Questions_and_Answers_-_Round_Two.docx

Questions – Round Two

1. What is the revised due date for proposals? On the SF1449 (page 1 of 118 of the Word file “Solicitation with Amendment 0002 changes.doc”) the due date is 0900 April 6, 2017. On the SF30 (page 1 of 95 of the PDF file “Amendment 0002.pdf”) the due date is 0900 17 April 2017.

Answer - See Amendment 3 to change due date to 01 May 2017, NLT 0900.

2. Each CDRL as listed on pages 6 – 12 (of 118) in the Word document contains a part C, Performance Standard Timeliness. It states “Draft input within 15 working days earlier of the designated completion time for the respective product …”. What is the starting event for the 15 day period?

ANSWER – The OTD manual has all of the required completion /due times for the respective documents (see PWS for hyperlinks), it will be the dates reflected in the OTD manual for each deliverable that the 15 days applies to.

3. All QASP CDRL Performance Standard Accuracies say “No rejected reports due to a discrepancy discovered by normal staffing review and not until the Division Warfare ACOS accepts the deliverable or 90 days whichever occurs first as a government accepted product”. Who in the government gets to make the determination to reject a report?

ANSWER – The divisional ACOS has the bottom line on any rejected report.

a. What is the standard for rejecting a report?

ANSWER – The standard that is followed will be the normal staffing that occurs in order to finalize a document from draft to final signature, if during this review errors are found, the document is returned back to the OTD for review and/or correction.

b. Because the government has not definitively defined the standard in the QASP, anyone within the command could determine his or her own standard with no recourse for the contractor. Is there a “due process” established that allows a contractor to appeal the decision in cases where there appears to be an unrealistic or personal standard being implemented?

ANSWER – The QASP considers the standards as are set within the commands review process. No one person established their own set of standards that will be followed unless it has become a formalized, Vetted and approved process within the command. At any time the contractor may discuss with the customer the discrepancies found to determine the best way ahead in order to correct them. If additional adjudication is required, the customer and the contractor should seek assistance from the COR.

c. The way this is written the contractor bears all risk. FAR 16.207 says that payment is based on effort expended, not on results. How does the QASP wording adhere to the FAR?

ANSWER - 16.207-1 Description. A firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contract requires—

(a) The contractor to provide a specified level of effort, over a stated period of time, on work that can be stated only in general terms; and (b) The Government to pay the contractor a fixed dollar amount. The PWS will provide the stated period of time, and the contractor will be expected to execute to meet that timeline.

4. All QASP CDRL Performance Standard Timeliness says “Draft input within 15 working days earlier of the designated completion time for the respective product in accordance with prescribed time lines contained within the OTD Manual listed above, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance with the divisional ACOS.” Who in the government gets to make the determination to set a timeline since many COMOPTEVFOR timelines are not IAW the OTD manual due to program changes?

ANSWER – IAW the OTD Manual or otherwise agreed to with the COR and Customer at the Kickoff mtg for each task order awarded.

a. Is there a “due process” established that allows a contractor to appeal the decision in cases where there appears to be an unrealistic standard being implemented? The way this is written the contractor bears all risk.

ANSWER – In any case where the Contractor and the Customer cannot reach an agreement, it is recommended that the customer and contractor request guidance from the COR

5. The QASP is very heavily centered on deliverables yet this solicitation is a LOE solicitation. Is contractor performance graded on the quality/timeliness of the deliverable?

ANSWER – The end product/deliverable that is provided by the contractor to the Government are those items identified within the CDRL listing (Test Plans, TEMP’s etc…) which support the acquisition schedule of the SUT. Because these CDRL’s support the SUT schedule, it will ultimately be that schedule that affects the due dates of the CDRL’s being provided.

a. What happens when the contractor is put in a position that the LOE dictated by the government is not sufficient to allow the contractor to produce the deliverable?

ANSWER – If a situation presents an unrealistic timeline, it is recommended that the customer and contractor contact the COR to resolve the matter.

b. Is there a due process established that allows a contractor to appeal the decision in these cases? The way this is written is that the contractor bears all risk.

ANSWER – As it is a FFP type contract, executing Task Orders, the contractor bears a substantial amount of the burden, and at any time the contractor has an “Appeal”, they should consult the COR for adjudication.

6. QASP CDRL A011 says: “Design of Experiment IEF Inputs. Contractor shall produce a statistical package based on the IEF Test Design section format, containing the Factors (Conditions), Response Variables (Measures) and Run Matrix (test design samples) using information gathered during the MBTD Process. Included in the package shall be Sigma (standard deviation), Delta (effect size), Alpha and resulting Confidence, and Beta and resulting Power values for each of the test vignettes determined by the MBTD process.” Yet the OTD manual says that 01B government personnel will be part of the process and produce those items. Is the government’s intent that contractors perform this function without input from 01B? If input from 01B is expected then how can the contractor be graded on accuracy and timeliness if the info is “team effort between 01B and the contractor?

