link reference in Section 3.1.24 of the PWS is correct.

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sam.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ccathomas%40avtsim.com%7Cb2c8a760ccae4d1f869308d87a8ca882%7Cbfb417a610bd47459fd53cf3ed9f573c%7C0%7C0%7C637394091836298087%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EPBtTKNq3HyDDavMCw0OCvk2eDMUl3fh7QtABd%2FvvMA%3D&reserved=0 https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sam.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ccathomas%40avtsim.com%7Cb2c8a760ccae4d1f869308d87a8ca882%7Cbfb417a610bd47459fd53cf3ed9f573c%7C0%7C0%7C637394091836308083%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=pt9BvRQZBqMp%2FsHv8Pc81aCurac3JsicZFJlqKXq1K4%3D&reserved=0 http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/

Version 1

43 Beta SAM lists the PSC for this effort is D318. The Government has stated through SAM.gov that any program with a PSC that starts with “D” does not require manpower reporting, SAM.gov will not list any program where the PSC starts with a “D”. Will the manpower reporting requirement be removed?

The Government is researching the exemption to Service Contract Reporting for PSC D318. Any revisions will be applied to the final solicitation.

44 Will there be a sample task order that industry will be required to bid?

The Government IPT has defined the best acquisition strategy that supports the Marines and all stakeholders. A sample task will not be included in the final solicitation.

45 I just wanted to reach out to verify if this is a new requirement or a follow on. If it is a follow on, would you mind providing that incumbent contract information?

The ECS MATOC effort is a new effort and contract.

46 Will the Government accept an ISO 9000 certification in leu of CMMI level 2 as acceptable for repeatable process improvement for the ECS

MATOC?

No, the Government will not accept an ISO 9000 certification in lieu of CMMI level 2.

47 Does the Government intend to accept past performance and technical ability to perform ECS MATOC tasks from teammates on future ECS MATOC IDIQ task orders.

No, the Government will not accept past performance and technical ability to perform ECS MATOC tasks from teammates on future ECS MATOC IDIQ task orders.

Version 1

48. Are there any other NAICS codes you will consider that will allow us to respond? We can use 511210- Software Publishers, 541220-Engneering Services as a suggestion

No, the NAICS code 541519 is approved for this requirement and the Government believes the selected NAICS code best represents the ECS MATOC requirement.

49. pages 128 – 129, page 131 I – In regard to the Organizational Experience and Past Performance, it is our assessment and understanding that these are two distinct responses. It is also our assessment and understanding that the Organizational Experience may be answered as a unified Team response VS. the Past Performance which is that of the Prime contractor. Can the Government verify this assessment?

Past Performance for proposed subcontractors will not be evaluated.

Organizational experience will be updated to reflect the same restrictions.

50. Within the subject Draft ECS MATOC RFP in paragraph 1.4 (Organizational Experience

#4: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)) it states:

“The Offeror shall complete Attachment 4 (note:

cannot locate this attachment to reference), and provide documentation supporting a CMMI assessment of level 2 or greater. If the Offeror does not meet a minimum CMMI level 2 assessment the Offeror shall provide a plan with appropriate schedule to achieve a minimum CMMI Level 3 assessment. An Offeror must meet this requirement, and cannot rely on a CMMI assessment provided to any other entity.”

Attachment 4 is not included, the information can be found on page 128 and 129 of the DRFP

Response: Draft ECS MATOC RFP in paragraph 1.4 will be reworded to following:

"4. Organizational Experience #4: Capability Maturity Model Integration

(CMMI)

The Offeror shall complete Attachment 4, and provide documentation supporting a CMMI assessment of level 2 or greater. If the Offeror has CMMI level 2 assessment the Offeror shall provide a plan with appropriate schedule to achieve a minimum CMMI Level 3 assessment. An Offeror must meet this requirement, and cannot rely on a CMMI assessment provided to any other entity."

Version 1 and in the Draft ECS PWS in paragraph 3.1.17

(Software Engineering) it states:

“The Government currently employs a modified agile development methodology for application sustainment. However, the Contractor may employ the approach that best meets the requirements to deliver reliable, high quality and cost effective software solutions. The Contractor shall perform disciplined application development activities consistent with CMMI Level 3 or any other level identified in any TO issued under the

MATOC.”

The two statement above are contradictory as to whether a CMMI assessment is required; please provide guidance/clarification as to what is required qualify to submit a proposal for this endeavor.

51 The instructions reference the completion of Attachment 4 for Organizational Experience, but this document wasn’t provided in beta.sam.gov. Will the Government release this attachment prior to the official

RFP?

Please note the Pre-solicitation guidance, “As part of this Notice, the MARCORSYSCOM, PM TRASYS, releases a DRAFT Request for Proposal (RFP) and a DRAFT ECS Performance Work Statement (PWS) for review and comments by our industry partners. The contractor should supply questions or comments to the documents indicating ability to meet specified requirements, specific items requiring clarification for responsive industry proposal, and specified requirements which un-necessarily drive system procurement or lifecycle cost. There is no page limit for receipt of questions or comments. Received questions or comments will be considered by the Government for basis of modification to the subject documents.”

