Pre Acquisition Planning Industry Day Q&A (19 May 2017).pdf

CYBER MISSION ENGINEERING, N65236-16-R-0026

Question Answer

1 CME: What criteria will the Government use at the IDIQ level to select SB Primes for CME?

The criteria are the same for all large and small businesses. Everyone will be rated using the same criteria.

2 CME: Will the Government require all the subcontractors to have TS level clearance? Meaning, if not a significant sub, do they also require it prior to award? You might limit access to a great innovative company if this was TS level.

Only Primes require TS FCL at issuance of the RFP and at award. Subs may be required to possess a TS FCL to perform any task orders that require that TS/SCI level clearance.

3 CME: Will the small businesses be part of the large CME contractor or get separate awards?

One MAC will be awarded. The Government will evaluate small businesses and large business separately, but will use the same evaluation criteria. The Government anticipates award to three small businesses and five large businesses.

4 CME: Would the small businesses need to meet the Gate Criteria?

Yes

5 CME: Will there be work in Afghanistan?

The draft RFP and PWS contradict.

There is a possibility work will be performed in Afghanistan. This will be corrected before final RFP release.

6 CME: How will SB Reserve Solicitation responses work? Will contracts be awarded to SBs?

The Government will evaluate small businesses and large business separately, but will use the same evaluation criteria. The Government anticipates award to three small businesses and five large businesses. The SB reserve strategy (scope carve out and threshold) will be implemented at the Task Order level.

7 CME: Factor C (Personnel Staffing) seems like a huge hurdle for SBs. Will that be different for SB responses (200 FTEs at TS/SCI level)?

Factor C requires submission of a staffing “plan”. There is not a requirement to possess 200 FTEs upon award. In addition, the 200 FTE staffing plan requirement applies to the entire team as a whole and is not specific to the Prime.

8 CME: Has the Cyber Mission Assurance opportunity been entirely merged into CME, or just the TS/SCI requirements?

No, only the TS/SCI access requirements have merged into CME. The non TS/SCI access scope will be procured through other vehicles such as Seaport.

9 CME: Will you require that all TS/SCI cleared personnel to be located in Charleston?

No, there is no requirement for personnel to be located in Charleston. Some requirements will be geographically disbursed and

OCONUS.

10 CME: The presentation stated expected The Government anticipates award to three number of awardees to be 5-8. Does this account for all awards (Unrestricted and

SB)?

small businesses and five large businesses.

11 CME: How many SB awards are expected?

The Government anticipates award to three small businesses.

12 CME: Do offerors have to have TS/SCI facility in the Charleston Area to be considered acceptable?

No

13 CME: Is the CMA procurement (16-R- 0027) being cancelled and rolled into CME (16R0026)?

CMA is being cancelled. The specific areas described (TS/SCI access) have been incorporated into the CME PWS requirements.

14 CME: Will the Government consider extending the TO proposal response from draft RFP submission to 10 business days vice 8? Provides a little extra time to make a bid vs no bid decision?

This is TBD at TO level; usually depending on complexity of TO itself.

15 CME: How will we provide past performance for TS/SCI contracts? Our IC customers do not use PPIRS and they are not always open to filling PPQs due to the nature of the work.

The RFP will be updated to clarify the contract references are for efforts that required TS/SCI access and NOT TS/SCI contracts specifically. The RFP will include a PPQ for the offeror’s customers to submit which would not be at the classified level, and would include past performance evaluation data only.

16 CME: Does the government intend to issue a DD254 with its solicitation which is using a TS facility clearance as a gate criteria? Facility clearance levels are upgraded and downgraded based on need for safeguarding. A company with a TS FCL that does not hold TS material is in conflict with NISPSOM (security violation).

A draft DD254 will be issued with block 1A requiring TS – Facility Clearance required.

Facility clearance levels are granted based on level of work to be performed on a contract.

Block 1B is level of safeguarding.

17 CME: Is the government prepared to accept TS/SCI proposals from industry?

With the gate criteria that TS/SCI references are required, for industry to provide a write up doing so on the unclassified level will limit data.

No, the Government does not desire TS/SCI proposals. The RFP will be updated to revise the contract reference language to clarify the requirement as prior contract reference which required TS/SCI “access” vs. TS/SCI contract.

