Q A_Table_for_13-Q-7614_v1.pdf

ANSWERS TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS FOR TSS February 25, 2013

Attachment (6)

Q1. Can we assume that there has been a change in Scope or overarching requirements that M68909- 12-Q-1028 did not address?

A1. Yes, there has been a change in scope and detail.

Q2. Are you able to provide a government estimate on FEDBIZOPPS on when you expect to issue a revised solicitation?

A2. The Government has already issued the solicitation on FEDBIZOPPS on 14 Feb 13, and Amendment 0001 was posted on 19 Feb 13.

Q3. Is the subject solicitation for Afghanistan?

A3. The solicitation is for worldwide support.

Q4. We notice that the due date is by February 28th, which is less than two weeks. Given that Offerors are required to make hard-copy submissions of their proposals, would the Government consider extending the deadline until March 8th?

A4. The response due date has been extended to 8 Mar 13.

Q5. We are interested in participating in the tender mentioned above hence want to get more information about the same. Considering the geographical constraint of personally reviewing the document, I request you to provide us the following details before we buy the document:

a. List of Items, Schedule of Requirements, Scope of Work, Terms of Reference, Bill of Materials required.

b. Soft Copy of the Tender Document through email.

c. Names of countries that will be eligible to participate in this tender.

d. Information about the Tendering Procedure and Guidelines

e. Estimated Budget for this Purchase

f. Any Extension of Bidding Deadline?

g. Any Addendum or Pre Bid meeting Minutes?

A5. Please read the RFQ and associated documents that are attached in FEDBIZOPPS.

Q6. After performing a detailed review and analysis of the Solicitation and its attachments this morning, we believe there is a considerable increase in the level of effort and scope and expansion of contractual requirements from the original RFP. In addition, the Government’s change from awarding proposals “determined to be the Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA)” to awarding proposals “determined to be the Best Value,” requires Offerors to develop pricing and technical approaches in accordance with a Best Value award. In consideration of the above, a two-week turnaround, including hard-copy submissions, does not allow companies sufficient time to be responsive in accordance with the RFP requirements. Consequently, it does not provide fair opportunity to all responsible bidders and hinders “full and open competition.” We respectfully requests an extension of the submission due date until March 8, 2013.

A6. The response due date has been extended to 8 Mar 13.

Q7. If an Offeror is a wholly-owned subsidiary, will the Government authorize Offeror to utilize past performance of other divisions (legal entities) for submission of relevant past performance in Volume I?

A7. Yes.

Q8. Table 3-2 of the PWS identifies MCCES 29 Palms CA as requiring on-site support. Addendum 2 does not identify MCCES 29 Palms. Does the Government require on-site support at this location, and will the Government identify specific skill sets required for MCCES? Or do you expect the contractor to identify the number of personnel and skill sets?

A8. PWS Addendum 2 has been updated in RFQ Amendment 0002 with one (1) C4 Analyst (COC) billet that is required for MCCES 29 Palms and removes one (1) C4 Analyst (COC) billet @ MCTSSA.

Q9. Reference Section M, Paragraph Factor 4. Price/Cost – Price/Cost Volume Construct: Section L is silent on price/cost volume construct and seems to defer content of, and limitations thereof, to Section M evaluation criteria. Section M, page 56, states "This factor may not exceed 25 pages."

Price/Cost spreadsheets must provide pricing by Contact Year, by CLIN, by Task/Subtask, and must include detailed costing for travel and ODC and may not be submitted on fold-out sheets (per Section D). Additionally, Contractor must provide the data to support the determination of "Responsive Offerors" in Section L, page 48, which includes, "submittal of subcontracting plans" and other items to support "responsibility" by the PCO.

Given the above, can Contractor assume the price/cost narrative within the volume should be limited to 25 pages, and price/cost spreadsheets and other attachments to Volume II would be considered appendices not to be included in the Section M referenced 25 pages?

A9. Section M, Paragraph Factor 4 will be increased to a limit of 50 pages to include subcontracting plans, price/cost narratives, spreadsheets, and ODC information.

Q10. Reference Section M, Paragraph Factor 4. Price/Cost – Subcontracting Plan: FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which is include in the proposal, states, "The offeror, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan." Section M and L, "Responsive Offerors," states, "Agreement by the Offeror to all general and special contract provisions and clauses, including the submittal of Subcontracting Plans and the utilization of Subcontractors in the proposal."