In addition, the following was also provided “As a result of the Government’s aggressive acquisition timeline in supporting our Fleet Marine Corps Forces, the Government requests that interested industry

Version 1 partners provide Past Performance information IAW 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAR 2018) A.2. A. Section 10 (a-

e) Past Performance Proposal Information of the DRAFT RFP, to include the submission of Attachments 6 and 8 as appropriate. Satisfaction of this request is voluntary but highly encouraged in order to support an award in early 2nd Quarter FY 21, or sooner.

Voluntary Past Performance submissions shall be due NLT 10:00 am EDT, on 12 November, 2020.”

52 Does the Government have an anticipated range or maximum number of awarded offerors?

No, FAR 15.304 allows the Government to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors. “Qualifying offeror” is specifically defined in FAR

2.101 as an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

53 Does the Government consider members of a Joint Venture (JV) ineligible to submit separate bids as Prime contractors?

Yes, please reference A.1 General Instructions, Section 5.

54 Paragraph 2.a states, “Offerors will be required to identify three (3) contract efforts of recent and relevant past performance that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform in accordance with the PWS.” Attachment 8 provides a template for five (5) past performance references. Can the Government confirm that offerors are allowed to use the same past performance references to validate recency and relevancy across the multiple organizational experiences areas 1-5 in Attachment 8 via three (3) contract efforts?

Yes, the Government will permit the industry partner to submit the same past performance references to validate recency and relevancy across the multiple organizational experiences areas 1-5 in Attachment 8 via three (3) contract efforts.

55 Will the Government please remove the headers from each of the reference areas (“Past Performance Reference #1: Software Development Experience”;

“Past Performance Reference #2: Post Deployment

Section A.2.B Section 3 states the following, “Please note, the three (3) Past Performance submissions can be any combination of the five (5) Organization Experience categories associated with the PWS. Only three (3) Past Performance submissions will be reviewed. If more than

Version 1

Software Support Experience”; “Past Performance Reference #3: Cyber Security Experience”; “Past Performance Reference #4: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Experience”; “Past Performance Reference #5: Geographic Dispersed Contract Performance Experience” to be renamed “Past Performance Reference”) to better allow offerors to utilize all three (3) past performance references to describe their organizational experiences areas 1-5 within the “Scope and Complexity” section in Attachment 8?

three Past Performance references are submitted, the first three will only be reviewed.”

56 Organizational Experience #4: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) states that offerors must “provide documentation supporting a CMMI assessment of level 2 or greater. The instructions in Attachment 8 state, “Offerors should describe their experience performing work similar in scope and complexity to the work described in the PWS and include references to the solicitation.”

CMMI is a component of our overall management approach on all our engagements, as such we assume providing evidence of the CMMI certifications at level 2 or higher is sufficient. Please confirm.

Please note that Organizational Experience and Past Performance are two distinctly different criteria. Attachment 8 Past Performance Reference provide a scope and complexity section associated with 5 areas, to include CMMI. The Past Performance requirements are distinctly different and are captured in the Scope and Complexity Sections of the document.

“documentation supporting a CMMI assessment of level 2 or greater,” is a specific Organizational Experience requirement and not a past performance requirement. Please review both section carefully.

57 If vendors submit their Past Performance Proposals (Attachment 6 and Attachment 8) by 12 November 2020, will they also need to resubmit this information in the official response to Requests for Proposals due on 11 December 2020?

Additional guidance will be provided in the Final solicitation regarding submission of voluntary past performance submissions.

58 The beta.sam.gov notice lists a voluntary submission deadline for offerors’ Past Performance Proposals of 12 November 2020, but Attachment 6 indicates that this deadline is a “Required Response Date.” We request the Government revise the Attachment 6 document to read “Requested Response Date,” which

Additional Past Performance guidance will be identified in the final solicitation. All Attachments will be reviewed and revised as appropriate before the final solicitation is released.

Version 1 will allow offerors to remain compliant should they decide to provide their Past Performance Proposals post-RFP release.

59 Coordinating PPQ requests is a time-consuming process, and a resubmission of PPQs from our customers to the Government can become an inconvenience to them. Can the Government please confirm that the instructions and evaluation criteria for submission of Past Performance Proposals on 12 November 2020 will not change between this draft and the final version of

“DRAFT+M7895421R8001+ECS+MATOC”?

Any revisions to the Pre-solicitation will be captured in the final solicitation.

60 Who is the Incumbent?

This is a new requirement and contract vehicle.

61 What is the acquisition timeline?

The RFP is anticipated for release in Q1 of FY 21. It is the Government’s goal to release before the holiday break.

62 Will this be coming out on a contract vehicle? If yes, which vehicle?

The ECS requirement will be established on a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC).