QAs_16R0026_08Nov17_ECC Posting dtd 08 Nov 2017.pdf

Q&As – CYBER MISSION ENGINEERING – N65236-16-R-0026 NOTE: No more questions will be accepted on the DRAFT RFP due to the release of the final RFP. The final RFP will provide for a question and answer period. During that period, all questions and answers shall be sent to IndustryFeedback.fct@navy.mil. All additional questions received on the draft RFP will not be reviewed or answered by the Government. The content of the Final RFP will take precedence over any and all previously submitted responses to Industry questions on DRAFT versions of the RFP.

1 Page 176 of the RFP (C) proposal content, the government highly discourages individual contractors submitting as a prime and/or team member more than one proposal… a)What is “highly discourages”?

b) Does a Small Business Priming on CME AND participating as part of a Large Business Team also Priming CME fall into the “highly discourages”?

c) Will any negative impacts be incurred on the part of the Small or Large Business, using the example in question 2 above, provided the Small Business complies with the written evidence of Prime/Team Member Teaming Disclosure requirement?

d) Does a Large Business Priming on CME AND participating as part of a Small Business Team also Priming CME fall into the “highly discourages”?

e) Will any negative impacts be incurred on the part of the Large or Small Business, using the example in question 3 above, provided the Large Business complies with the written evidence of Prime/Team Member Teaming Disclosure requirement?

a) The intent of this paragraph is to help ensure equitable variation among competing offerors at the TO level.

b) Please see answer above. All firms choosing to bid both as a prime and a subcontractor must provide written evidence via the Prime/Team member disclosure agreement as specified in the

RFP.

c) No negative impacts will be incurred provided that the company complies with the written evidence of the Prime/Team Member Disclosure requirement.

d) Please see answer b above.

e) Please see answer b above

2 Does the Government / SPAWAR have access through Navy Material Support Office (NMSO) to obtain classified past performance citations?

As identified in the Section L of the DRAFT RFP, the Government does not desire and will not accept “classified” contract references. All data submitted shall be at the Unclassified Level.

As a result, no classified past performance references shall be provided as the past performance data is solely applicable to the contract references proposed.

3 If an employee is currently employed by the offeror does the Government still require a letter of intent?

No. An LOI is solely for “prospective” employees.

4 Section 2.2, will the contractor be issued a DD 254 in order to establish the necessary storage area prior to a TO being released?

No. A DD254 may only be issued for a finalized contract, and it is not issued prior to a TO being released.

mailto:IndustryFeedback.fct@navy.mil

5 Does the Government have a template they would like the contractor to use to meet the requirements of FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data (FARSubData) form?

No, the offerors are free to provide the content requirements of 52.244-2 in contractor format, but shall include all required content and evaluation requirements of 52.244-2.

6 “Attachment 2 – Capability Matrix column J, asks if an employee is Active &Current TS/SCI Cleared (Y/N). Some employees may be TS/SCI eligible but not currently in access.

Should the contractor mark this column as “Y”?

No. If a candidate does not currently possess SCI, then the correct response is N in column J of Attachment 2 and offerors shall identify when the candidate will obtain SCI in column K. Note, Attachment 2 will be updated in the Final RFP to provide clarifying instructions.

7 With respect to Attachment 1D – Team Summary, please confirm that Offerors are to list “ALL” Teammates beyond the 2 teammates/subcontractors being used for contract reference an in support of Factor B.

For example, the Offeror will complete ‘ALL’ Columns for itself and up to two Teammates/Subcontractors. All additional Teammates/Subcontractors will only be listed in the first column (List Name of each Team Member).

Incorrect, as stated in Section L-317, “ Offerors shall submit Attachment 1D, Team Summary, which identifies the Prime contractor and up to two (2) team members proposed to perform the Factor B elements (i.e. B1-B5) with a maximum total of three team members including the Prime.

No more than 3 companies shall be identified or proposed under Attachment 1D.

8 Ref RFP Attachment 2: The instructions do not seem to align with the headings of the requested information to be provided. How will the government review and score the contents of Attachment 2?

The evaluation of Attachment 2 responses is detailed in Section M of the RFP. NOTE: The Prime and Team members identified on Attachment 2 are solely the contractors identified on Attachment 1D, which is the Prime and up to 2 additional team members. No other contractors are to be identified or proposed under Attachment 2. Attachment 2 will be revised in the final RFP to include clarifying instructions.

9 Ref RFP Attachment 2: Column L is titled “Personnel in Specified Locations” Is it the intent of the Government, that the bidder indicate which candidates are to be located in OCONUS sites as requested in the Staffing Plan, by indicating “Hawaii, Spain or Japan” in this field?

