Q A_12_18_15.docx

ACETEF RFP Question and Answers for Amendment 0004

24. Based on the answer to question 18: - The Government concluded the Workforce Matrix spreadsheet would only be beneficial for key personnel and since we are only looking at key positions, the resumes suffice rather than the Workforce Matrix.”

ANSWER: That is correct the resume suffices rather than the Workforce Matrix.

25. It is request that further clarification the verbiage in Section M, Part B, 1.0 Technical, 1.2 Personnel and Staffing states. “For this factor, the Government will evaluate the quality of the workforce and key personnel proposed. Personnel will be evaluated on the extent to which they meet or exceed the corresponding labor category qualifications outlined in Section C of the PSW.” Should the verbiage “workforce and” be deleted from the evaluation requirement since the evaluation is only for key personnel?

ANSWER: The verbiage “workforce and” will be deleted from the evaluation requirement since the evaluation is only for key personnel?

26. Based on the answer to question 20: “It is the Government’s intent to allow Offerors 3 pages for each of the 11 required key resumes plus 15 pages allowed for Personnel and Staffing a total of 26 pages.” It is requested that further clarification to the number of pages approved for the “Personnel and Staffing”. Should the total pages allowed be 48 vice 26 pages?

Answer: the total pages allowed should be 48 vice the 26 pages; RFP will update the with the correct page count.

27. The government indicated in the Questions and Answers for Amendment 2 question number 16, that the P4 Past Performance Matrix, and the Section L Past Performance summary are two documents, and that both need to be submitted. Can the Gov’t please clarify if the P4 is a separate document, where should the P4 be submitted in accordance with the proposal content and volumes? Also can the government please provide a page limit for the P4 matrix?

Answer: The Government has decided to remove Attachment P4 from the Solicitation. Offerors are not required to submit it with their proposals.

28. The Government indicated in their response to question 20, that “It is the Government’s intent to allow Offerors 3 pages for each of the 11 required key resumes plus 15 pages allowed for Personnel and staffing a total of 26 pages.” This seems to be contradictory in two aspects: 3 pages per resume, plus 15 pages for Personnel and Staffing would equal a page limit of 48 pages. Please clarify.

Answer: Please see question 26.

29. Section L 2.2 Personnel and Staffing, only requests that Key resumes. Section 2.2.1 is reserved. Can the government please clarify what information is to be included, aside from resumes, in the personnel and staffing section to account for the 15 additional pages?

Answer: The page count is the Governments page limitation. It is at the Offerors discretion on how many pages to utilize as long as it does not go over the limitation.

30. In Section L 2.1.2.2 Sample task, instructs Offerors to provide a WBS and an associated schedule for each milestone. This is typically done in MS Project. Can the government please clarify if Offerors are allowed to submit the WBS as an attachment in MS Project for electronic submission? Also, for the paper submission, does the WBS constructed MS Project have to be in 12pt font?

Answer: Offerors are allowed to submit MS Project as an electronic attachment. Please have font size as appropriate (other than 12pt font is acceptable).

31. The government states in Section C, and in Labor Qualifications “The contractor shall be knowledgeable of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and shall abide by all IBST organizational policies associated with CMM…” As well there are requirements for the Network Specialist, Operations Specialist, Configuration Management Specialist and Junior Computer Specialist to all have experience with or knowledge of the CMM policies and practices. However, it appears there is no requirement for the prime contractor or any subcontractors to have a CMM rating. Can the government please clarify if Offerors or their subcontractors should have a CMM rating, and if not will government please consider removing the CMM knowledge requirements from the solicitation?

Answer: Individual labor qualification requirements may not be directly applicable to corporate certifications or ratings. Section C is appropriate as it stands.

32. Given there has been 2 amendments, and several questions still to be answered, will the government consider granting a two week extension for Offerors to readjust proposal submissions to the changes already made, and the answers forthcoming.

Answer: The Government has extended the proposal submission to 7 January 2016

33. Section B Page 3 under Items 2000 for Travel, 4000 & 5000 for Completion Material (CR or FFP) it states that they are “in support of CLIN 0001 IAW…” Should they truly be in support of CLIN 1000?

