Solicitation N0018920R0031 Questions and Answers Final.pdf

Solicitation N0018920R0031 Questions and Answers

1. There appears to be a difference between the Labor Categories identified on page 20 of the solicitation in paragraph 6 of the PWS (6.1. Senior Program Manager, 6.2. Journeyman Program

Manager, 6.3. Senior Test and Evaluation Engineer, 6.4. Journeyman Test and Evaluation Engineer,

6.5. Senior Operations Analyst, 6.6. Journeyman Operations Analyst, 6.7. Cyber Systems Test

Engineer) and the Labor Categories identified in Att_4_Price_Worksheet_N0018920R0031 (Program

Manager, Test and Evaluation Manager, Test and Evaluation Manager, Senior Test and Evaluation

Analyst, Junior Test and Evaluation Analyst, Cyber Systems Test Engineer). Would the government please resolve the conflict and provide the Labor Categories that we should propose to?

The Government revised the Price Worksheet and posted it via Beta.SAM on 19 May 2020.

2. Can you share how many FTE'S are going to be involved with this opportunity?

The number of FTE’s will be determined by the awardee, based on their ability to complete the assigned workload.

3. An update was posted to beta.SAM yesterday at 5:58PM EDT however, the attachment/links section does not populate. Could you please advise its content? Also, could you advise if this is a current tasking and, if so, who the incumbent contractor is and under what contract number.

The update was to include the DD254 that was inadvertently omitted when the solicitation was originally posted. These services were originally performed under multiple award IDIQs under the following contracts.

N0018918D0003 Aermor, LLC

N0018918D0002 AVW Technologies

N0018918D0006 Core Services Group, Inc.

N0018918D0005 Hamilton Consulting Solutions Corporation

N0081918D0004 Tekla Research, Inc.

4. Will this opportunity require a team? Meaning, if we find a SDVOSB to prime this set aside, could we partner with them as a sub?

As this is a SDVOSB set-aside, the offeror submitting the proposal shall be an SDVOSB. The

Government cannot dictate to the SDVOSB offeror whether its proposal shall include sub-contractors.

5. Would the Government sponsor the facility clearance required?

The Government cannot sponsor the facility clearance due to the facility clearance possibly taking months to obtain. The Government needs the work to occur at the classified level upon start of the period of performance; a gap in coverage will not be allowed. Additionally, an approved facility clearance is required at start of the technical evaluation.

6. In Section 6 of the PWS, Government Labor Categories, there appears to be a DAWIA requirement in each of the following sections –

6.1 Senior Program Manager - DAWIA Program Management Level II

6.2 Journeyman Program Manager - DAWIA Program Management Level I

6.3 Senior Test and Evaluation Engineer - DAWIA T&E Level II

6.4 Journeyman Test and Evaluation Engineer - DAWIA Level I

Is a DAWIA certification required in each of these Labor Categories or is this equivalent/substitutable by the completion of the COMOPTEVFOR OTD/IEF/Test Planning courses? DAU’s website lists the following regarding DAWIA certification - “DAU is not aware of any source to certify contractors or other personnel employed by private sector firms”.

Experience and a DAWIA certification is required in each Labor Category.

7. Does the government desire offerors to describe technical solutions specific to DCGS-N, CANES, and “other MTA/expedited software capability release strategies,” or is a general solution to expedited software release strategies (e.g., “agile”) preferred?

The Government desires the proposals to be as detailed as possible regarding the supporting operational test and evaluation of MTA/expedited software capability release strategies, to include the

DCGS-N and CANES programs.

8. Per the SF1449, the offer is due at 1200 am on the 17th (midnight on the 16th). The Government also stated, “Offerors are strongly encouraged to confirm their proposal was received PRIOR to the closing date and time. It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure that the Contracting Office has received their entire proposal, with all attachments, PRIOR to the solicitation closing date and time.“

Would the Government consider making the due time 1200 pm on the 17th so that offerors can contact the Contracting Office that morning to ensure receipt of their proposal?

The Government has revised the offer due time to 1200 PM on 17 June 2020, as 1200 AM was entered in error.

9. On page 32 of the solicitation, CLIN 0002 appears to have a cost fill-in line, and references “Services

ODCs in accordance with paragraph 1.10 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS); however, there are no ODC amounts listed in 1.10. What amount does the Government want offerors to put in the fill-in line on page 32 of the solicitation? Same question for CLIN 1002 on page 34?

The pricing spreadsheet has been updated to reflect ODC amounts.

10. On page 40, under 52.212-2 the solicitation states, “Within the technical factor, the staffing approach sub-factor, the performance approach sub-factor, and the management approach sub-factor are equal to each other.” Under what Factor or Sub-factor does the Staffing Approach reside?

The Government has revised the sentence in question to read, “Within the technical factor, the C4IS approach sub-factor is more important than the performance approach and the management approach sub-factors which are equal to each other.” There is not a staffing approach sub-factor.

11. On page 40 of the solicitation, is “past performance” a typo as it is depicted with Management

Approach under sub-factor 3?

The Government has corrected the typo in question.

12. On page 100, the solicitation states that “the offeror shall include its test strategy discussion for automation.” The word automation is not found in the OTD Manual, and can be interpreted in several ways within the broader context of technology and acquisition. Can the government provide additional detail on the requirement to include a test strategy discussion for automation?

Automation was used as a reference to non-tactical automated information systems, as listed in PWS paragraph 1.2.1. and was not intended to be a reference to a new test strategy.