Given the above, is the Contractors Subcontract Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, to be submitted in Volume II with our proposal, or at a later date upon request of the Contracting Officer?

A10. The Subcontracting Plan is to be provided In Volume II in addition to your price proposal.

Q11. Reference Section M, Paragraph Factor 4. Price/Cost & PWS Addendum 4 – General & Administrative Expenses: Section M, page 56, states, "Other Direct Costs, if required, shall be identified and supported by a breakout to include identification of the cost element and the rationale. Travel costs shall be within the Department of Defense Joint Travel Regulations. General and Administrative (G&A) and Overhead (OH) rates shall not be separately priced."

SubQuestion -- Part 1:

While, Addendum 4 of the PWS states, "no additional profit is allowed on any of the items identified," it does call out an allowable burden of G&A within the table. May Contractor assume the cost build-up for any ODC/Travel included in Contractor submission should include the application of G&A for costing of travel and ODC CLINS as specified in the Addendum 4 "Schedule of Allowable Costs."

SubQuestion -- Part 2:

In addition, please clarify what is meant by the statement "General and Administrative (G&A) and Overhead (OH) rates shall not be separately priced," within Section M.

A11. Labor rates shall be fully burdened. ODCs shall be charged at actual cost.

Q12. Reference Section M, Factor 4. Price/Cost & PWS Addendum 4 – ODCs: The basis differentials for OCONUS/deployed and Contractor personnel, including such items as HOLA/COLA, DBA, Danger Pay, etc., appears to be limited to COST (no profit on any items). As such, for pricing purposes, should Contractor assume these costs are to be priced at COST in a separate CLIN from FFP Labor (if so, which CLIN(s)), or should the FFP labor rates include any/all such costs, with applicability of Addendum 4 being limited to T&M Labor CLINs?

A12. ODCs (CLINs X008 & X009) is the location of where these costs shall be provided/submitted. Labor rates shall be fully burdened.

Q13. Reference Section C, PWS Addendum 1 – Travel: For pricing purposes, as a baseline for deriving estimated costs for CLINs X009, ODCs - Travel, that the trips listed in Addendum 1, Estimated Exercise/Even Support Schedule, should be used?

A13. Yes.

Q14. Reference PWS Addendum 2, Paragraph 3 – Location/Supported Sites: There is discrepancy between the locations listed in Table 3-2, TSS Supported Sites, on page 4 of the PWS and the Locations presented in the Addendum 2, TSS Billet Requirements by Location. For pricing purposes, can we assume that the Billets and Locations in Addendum 2 should be used?

A14. Corrections to PWS Addendum 2 have been addressed in RFQ Amendment 0002.

Q15. Reference PWS Addendum 2, Paragraph 10.2 – TSS Billet Requirements by Location (C4 Analyst):

Paragraph 10.2 of the PWS does not specify experience level required for the C4 Analyst labor category that is delineated in the TSS Billet Requirement table in Addendum 2. Could the Government specify the years of experience required for this labor category?

A15. Five (5) years (minimum) of current C4 Analyst experience in two (2) or more of the C4 Systems listed in Table 3-1 of the PWS.

Q16. Reference PWS Addendum 2, Paragraph 10.2 – TSS Billet Requirement by Location (C4 Analyst (System)): Paragraph 10.2 of the PWS does not specify experience level required for the C4 Analyst (System) labor category that is delineated in the TSS Billet Requirement table in Addendum 2. Could the Government specify the years of experience required for this labor category?

A16. Five (5) years (minimum) of current experience providing complex troubleshooting and problem resolution with the target (System). In addition, the C4 Analyst must be experienced with one (1) or more of the other C4 Systems listed in Table 3-1 of the PWS.

Q17. Although this solicitation is essentially the same as M68909-Q-12-1028, there is one major change.

That is the change from LPTA to Best Value. Even though there was little change in the RFQ and PWS, the change is significant in that the proposal must now have value added features rather than merely be technically acceptable. Offerors must now provide a value approach rather than a low-cost approach.

Such a change may be very significant and could require major solution changes and a rewrite of the technical proposal. Therefore, we are asking for a 2 week extension to the due date.

A17. The response due date has been extended to 8 Mar 13.

Q18. RFQ Section 52.212-2: Technical and Past Performance are stated as being equal in importance to Price. There is no mention of the weighting of Personnel Qualifications. How is this weighted compared to Price and/or Technical Understanding and Approach?