No, the offeror’s plan to provide the quantity of two FTEs in the Hawaii, Spain, and Japan are to be identified in the offerors narrative response to Element C1. The specified locations column in Attachment 2 will be removed in the Final RFP to avoid confusion.

Sec M-307 states, “While evaluation factors (other than cost) are more important than cost, the importance of cost as an evaluation factor increases with the degree of technical

The exclusion of subcontractor pricing from the cost evaluation specifically resolves the ability to game the IDIQ competition as referenced in the submitted question. The Government is solely evaluating the Prime pricing to ensure a level equality of the proposals. Accordingly, when offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, cost may become the determining factor for award.

The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability...” Later in Sec M / Cost Realism, it states, “Cost Realism pertains to the offeror’s ability to project costs which are realistic. The purpose of this evaluation shall be: (1) to assess the degree to which the cost reflects the requirements of the PWS and/or the risk that the offeror will provide the services for the offered cost; and (2) to assess the degree to which the costs included in the cost proposal accurately represent the work efforts included in the proposal…”

The current evaluation method provides no reasonable basis for evaluating or comparing the relative costs of proposals so as to establish whether one proposal would be more or less costly than another. The government has prescribed a cost model that offerors may not deviate from and that does not allow for planned subcontractor costs or other factors (as discussed immediately below) that would impact cost in execution.

A prime offeror is either unable or not incentivized to propose the most likely or accurate costs that represent the work efforts in the proposal within the bounds of these RFP requirements because offerors are not permitted to deviate from the cost model, nor can they demonstrate the impact of planned subcontractor costs, use of SCA labor categories, premiums for clearances, geographic differentials, escalation, etc.

Fundamentally, the discrete work efforts and staffing requirements are unknown at the IDIQ level, and therefore, true competition would take place at the task order level.

Since offerors will not be held to LCATs/rates they propose at the IDIQ level during subsequent task order competitions, offerors are incentivized to “game” this IDIQ competition and bid low rates that they playing field among all Prime offerors and prevent any potential distribution of the pricing model hours among numerous, lower tiered, lower priced subcontractors who may never perform at the task order level and whose inclusion in the basic contract pricing would result in an unrealistic overall cost. As noted in the submitted question, the discrete work efforts and staffing requirements are unknown at the IDIQ level, and therefore, true competition would take place at the task order level. Based upon this fact, analysis of the Prime pricing only is the most equitable cost evaluation approach as it ensures the Government can evaluate the expected cost of performance by the Prime contractor, who is required to perform under all task orders awarded.

Section M in the final RFP will be updated to clarify the cost realism evaluation methodology and purpose. Evaluating only the Prime Offeror’s cost ensures a level playing field among all Prime offerors and to ensure the Government obtains the most realistic prices to be offered by the Prime.

never intend to deliver in order to guard against losing based on total evaluated price in a case where technical evaluations are equal. As the chosen evaluation method is likely to generate misleading results and is therefore susceptible to protests, will the government either remove cost/price as a criterion, allow subcontractor pricing to be included, or change the cost evaluation to a “Pass/Fail” approach, either of which would be consistent with applicable FAR requirements (e.g. 16.504(a)(4) and 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E))? An example of how the latter could be done would be to simply evaluate whether an offeror’s total evaluated price falls within an independent government cost estimate range (rather than attempting to evaluate whether costs reflect the PWS requirements or conduct a comparative assessment across offerors.).

11 Subcontractor cost data is specifically excluded from the Prime’s cost submission.

However, the proposed Subcontractor price is required for Subcontractor’s which require consent IAW FAR Clause 52.244-2 (2)(e)(iv) in the Subcontractor Data section.

How does the Prime meet the “proposed subcontract price” requirement on the IDIQ?

Offerors may choose to solicit and obtain the necessary data required to be in compliance with FAR 52.244-2. For example, this may include the Prime obtaining cost/price proposals for any anticipated subcontractors they project may be utilized during performance of the contract and perform the required evaluation identified in 52.244-2, or offerors may choose to obtain labor rates for anticipated subcontractors and perform the required evaluation identified in 52.244-2.

The Government will evaluate the 52.244-2 responses and determine if sufficient data is provided to enable inclusion of the identified subcontractors in the final contractor award as identified in Section L of the RFP.

12 Subcontractor cost data is specifically excluded from the Prime’s cost submission;

Subcontractor data is directed to be included within the FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data section. However, FAR 52.244-2 states “the proposed subcontract price” is to be included in order for the subcontractor to be approved. How does the Prime meet the “proposed subcontract price” requirement without submitting the subcontractor’s rates/cost data?