ANSWER – The contractor is expected to utilize the COTF process and procedure as defined in many of the references cited within the PWS.

7. QASP CDRLs A003, A004, A011, and A012 titles use the term “input” to the various products (e.g., IEF document, TEMP, test plan). This implies that the document is government owned and the contractor will provide inputs to the document. If that is the case, how can timeliness and accuracy be judged if the contractor does not own document?

ANSWER – The document is owned by the Contractor until the Government accepts the document for accuracy and timeliness, and in each of those criteria’s as specified within the contract and email will be submitted by the government to the contractor confirming receipt and acceptance of the document as specified within the QASP: Receipt and Acceptance of Deliverables - All Deliverables (CDRL’s) listed will be delivered in accordance with the QASP and upon receipt and acceptance by the government the respective customer will acknowledge receipt and acceptance (Timeliness or Accuracy) by sending an email to the COR stating so. This email will facilitate the formal government’s position that they have accepted the respective product (for Timeliness or Accuracy), the COR will forward a copy of this email to the prime of the Task Order and the email will become part of the COR folder for that respective Task Order.

a. On the other hand, QASP CDRL A006 uses the term “report” instead implying that the contractor is producing the deliverable. Yet the OTD manual specifically directs a test reporting process directly involving the government and GFI. How can a timeliness or accuracy standard be applied for a deliverable which is dependent on the government to execute a process? Can the government please clarify expectations for “deliverables” versus “level of effort” expected on this contract?

ANSWER – In any contract where the contractor will be producing a product, it is considered to be a deliverable, and to support that deliverable is a government process (Best Practices etc…) that articulates what that process is to be followed. It is imperative that the offeror become familiar with these processes to fully understand the nature of work that will be expected by the government.

8. Paragraph 2(e), Operational Test Execution, does not contain CDRL A015, Test Execution and Data Collection. It seems that CDRL A015 was specifically created to apply to this paragraph. Can the government clarify?

ANSWER – A015 was added for clarity

9. Paragraph 2(e) Operational Test Execution and 2(i) Test Execution and Data Collection appear to be one in the same. Is the government’s intent to have both paragraphs overlapping in expectations?

ANSWER – Paragraph i. (Operational Test Execution and Data Collection) was removed as it was redundant to the information in paragraph e. (Operational Test Execution) for clarity. Sub paragraph (3) under Operational Test Execution and Data Collection was copied into paragraph e.

10. Why does paragraph 2(h), Administrative Support, have CDRL A015 Test Execution and Data Collection associated with it?

ANSWER – Sub paragraph (2) under Administrative Support applies during Test Execution phase.

11. Why does CDRL A015 have M&S elements in it when M&S has its own CDRL (A005).

ANSWER – Sub-paragraph (1) under paragraph o. Test Execution and Data collection has been removed as it was redundant

12. The QASP CDRL titles and the actual CDRL titles in paragraph 3 are different in many cases. This could lead to the government and awardees not agreeing on the expectation for the deliverable. Can the government please reconcile the titles to ensure expectations are met? Examples:

a. QASP CDRL A003 title is “Draft TEMP/MTP Input” yet paragraph 3(c) CDRL A003 title is “TEMP/MTP Development Support”.

ANSWER – Changed for clarity

b. QASP CDRL A005 title is “M&S Accreditation Support Documentation” yet paragraph 3(e) CDRL A005 is “M&S Accreditation Documentation”.

ANSWER – Changed for clarity

c. QASP CDRL A006 title is “Draft Final Report” yet paragraph 3(f) CDRL A006is “Final Report”.

ANSWER – Changed for clarity

d. QASP CDRL A012 title is “IEF Document Input” yet paragraph 3(l) CDRL A012 is “IEF Document Development”.

ANSWER – Changed for clarity

13. Paragraph 3(e), CDRL A005, M&S Accreditation Documentation, only addresses IOT&E. Is the government’s intent to only use M&S during IOT&E and no other phases of test?

ANSWER – All phases of test are to ultimately support IOT&E

14. The CDRL delivery timelines in paragraph 3 are not consistent with the QASP CDRL timeliness definitions. Can the government reconcile the CDRL timelines with the QASP CDRL timelines? Examples of the inconsistencies:

a. Paragraph 3(f), CDRL A006 Final Report says “Draft deliverable in COMOPTEVFOR format to be submitted within fifteen days after completion of test event unless otherwise agreed upon in advance with the OTD.” QASP paragraph 6, CDRL A006 timeliness definition says “Draft input within 15 working days earlier of the designated completion time for the respective product in accordance with prescribed time lines contained within the OTD Manual listed above, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance with the divisional ACOS.” Which standard does the government expect the awardees to use?