Answer: Yes, the statement for CLINs 2000, 4000 and 5000 are stated correctly.

34. Section B Page 6 5252.211-9503 LEVEL OF EFFORT (COST REIMBURSEMENT) (NAVAIR)(DEC 2012) clause reflects “the estimated composition of the total man-hours of direct labor by classification”. The Labor Categories and hours listed here reconcile with that of Page 86, L-2, 2.0 Labor Categories and Labor Hours. Both sections address a Technical Writer, Junior and Technical Writer labor category. However, Page 17, subparagraph 10.4 Labor Categories and Page 18 sub para 10.5 Position Qualifications identify a Tech Writer and Tech Writer Sr. Can the Government please confirm which sections of the RFP identifying labor categories, are correct?

ANSWER: The two labor categories to be addressed are Technical Writer and Technical Writer, Jr. The table will be revised with the appropriate labor category on pages 17 and 18.

35. Section C Page 12, 4.5 Engineering/Technical Support (Items 1000) – all other subparagraphs under 4.0, and paragraphs 6.0, 7.0 read for “CLINS” whereas 4.5 reads for “Items”. Which identification of these subparagraphs is correct, Items or CLINS?

Answer: Items/CLINs mean the same thing however for consistency paragraph 4.5 will be change to read as CLINs.

36. Section C Page 16 – 10.3 is not listed as a sub paragraph (RFP includes paragraphs 10.2 and 10.4). Was it the Government’s intention to omit 10.3 or was this paragraph erroneously omitted?

Answer: Yes, it is the Government’s intention to omit 10.3.

37. Section 10.5 Position Qualifications #24 Subject Matter Expert functions read as: Applies subject knowledge to investigate, analyze, plan, research, design, develop, implement and evaluate the use of Modeling and Simulation tools and/or stimulation products. Expert knowledge in modeling and simulation and the application of this knowledge to test and evaluation. The Experience reads as: A total of at least 8 years of experience in the development of advanced technology for sensor simulation and stimulation or modeling and simulation applications. At least 4 years of the above total experience shall have been as a team leader or supervisor performing the above management functions. It does not appear that any management functions are listed or conveyed. Can the Government please clarify the management functions the SME is to be experienced in?

Answer: Section 10.5, Position Qualifications #24 Subject Matter Expert functions statement “At least 4 years of the above total experience shall have been as a team leader or supervisor performing the above management functions" is changed to read as " At least 4 years of the above total experience shall have been as a team leader or supervisor.” The statement is updated within the solicitation.

38. Section 10.5 Position Qualifications, #3 Computer Specialist, Junior must be able to formulate architectural design, functional specifications, interfaces and documentation of hardware and software systems similar to the guidelines and practices of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) level 3. However, this does not appear to be a requirement of the mid or Senior Computer Specialists. Additionally the Computer Specialist, junior experience requires “No specific experience required.” Was it the government intent to require all of the Computer Specialists to have this ability? If not, will the government consider removing this requirement from such a junior position which requires “no specific experience” and applying the functional requirement to one of the mid or senior level Computer Specialists, that would have had time to gain this experience in their career?

Answer: Please note that the Computer Specialist, Junior states that “...must be able to formulate ... systems similar to...". The Government’s deems that the position description is appropriate as stated.

39. Section 10.5 Position Qualifications # 14 Information Assurance Specialist states the functions as: “The IA Specialist applies systems analysis and design techniques to complex computer systems in a broad area such as manufacturing, finance management, engineering, accounting, or statistics, logistics planning, material management, etc.….” with the experience reading as: “A total of at least 5 years of experience performing the foregoing functions.” These requirements seem to conflict with the DoD 8570.01-M instruction, which defines IA functions as: “IA functions focus on the development, operation, management, and enforcement of security capabilities for systems and networks. Personnel performing IA functions establish IA policies and implement security measures and procedures for the Department of Defense and affiliated information systems and networks.” As well as IA personnel must obtain and maintain a certification corresponding to the highest level function(s) they perform. Can the government please clarify if the labor category title Information Assurance Specialist is the correct title for the given description? If so, can the government please provide the level of certification personnel must possess?