See response to Question 11.

13 Since subcontractor costs are not to be submitted, can the government confirm that the RFP 5.2.1.6 Labor Rate Limitation Notification (which includes subcontractor rates) will apply only at the task order level and will not apply at the master contract level?

Labor Rate Limitation Notification will only apply at the task order level.

14 RFP Section Other Proposal Requirements - Paragraph 7 - FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data states “Offerors submitted analysis shall be based on their evaluation of their proposed subcontractor’s labor rates as specific, discrete proposal costs are not known at the basic contract level”. Can the Government please confirm that bidders are to submit their analysis with all the proposed Subcontractor rates with the proposal? If yes, then is it the bidders discretion to provide all the FAR 52.244-2 required data for all Subcontractors the offeror intends to identify as an Approved Subcontractor in their own format and the data can be submitted as a separate document?

See response to Question 11.

15 Customer approval and specific customer/system detail is difficult on directly relevant, classified contracts. Question: If a bidder cites a classified contract, will the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) take into account that we cannot provide the same level of detail as with an unclassified contract?

No, the offeror is responsible for both the selection of their contract references and the level of detail required to establish the relevancy of the submitted contract reference to the Factor B requirements. Further, as stated in the RFP Section L-317, “The Government does not desire and will not accept “classified” contract references. All data submitted shall be at the Unclassified Level.”

16 Question: is the independent Government Estimate of $962M based on the 5-year period of performance or 5 years + 2 option years?

The IGE includes the 5 year base period of performance and the 24 month option period for a total value of $898M as identified in the current RFP draft dated 29 Sept 2017.

17 If the offeror has copies of all CPARs for their program references may they include them as part of the Proposal submission?

No. Offerors shall only submit copies of CPARS for archived efforts as identified in provision L-307.

Are CPEAs acceptable documentation as Past Performance information? If so, similar to

No.

Question 17 above, if the offeror has copies of the CPEAs for the program reference may they include them as part of the Proposal submission? Providing them as part of the proposal submission would avoid any potential issues with accessing the CPARs in PPIRS. It would benefit the offeror because they would be certain they were in the Government’s possession and would benefit the Government by avoiding the need to access PPIRS.

Would the customer please consider removing the screen shots requirement, which will provide a duplicate set of data of what is already being provided in our excel pricing worksheet tabs? Please confirm you are looking for the salary survey min/mid/max ranges for the positions identified to be included in our proposal products.

No. Screen Shots are necessary to validate that prices submitted are supported by payroll data in accordance with 52.215-20 in the draft RFP.

Please see 52.215-20 for requirements on submitting salary survey data.

Will the Government consider changing the Professional Labor Categories for 52.- Operations Specialist and 53.- Weather Forecaster to SCA positions? Both labor category descriptions follow non-exempt guidelines; for example, neither education description requires a Bachelor’s degree.

No. The Government Labor Categories requirements are set, and require a Bachelor’s Degree for Operations Specialists labor categories. The Weather Forecaster labor category is required to have an approved DoD course to fulfill the qualification requirements this effort.

21 Please advise if we should escalate current Direct Labor rates (as of 10/17) to the tentative Base Period of performance start date of December 2018?

A period of performance for attachment 5 pricing model has been established as 1 January 2018 – 31 December 2018 and will be included in the final RFP.

22 Will the Government consider changing the Task order RFP response time from 5 to 10 days? While a 5 day turn is sometimes adequate for more commoditized services, this contract will have more complex tasks up to the TS/SCI level that will perhaps require more technical and thoughtful responses.

The extra time will allow for more quality responses and enhance competition at the task order level. This will enable the awardees to make more informed and positive bid decisions.

The final RFP will revise the estimated Task Order RFP response time.

23 If it is determined during contract execution that certain OCONUS locations are in Extreme

No. Should a Contractor fail to perform an

Threat (hazardous) locations and too dangerous to deploy employees (i.e., Government support is not adequate in those areas), will the Government grant discretion and the right to postpone and/or turn down assignments without the Contractor being considered in breach of its contractual obligations for having done so? If not, how will the Government address this situation?

awarded task order, it would be in breach of contract for not performing. Specific concerns about security should be addressed with the contracting officer but must follow the ultimate direction of the contracting officer or face a termination for default. Security conditions must be taken into account when deciding whether to compete for a task order.

Would the Government considering adding the following FAR/DFAR CLAUSES ,which includes work in hazardous locations:

52.225-19, Contractor Personnel in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission Outside the United States 52.228-4, Workers’ Compensation and War Hazard Insurance Overseas 252.228-7000, Reimbursement for War- Hazard Losses 252.228-7003, Capture and Detention 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting a Force Deployed Outside the United States

252.228-7003 will be included in the final RFP release.