ANSWER – Corrected for Clarity within the PWS

b. CDRLs A007, A008, and A009 (paragraphs 3(g), (h), and (i)) have similar inconsistencies.

ANSWER – The QASP has been corrected to follow the PWS for these three CDRL’s

15. Cybersecurity specific test planning, execution, analysis, and reporting are not mentioned anywhere in the solicitation or as part of any of the CDRLs. Can the government confirm that these functions are not part of this solicitation and that the awardees are not expected to perform these functions?

ANSWER – Cyber warfare testing is conducted by O1D. The offerors will be expected to become familiar with the best Practices, Policies and Procedures for executing test in accordance with the established guidelines. It will be expected that the Offerors integrate any/all GFI into the respective supporting test documents.

16. What does CDRL A014 have to do with Deliverable 2(a) Documentation Review?

ANSWER – Removed for clarity

17. Since CDRL A010 is MBTD report, and required throughout the MBTD process and IEF development, why is this not a deliverable for Deliverable 2(b) Operational Test Design Development?

ANSWER – Added for clarity

18. Is it the government’s intent to have subparagraph (3) under CDRL A002 Test Planning and Project Operations Support here, and not in CDRL A003 regarding TEMPs?

ANSWER – Removed from A002 and ADDED to A003 for clarity

19. Is it the government’s intent to have CDRL A012 IEF Document Development as a CDRL for Test Planning (deliverable 2(e))?

ANSWER – Removed A012 from para 2.e. for clarity

20. Is it the government’s intent to have CDRL A004 Draft Test Plan Input as a CDRL for deliverable 2(e) Operational Test Execution when the test plan should have already been completed?

ANSWER – removed A004 from Para 2.e. for clarity

21. 12 IEF Document Development as a CDRL for Test Planning (deliverable 2(e))?

ANSWER – Is there a question here? 2.e is Test Execution.

22. In many instances throughout the document, when describing minimum personnel qualifications, the phrase, “. . . XX years of experience operating and/or maintaining the specific system under test” is specified. Given that most of the SUTs in OT are new to the DoD, how does COTF envision a contractor meeting that requirement. For example, systems that are still in the EDM phase and have not been in existence for 3 years may have no personnel that meet the 3 year minimum. Would COTF consider rewording the requirement?

ANSWER – In those situations where a NEW SUT is being introduced and no previous experience could be utilized, it is that reason that the government has included those labor categories that are designed to solicit for COTF Process and Procedure (Not SME).

23. What are the gov’t’s goal with the submission of a Total Compensation Plan? The submission of Subcontractor salaries to the Prime coupled with the Subcontractor Pricing provide the Prime with the ability to reverse engineer the Subcontractor Total Indirect Rate proprietary data. Are salary ranges permitted? What type of data is the gov’t expecting from surveys?

ANSWER – FAR 52.222-46 (Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees) requires the submission of a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. FAR 52.222-46(a) clearly requires submission of “salaries and fringe benefits” and not “salary ranges” of the professional employees. Therefore, salary ranges are not permitted in the total compensation plan. Both FAR 22.1103 and FAR 52.222-46 explain the government’s objective in requiring the total compensation plan. As stated in FAR 52.222-46(a), supporting information shall include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Representative examples of data would be hourly wage rates, annual full-time salaries, annual health insurance benefits ($), annual time off benefits ($), and annual retirement benefits ($).

24. Could the gov’t be more clear on the OCI submission requirements. If a Vendor and their Subcontractors do not have an OCI is there any submission required? Is a statement to that fact sufficient?

ANSWER: If an Offeror does not have any information pertaining to any existing contract between the Offeror and the companies engaged in furnishing to the United States Government any services or supplies pertaining to the development, production or analysis of any of the weapon systems, equipment or programs identified in the performance work statement or listed elsewhere within the solicitation, which may have a bearing on any existing or potential conflict of interest, then the Offeror can simply state the following in Volume III: “Offeror has not identified any existing or potential conflict of interest within the meaning of the clause entitled, ‘Notice of Inclusion of an Organizational Conflict of Interest.’” In that limited situation, no other information is required for Volume III.

25. Would the gov’t consider shifting the submission deadline to the 23 APRIL to allow Vendors the ability to track submissions through the mail during business days?

ANSWER – No, the deadline is not being extended to Sunday, April 23, 2017. Please refer to the instructions in the SF30 (most recent Amendment) that provide the deadline for submission.