13. On page 101 of the SF 1449 Continuation Sheet under Factor 3 – Past Performance, can the current

COMOPTEVFOR OMNIBUS contract be treated as a single past performance example as was the case with the COMOPTEVFOR AW (50 Division) RFP?

In accordance with the solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, a Blanket Purchase

Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Therefore, if a contractor wishes to utilize the current COMOPTEVFOR OMNIBUS IDIQ as a past performance reference it can be treated as one reference.

14. On page 101 of the SF 1449 Continuation Sheet under Factor 3 - Past Performance, is it correct to interpret that a proposed subcontractor's past performance example for a contract on which they were the prime contractor will be evaluated even if the offeror did not participate in that contract as long as we clearly detail the aspects of the work and percentage of the work that the subcontractor is to perform for this solicitation?

That is correct. In accordance with the solicitation, if a proposed subcontractor’s past performance is used, the offeror’s proposal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. This includes stating the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement.

15. The RFP attachment 4, Price Worksheet Revised does not have any underlying formulas in cells D4-

D10, G4-G10, J4-J10, M4-M10, P4-P10, S4-S10, D14, G14, J14, M14, P14, and S14. Does the

Government desire that the spreadsheet be modified with the addition of appropriate formulas by each respondent?

The Government has revised RFP attachment 4, Price Worksheet Revised to reflect the formulas.

16. Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph III PROPOSAL

CONTENT, Phase 2, Factor 2 – Technical, Sub-factor 1 - Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence and Space Warfare (C4IS) Approach which says “The offeror shall include its test strategy discussion for automation” on page 100 of 108. Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-

2, Evaluation—Commercial Items, Phase 2, Factor 2 – Technical, Sub-Factor 1 – C4IS Approach which says “This discussion shall specifically address the strategy for the testing of an C4IS environment” on page 103 of 108.

The requirement for content and the evaluation of that content appear not to align. Can the government clarify the use of the words “for automation” in the proposal content section versus the use of the words “for the testing of an C4IS environment” in the evaluation section?

Automation was used as a reference to non-tactical automated information systems, as listed in PWS paragraph 1.2.1.

17. “Security Clearance Required. It is anticipated that a minimum-security clearance of TS/TS SCI eligible will be required for personnel supporting this Contract, and this will be identified at the task order level, therefore the offeror must be able to provide a contractor (when required at the task order level) with a minimum security clearance of TS/TS SCI Eligible. Any personnel proposed to work on any effort shall be eligible for necessary clearances to immediately begin performance at the time of task award. Specific security requirements will be identified on a separate DD254 at time of task order solicitation.”

Will the government please clarify if all personnel will need to be SCI eligible for specified Task orders, or will the government identified specific labor categories or functions that need to be SCI eligible?

As listed in para 6.7, the Cyber Systems Test Engineer is required to be TS/SCI eligible. The minimum-security clearance for all other positions will be identified in each TO (min SECRET).

18. Past Performance: If a past performance reference is proposed in which the Proposed Prime and the

Proposed Subcontractor both previously performed together (as Prime and Subcontractor), will the reference be evaluated upon the proposed Prime’s experience, the proposed subcontractor’s experience, or the combined experience of both?

In accordance with the solicitation, if a past performance reference is proposed in which the Proposed

Prime and the Proposed Subcontractor both previously performed together the offeror’s proposal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform.

This includes stating the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement. If this information is not provided only the work performed by the offeror will be evaluated.

19. Would recent and current support within the 60 Div across all aspects of the PWS be determined to be

“Very Relevant” as described in Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table?

The Government cannot determine whether or not a reference is very relevant or not without looking at the reference in comparison to the requirements of the PWS.

20. In Phase 2 of the evaluation, must the government justify significant cost variances prior to award?

For example, if the highest rated proposal is 400% higher than another qualifying bid, will the government need to justify the award of the significantly higher price. If so, who will perform the justification?

Based on the solicitation, the trade-off evaluation of proposals will consider the offeror’s non-price factors to be significantly more important than the price factor. If the offeror’s proposal is determined to be unacceptable in any of the non-price evaluation factors, the price proposal will not be evaluated by the contracting officer. The Government reserves the right to award the contract to other than the lowest priced offeror.

Therefore, if an offeror submits a proposal that has the lowest price but is determined to be marginal or unacceptable in any of the non-price factors that proposal’s price will not be evaluated nor will it be eligible for award. However, if the lowest price offer receives acceptable ratings in its non-price factors its price will be evaluated and a tradeoff amongst all offerors eligible for award will be completed by the Contracting Officer.

21. As this is not a task order under an existing IDIQ vehicle, will the evaluation/award of this solicitation be subject to protest?

That is correct; this solicitation is subject to protest.

22. On pages 32 and 34 of 108 in the solicitation, Item No 0002 and 1002 calls for a FFP price for

“Services ODCs” “… in accordance with Paragraph 1.10 of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).” PWS paragraph 1.10 does not provide sufficient detail to estimate a price for the “test equipment and supplies required for the performance of TO” nor to estimate the level of “contingency services” that may be required. Further, Attachment 4 Price Worksheet Revised does not provide for the unburdened ODC and any burden on the ODC to be presented. Will the Government provide plug numbers for Items 0002 and 1002 or provide sufficient detail for us to accurately estimate the costs of “test equipment and supplies required for the performance of TO” and “contingency services” that may be required to meet the requirements of PWS 1.10?

The pricing spreadsheet has been updated to reflect ODC amounts.