A18. There is no weighting involved in this solicitation. Technical Approach and Personnel are significantly more important than Price. Price is more important than Past Performance.

Q19. What is the relative weighting between Technical and Past Performance (and Personnel, if that is to be included).

A19. There is no weighting involved in this solicitation. Technical Approach and Personnel are more important than Price. Price is more important than Past Performance.

Q20. Labor Categories listed in Addendum 2: Some are listed as “C4 Analyst(s)” and some as “C4 Analyst(s) (…)”, where “…” is either TCWS, CAC2S, Tactical Network, SPEED, or COC. Are these specialized positions devoted entirely to their specific systems? Are the non-specified personnel supporting only the other 9 or so systems? Does Tactical Networks include some of the systems listed in PWS Table 3-1?

A20. Five (5) years (minimum) of current experience providing complex troubleshooting and problem resolution with the target (System). In addition, the C4 Analyst must be experienced with one (1) or more of the other C4 Systems listed in Table 3-1 of the PWS.

Q21. Can we reuse the same Past Performance Questionnaires from the previous solicitation or do we need to go out to the same clients and request them again for this solicitation?

A21. Yes, if you already submitted PPQs prior, you do not need to resubmit.

Q22. RFQ, Factor 4. Price: Does the Title page and SF1449’s count as part of the 25 page count limit?

A22. Section M, Paragraph Factor 4 has been increased to 50 pages.

Q23. Addendum 1: Is this table to be used for annual pricing of travel for all 4 years of the contract?

A23. This is an estimate of exercise/event per year.

Q24. Addendum 2: Is this table to be used for projecting and pricing labor for all each of the 4 years of the contract?

A24. This is an estimate of TSS billet requirements by location per year.

Q25. Addendum 1: Can we assume where an exercise/event location is stated as a MEU, that the location is afloat? If not, which MEU exercises are shore-based and which are at sea?

A25. Assume afloat at sea.

Q26. Reference Addendum 2 TSS Billet Requirements by Location, Attachment “TSS_Addendums_11_Feb_2013.” The table in this reference shows the locations for the labor category “C4 Analyst” along with core competency areas (e.g., “C4 Analyst (Technical Lead)”); however, some C4 Analyst billets do not show a primary competency area. Please clarify what qualifications are necessary for these positions.

A26. Five (5) years (minimum) of current C4 Analyst experience in two (2) or more of the C4 Systems listed in Table 3-1 of the PWS. Five (5) years (minimum) of current experience providing complex troubleshooting and problem resolution with the target (System). In addition, the C4 Analyst must be experienced with one (1) or more of the other C4 Systems listed in Table 3-1 of the PWS. The C4 Analyst (Technical Lead) qualifications are identified in Section 10.1.

Q27. Reference Addendum 2 TSS Billet Requirements by Location, Attachment “TSS_Addendums_11_Feb_2013.” The table in this reference shows a program manager billet located at MCTSSA. Please confirm if it is a requirement to have a full-time program manager on-site at

MCTSSA.

A27. Yes.

Q28. Reference Addendum 4 Schedule of Allowable Costs, Attachment “TSS_Addendums_11_Feb_2013.” Under the Cost Elements column, “Per Diem – Deployment Area” and “HOLA/COLA (as applicable)” are listed with applicable Burden of “None.” Please confirm that offerors are authorized to apply G&A to these cost elements in accordance with FAR Part 31 and their company policies and procedures.

A28. These items shall be charged as actual costs and applied to the ODC CLINs.

Q29. Reference Form DD254, block 1a. and block 10e. Block 1a.; reference indicates a Secret clearance requirement; however, block 10e. indicates a requirement for access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI). Given that SCI access typically involves a Top Secret clearance, please clarify the clearance requirements for this solicitation.

A29. There may be a requirement for one (1) of the C4 Analysts to have a Top Secret clearance with SCI.

Q30. Reference page 48 of 57, Section L, Evaluation of Offers; Reference page 49 of 57, Section L, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data. The Evaluation of Offers section states, “This is a COTS acquisition”; however, Clauses Incorporated by Reference includes FAR clause 52.215-20. Given that this is a COTS acquisition, this offeror respectfully requests that FAR 52.215-20 be amended to include Alternative IV, which states “Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required.”