Answer: The statement "A total of at least 5 years of experience performing the foregoing functions” is revised to " A total of at least 5 years of experience performing IA functions IAW DoD 8570.01-M." The following statement is added to Section 10.5, Position Qualifications # 14 Information Assurance Specialist, Education: “IA certifications when required by specific tasking should correspond to the highest level function(s) they perform." Solicitation is revised to reflect changes in Section 10.5 Position Qualifications # 14 Information Assurance Specialist.

40. Section 10.5 Position Qualifications #21 Engineering Specialists. Under subparagraph “c.” experience states: At least 3 years of foregoing total experience shall have been in a specific engineering discipline used in the support of Installed Systems Test and Evaluation. Can the government please provide either: A list of the Engineering Disciplines that are acceptable and support Installed Systems Test and Evaluation? OR The name and type of installed systems being used or referenced?

Answer: Please refer to Section C paragraph 4.3.

41. Section L Page 69, Clauses Incorporated by Reference still contains Clause 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, however, the Government removed the requirement of this submission per Final RFP on page 83 paragraph 4.1.3.9 (now states “Reserved”). Can the Gov’t please clarify whether or not the Professional Compensation Plan for Employees is a requirement for submission?

Answer: The Professional Compensation Plan for Employees is not a requirement for submission and Clause 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees is no longer included in Section L on page 69.

42. Section L, Page 77 Period of Performance for the Sample Task states “The base period of performance for this TO is from award to award plus two (2) years.” Can the Government please clarify what “from award to award plus two (2) years” means?

Answer: The sentence should read “The base period of performance for this TO is from date of award plus two (2) years.” RFP will be revised to reflect the change in verbiage within Section L, Page 77 Period of Performance for the Sample Task.

43. Section L-2 Page 86 opening paragraph states “This effort is an ordering period of 48 months (4 years). For the purposes of evaluation, the Offeror shall propose Labor, Travel, and Material on a yearly basis.”, however, this conflicts with L-2, Page 87 3.3 Labor Proposal where the RFP states “Offerors are requested to propose by CLIN.” Section B does not accommodate proposing labor by Year. Can the Gov’t please clarify or confirm that proposed costs (labor and ODCs/Materials) in the P6 shall be broken out by years (not Option Periods) with a summary page cumulating individual costs by category (labor, travel, and three material CLINs) for the full 48 months, or 4 years, thus becoming total costs that are entered into the respective Item or CLIN under Section B?

Answer: L-2, Page 87 3.3 Labor Proposal statement “Offerors are requested to propose by CLIN” is deleted in it’s entirely. RFP will be revised to reflect the change. P6 shall be broken out by years (not Option Periods) with a summary page cumulating individual costs by category (labor, travel, and three material CLINs) for the 4 years.

44. Page 94, Tripwire Table labor categories reconcile with those listed on pages 6 & 86 but not with the labor categories listed on pages 17 & 18 (Technical Writer Labor Categories). Can the Government please clarify which level these two labor categories need to addressed as?

ANSWER: The two labor categories need to addressed are Technical Writer and Technical Writer, Jr. The table will be revised with the appropriate labor category.

45. Question: Page 83 (RFP Amendment 1), Paragraph 4.1.3.4.3.2 requires that Offerors and subcontractors address escalation for all labor categories and shall provide rationale for the specific escalation rate used, which are standard requirements. However, the ACETEF solicitation includes a unique additional requirement for Offerors and subcontractors to provide historical (previous 3 years) actual escalation information. Labor escalation is typically driven by the specific contract requirements and is not tracked like historical indirect rate(s). For example, some contracts are knowledge-based service contracts where tripwires apply, and some contracts incorporate the Service Contract Act (SCA) and prevailing Department of Labor Wage Determinations; and these individual contract requirements affect escalation proposed and performed. Can the Government please clarify whether this historical requirement is for total company or just a company’s bidding business unit, involves both direct and indirect staff, is for non-SCA contracts like the ACETEF solicitation, is for tripwire-related contracts like the ACETEF solicitation, or whether this historical requirement can be removed and the Government can consider available escalation indices to perform its cost/price reasonableness determination regarding labor escalation?