26. Is FEDEX an acceptable delivery method for submissions?

ANSWER – Yes. However, as stated in the amended instructions, delivery by Other than United States Postal Service (e.g. FedEx) requires package to be addressed to:

NAVSUP FLC Norfolk, DWY 22 ATTN: Monti Dutta, CODE (230.2) PHONE (757-443-1330) 9550 Decatur Ave.

Norfolk, VA 23511-3392

27. If a submission is Post Marked by the submission deadline does that meet the intent of the requirements or must the submission be physically recv’d by the Mr. Dutta by the deadline? How long does the mail processing take at the Decatur Ave on Gilbert St locations so we can time our submission?

ANSWER – Submissions must be physically received at the 9550 Decatur Avenue/1968 Gilbert Street (Norfolk) mail room by the posted deadline. Therefore, the government’s internal mail processing will not impact the timeliness of submissions.

28. OCI Clause paragraph (c) contains more restrictive language than was incorporated into the last COMPOTEVFOR OMNIBUS solicitation.

We are asking for clarification/justification for this change. Specifically, what is the purpose for the restraint and duration as it relates to “work under this contract with the system suppliers.” Does the Government believe that there are significant potential organizational conflicts of interest that would precipitate the restrictive language that is deemed to be appropriate to the nature of the conflict that restricts the contractor’s eligibility for future contracts or subcontracts.

ANSWER- the Restrictions on Contracting in section (c) of the Organizational Conflict of Interest description of the Notice of Inclusion of an Organizational Conflict of Interest follows the rules and principles in FAR 9.505 and FAR 9.507-1. Please refer to those FAR citations for further guidance.

29. In both the Amendment 0002 PDF and Solicitation with Amendment 0002 MS Word, the following sections appear twice: Instructions to Offers, Requirements for Proposal Content, and Evaluation Factors for Award (for example in Amendment 0002, Instructions to Offers appears on pages 7 and 72). Please confirm that each section repeat is identical, or if one appearance (first/last) takes precedence over the other.

ANSWER - Latest amended solicitation has been revised so that there is only one set of the following: Instructions to Offerors, Requirements for Proposal Content, and Evaluation Factors for Award.

30. In the PWS, sections 2.e.(1), 2.e.(2), 2.e.(3), and 2.b.(2) are the same as 2.i.(1), 2.i.(2), 2.i.(4), and 2.d.(2) respectively. Please confirm that this was the Government’s intention, and whether these items need to be addressed twice in proposals.

ANSWER: The former Section 2.i. section of the PWS has been primarily consolidated into Section 2.e. in the latest revised PWS. There is some necessary overlap between 2(b)(2) and 2(d)(2) of the latest revised PWS, but that task is used in both the Operational Test Design Development and Operational Test Planning contexts. The proposal should address that task in both contexts.

31. In the Volume II Price Proposal instructions and in Q&A #106, regarding a Total Compensation plan, would the Government prefer the Prime submit a single consolidated plan for its team, or does the Government desire separate and distinct plans be included from each proposed subcontractor in the proposal?

ANSWER – A single consolidated Total Compensation Plan shall be submitted by the Prime Contract Offeror that covers all professional employees (from prime contractor and subcontractors) who will work under the contract.

32. We noticed in the Q&A (original question 29 from first set of questions) that COTF plans to award task orders based on a Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis even though the omnibus is being awarded based on Best Value. In the original Question 29, you state that task orders will be awarded on an LPTA basis. This policy does not match the guidance of the 2017 NDAA, Section 813, that was signed by the President on December 23, 2016. Section 813 cautions the DoD not to use LPTA for knowledge-based professional services. Is the government reevaluating this position?

33. In Question 29, you state that task orders will be awarded on an LPTA basis. This policy does not match the guidance of the 2017 NDAA, Section 813, that was signed by the President on December 23, 2016. Section 813 cautions the DoD not to use LPTA for knowledge-based professional services.

See the following link for the text as of December 13, 2016 of Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2943/text

Additional information can be found in the following articles:

http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/3288-2017-ndaa-restricts-dod%E2%80%99s-use-of-lpta-procedures http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/2017-ndaa-restricts-dods-use-of-lpta-procedures/#sthash.9UgwLQk1.dpuf

Is the government reevaluating this position?

ANSWER – This is Guidance, not policy, it is in the government best interest to utilize LPTA under those stated conditions of Section 813 (b)(1) thru (b)(6) for awarding task orders. Those stated conditions will exist at the task order award stage for this particular procurement. Nevertheless, Section 813(b) applies to solicitations issued on or after the date that is 120 days after the date of the enactment (December 13, 2016) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The 120 day waiting period for the applicability of Section 813(b) did not get completed before the solicitation for this procurement was issued. Finally the stated avoidance of lowest price technically acceptable source selection criteria for certain procurements cannot be interpreted as a broad ban.