A30. This is commercial services acquisition, and references to COTS in RFQ Section L. will be removed in Amendment 0002. There is no requirement for certified cost or pricing data. FAR 52.215-20 is removed in its entirety.

Q31. Reference Attachment 1 PWS, page 15, paragraph 11 Travel Requirements; and Addendum 1 Estimated Exercise/Event Support Schedule and page 8 of 57, Section B, Item 0009. The PWS states “The contractor shall be required to travel to locations such as those listed in addendum 1…”. Section B indicates that travel is to be priced for the base and option years; however the PWS and addendum 1 do not provide sufficient detail to give accurate pricing for travel in support of Exercise Support and Contingency Operations, in some cases giving a location as only CONUS. Please clarify the origins and destinations in addendum 1 with city, state, and country so that travel may be accurately priced.

A31. PWS Addendum 1 has been modified to reflect origin and destination.

Q32. Reference Attachment 1 PWS, page 6, paragraph 3.7 Contingency Operations Support and Addendum 3, Contingency Operations. The PWS states “The contractor shall provide technically qualified personnel, to support fielded tactical C4 systems during Contingency Operations at various OCONUS locations.” For travel in support of Contingency Operations, please clarify the Locations (City/Country), # Personnel, # Trips, and # Days, so that travel may be accurately priced.

A32. See PWS Addendum 2 with footnotes (*) regarding contingency billets.

Q33. Table 3-2 of the PWS shows MCCES MCB at 29 Palms as being one of the sites supported by TSS, however, MCCES MCB is not listed in Addendum 2. Is this billet covered in one of the other sites or is the headcount in Addendum 2 off by the number bodies required at MCCES MCB and if so, how many are required?

A33. PWS Addendum 2 has been updated in RFQ Amendment 0002 with one (1) C4 Analyst (COC) billet that is required for MCCES 29 Palms and removes one (1) C4 Analyst (COC) billet @ MCTSSA.

Q34. The page count for the cost volume is limited to 25 pages. Does this include the front matter (table of contents, acronym list, figure and table list)? The current page limit is very constraining for getting all of the cost data required by Section M and we request that front matter not be included in the page count.

A34. Section M, Paragraph Factor 4 has been increased to 50 pages.

Q35. Is it necessary to re-submit the PP Questionnaire to the Program Contracting Officers? We are concerned that this may be an irritant to them since they have already done so once.

A35. PPQ’s do not need to be resubmitted.

Q36. I have not found a new suspense date for submittal of questions. Will you please advise of that date?

A36. 20 Feb 13

Q37. Reference Attachment 1 PWS, page 5, paragraph 3.2 OFTSSC Deployed Support Team (DST); and Addendum 1 Estimated Exercise/Event Support Schedule. The PWS states: “On average the DST deploys one (1) contractor, two (2) times a year, for no more than ninety (90) days each, with an average of sixty (60) days as required… .” However, DST deployment is not listed in Addendum 1 as an Estimated Exercise/Event. Please clarify additional hours and estimated duration to support this effort so that it can be accurately priced into OFTSSC CLIN 0004.

A37. Addendum 1 is a list of estimated exercises per year (non-contingency operations). The Deployed Support Team (DST) is not an exercise, but a MCTSSA team of government and contractor personnel that deploy in support of exercises and contingency operations. Regarding the PWS language in paragraph 3.2 OFTSSC Deployed Support Team, 'On average the DST deploys one (1) contractor, two

(2) times a year, for no more than ninety (90) days each, with an average of sixty (60) days as required to assist Marine Corps units engaged in contingency operations abroad.' The contractor support deploying with the DST is staffed from the contractors supporting the OFTSSC. The base labor (40 hours per week) for these contractors is already accounted for as fixed labor billets at the OFTSSC. The vendor shall estimate a 12 hours/day, 7 days a week work load (84 hours total), but for pricing purposes, only 44 contingency labor hours (84 work hours - 40 hours base labor) per week during deployments shall be calculated. In addition, the vendor shall price all allowable costs applicable to said deployments, such as travel costs, PerDiem, and DBA insurance etc. The same formula shall be used in estimating total work hours for exercise labor as annotated in Addendum 1. During exercises, the vendor should estimate 12/hours per day, 7 days a week workload, but for pricing purposes, only 44 exercise labor hours (84 work hours - 40 hours base labor) per week during exercises shall be priced. In addition, the vendor shall price all allowable costs applicable to said deployments, such as travel costs, Per Diem, etc.