Answer: The Government is requesting total company’s actual historical escalation requirement.

46. After review of the Labor Category Qualifications, and understanding the current contract incorporates the Service Contract Act and Wage determination Labor Categories, it would appear the government’s intent was to remove SCA requirements. However, FAR 52.222-41 is included in Section I, incorporating Service Contract Act by reference. Can the government please clarify if the Service Contract Act applies to the current solicitation?

Answer: The Service Contract Act is not applicable to this contract and is not included in Section I.

47. **In Section L-1 Paragraph 1.6 a “Critical team member” is defined as one of the entities of the Offeror that performs a critical function (Critical function refers to any task that will be performed by key personnel) in the performance of the resulting contract, whether it is technical or financial, and/or that have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the Offeror’s proposal. In Section L paragraph 3.1 states “The offeror shall submit up to five (5) summaries of past performance similar in size, scope, and/or complexity, which are ongoing or were completed within the last five (5) years for itself and its principal subcontractors and critical team members, if any. Commercial contracts may be included. At least three (3) of these summaries should be efforts that were performed by the prime contractor.” Given that 3 of the past performance references must be provided from the prime offeror, only allowing 2 references from additional team members. In the case of 3 or more teammates having Key personnel (not considering principal subcontractors), can the government advise if Offerors will be evaluated unacceptable for not providing past performance for all critical team members? Additionally, can the Government please clarify the ranking level of importance in reference to Critical team members and Principal Subcontractors?

Answer: A proposal will not be evaluated unacceptable for not providing past performance for all critical team members. There is no ranking level of importance for Critical team members and Principal Subcontractors

48. The DoD 8570.01-M instruction states: Personnel performing functions, of their occupational title (e.g., system administrator, help desk technician, network technician, information system technician, mechanic, infantry, logistics coordinator) shall be identified as part of the IA workforce and must comply with the requirements of IAT II compliance, which requires certifications/or completed trainings in: Security+ CE and an OS/CE Certification. Can the government please clarify if the Systems Administrator (Junior and Mid), Systems Engineer, Network Specialist, or Computer Specialist (Junior, Mid, Senior) are required to meet IAT II compliance, and if any are subject to performing “Privileged Access” functions?

Answer: IAT II compliance and any “Privileged Access” requirements would be specified in a Task Order.

49. Section L Paragraph 2.1 Understanding of the Work and Technical Approach, subparagraph 2.1.1.2 states that the narrative shall address the PWS paragraph sections… It appears that PWS section 4.7 Information Technology and Assurance Support was omitted from the table. Was this omission done erroneously, or was it the government’s intent to not have Offerors propose an understanding and capability of the 4.7 requirements?

Answer: The Government intentionally omitted section 4.7 Information Technology and Assurance Support from the table and the Offeror is to provide a narrative addressing the PWS paragraph items listed in the table.

50. Section 4.1.3.7 states that consultants must submit a cost/price proposal and “….have formulae intact to show mathematical operations.” Does this imply that each consultant must submit a P7 (Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet)? If so: What cost elements are expected in this P7? Since consultants are burdened differently than subcontractors, can Offerors modify the P6 (Prime Cost Breakout Spreadsheet) to adjust the method of consultant burdening?

Answer: Each consultant must submit a P7 (Subcontractor Cost Breakout Spreadsheet) and include all individual cost elements necessary to show the build-up of the fully burdened rate. In addition, modification of the spreadsheet for burdening purposes is allowed.

51. Section L Paragraph 4.1.3.7 - If the Offeror requires the use of consultants in its proposal, the consultant cost shall be captured under the appropriate labor pricing arrangement rather than the ODCs pricing arrangement. The proposed consultants are required to submit a cost/price proposal. The cost/price proposal shall have formulae intact to show mathematical operations. It is unclear if, in the event additional consultants are added after contract award, if each additional consultant not included in the original proposal will be required to submit cost/price data and have it approved by the government prior to executing work on the contract. Please Clarify.

Answer: If the Offeror for whatever reason adds or changes a consultant after contract award, the Offeror will have to adhere in accordance with FAR 52-244-2 Subcontracts in addition to receiving Government approval.