The Government has used clause 252.225-7995 in lieu of clause, 252.225-7040 in accordance with Class Deviation 2017-O0004.

52.228-4 is not appropriate as this effort is not considered a public work contract, nor is it financed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

252.228-7000 – is used with 52.228-4. As 52.228- 4 is not applicable to this contract, therefore neither is this DFARS Clause.

52.225-19- only applies when Contractor Personnel are in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission outside the United States. Designated operational area must be for either contingency operations, humanitarian or peacekeeping operations or other military operations/exercises when designated by the combatant commander.

Question: Will the Government please provide an advance copy of “Contractor Employee Access to Information Non- Disclosure Agreement” to be executed by each individual employee?

This will be provided at the task order level as applicable.

Please confirm that in OCONUS hazardous duty locations, the US Government will provide force protection to Contractor (including its subcontractor) personnel at all

This will be determined at the Task order Level, for those orders going into hazardous duty locations.

base camps, living, and work places and will provide US Government air transport or armored ground US military transport between base camps, outside of Forward Operating Bases, and during theater transportation commensurate with that given by the DOD to DOD military and civilian personnel in the operations area. Please confirm that while Contractor personnel and their subcontractors are in hazardous duty locations, the US government will provide Contractor personnel and their subcontractors housing and transportation.

Please confirm Contractor employees will be embedded with US military forces at all times while in hazardous duty locations.

Please confirm that Contractor (including its subcontractor) personnel will be included in the US Government Emergency and Evacuation plans when deployed in any OCONUS hazardous duty locations, and be part of and under the same level of military transportation, security, and personal safety as given to US Government and military personnel during Emergency Evacuation.

See answer to question 26 above.

Please confirm that Contractor and Subcontractor personnel will not be armed nor be required to provide security for themselves or for the contractor's workforce, and that no Contractor or Subcontractor personnel will be required to take up arms or perform any act that could cause the status of personnel to become any status other than a noncombatant under international law, including, but not limited to, the Geneva Convention and Laws of the Hague.

Please confirm that the Contractor shall be authorized to temporarily import and export protective personnel equipment (e.g., body armor) in support of this contract and pursuant to 22 CFR 126.4 (a). Contractor will be prepared to temporarily import from, and temporarily export to the countries as follows: AFGHANISTAN. Please confirm this location is acceptable.

30 Will the Government reconsider and remove the requirement to provide LOIs for Proposed personnel?

No, this has been a stated requirement for the duration of the DRAFT RFP. The Government will not remove this requirement.

31 September 29 Draft RFP Section L, Clause 52.215-22 limitations on pass through is listed as well as several others that are subcontractor related clauses. Section L Part II -Direct Labor - costs instructions are for the Prime only and not subcontractors to provide pricing. Will SPAWAR please clarify that no subcontractor pricing information is to be submitted and any clauses that require or address subcontractor pricing will be removed if not applicable in the final RFP?

52.215-22 is a required clause to be included in the base contract. Correct, no subcontractor pricing information shall be submitted to the Government for evaluation in response to the RFP. However, pricing information may be required for submission to the Prime in order to meet the requirements of FAR clause 52.244-2 Subcontracts

32 Will SPAWAR please confirm that the positions listed as “OCONUS” are covered under the current Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in place with those countries?

The Government cannot confirm that an active Status of Forces Agreement is in place for all locations listed under OCONUS, and directs all offerors to review the US State Department’s 01 January 2017, “Treaties in Force.”

33 The Attachment 2, Capability Matrix includes Column L titled “Personnel in Specified Locations” but Sections L and M for Factor C, Element C2 of the Draft RFP do not include a list of specified locations. Please clarify.

The Capability Matrix has been updated and this Column has been removed.

34 Would the Government consider allowing the Prime to submit Attachment 2, Capability Matrix with the Prime offeror’s employees’ cleared personnel/LOIs by name and include the team mate’s capability matrix information with the employee names redacted but all other information required included. The team mate would then submit their fully populated Attachment 2, Capability Matrix to include all cleared personnel/LOIs directly to the Government, similar to a sealed pricing submission. Due to privacy and security concerns, our team mates would rather not disclose the Personally Identifiable Information of their employees as requested in this attachment to us.

No. Please see the updated Capability Matrix.

35 Limiting contractors to using the 50% point No. Utilization of the 50th percentile is from a salary survey artificially skews the labor rates upward. Will the Government consider changing the requirement and allow the Median to be utilized from Salary Survey Data?

appropriate and commensurate with the qualification requirement of the personnel for this effort.