18 CME: Will SSC Lant be able to take SCI nominations at the basic level or task order level?

For the basic contract, it is a TS FCL only. SCI Personnel nominations will be at the task order level once defined.

19 CME: Will there be requirements for CI or full scope polygraphs in addition to

The security level requirements for personnel will be delineated at the task order level.

TS/SCI?

20 CME: Ideally, what percent of the total amount obligated will go to SBSA primes?

With a $1M threshold, it appears that <10% of the total dollars will be SBSA.

This is based on analysis of recent SEAPORT tasks.

There is not a set percentage for the scope carve-outs that will be go to SBs. All scope that falls within the scope carve out areas (at any dollar value) will go to SBs. The $1M per annum threshold is for non-scope carve out PWS efforts that will be set aside for SB awardees only. However, market surveys may be required for individual requirements, on a case by case basis, to ensure/validate awardees capabilities.

21 CME: Please explain more about SB Reserves. Would the SB need to be a team member at contract award, or can SBs be added later?

All offerors will be evaluated equally and in accordance with the same evaluation criteria.

Those awardees that are SB Primes will then be in a position to have exclusive bidding on the scope carve outs listed and also on all efforts $1M per year, unless the PM believes a market survey is warranted.

22 CME: Can a company both prime and sub on CME? What if the company is a sub under a SB and Prime as a LB?

Yes, a company may prime and sub on CME.

However, this is not an ideal arrangement. In the event this scenario, the Prime must submit a Prime/Sub disclosure form IAW the RFP requirements to ensure the Prime is cognizant that one or more of their subcontractors is also a Prime competitor under a separate proposal.

23 CME: What will be required for JVs to meet the TS FCL requirement?

The Prime Offeror/JV cage code and associated facilities will be required to pass the gate criteria through identification of the facilities with TS FCL IAW the RFP requirements.

24 CME: Will SPAWAR allow classified submissions since all references need to be TS/SCI?

The Government is not seeking classified submissions for Contract References. The RFP will be updated to clarify the contract reference shall cite contracts where TS/SCI “access” was required for performance of the contract vs. inferring the contract references are required to be TS/SCI classified contracts.

25 CME: How will the SB reserve TOs be solicited? Draft RFP says prime shall do 50% of effort on TO’s. If it is reserved for SBs, will they submit through the Prime’s MAC if they are a SB sub?

SB reserves are only applicable to the SB Prime awardees on this MAC (no SB subs will be allowed to submit proposals; must be a prime in order to do this). Any TO that is determined to be reserved exclusively for SB awardee competition shall be bid IAW clause 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting) applies, which requires the SB Prime perform at least 51% of the labor costs of the TO effort. This 51% performance requirement/clause is not applicable to TOs that are competed on an unrestricted basis.

26 CME: What are the gate criteria for SB responses? No SB is going to have 200+ TS/SCI FTEs or 5 past performance citations over $50M.

The gate criteria are the same for both large and small businesses. To clarify, the 200 TS/SCI FTEs is part of Factor C (not a gate) as a staffing PLAN and encompasses the resources of the entire team (prime and subs). The 5 TS references that are required was updated in the draft dated 5/11 to show a $50M cumulative invoiced amount as a team (not just the prime).

27 CME: Will there be two pools of awardees, both small business and unrestricted? If not, how will work be posed to SB?

No, there will not be two pools. All awardees will be under one MAC. The SB reserve will function at the individual TO requirements level and will utilize both SB scope carve out and any PWS scope under $1M per year reserved for SB MAC awardees only.

However, the Government reserves the right to perform a market survey if it is deemed necessary for the individual TO requirements.

28 CME: Why restrict past performance to just TS/SCI contracts? Would the Government consider Secret past performance? There are valid Secret examples that are the same such as cybersecurity, RMF, IAVMs, System Admin, etc.

The requirement is 100% TS/SCI Access only.

The Government is not considering Secret past performance at this time. However, the RFP will be updated to clarify the TS/SCI contract reference requirement is for TS/SCI access contract efforts, not TS/SCI classified contracts.

29 CME: May a small company submit a bid for the unrestricted CME TO RFPs?

Yes

30 CME: May a company be partnered on several teams for the CME RFP?

Yes, a company may prime and sub on CME.

However, this is not an ideal arrangement. In the event this scenario, the Prime must submit a Prime/Sub disclosure form IAW the RFP requirements to ensure the Prime is cognizant that one or more of their subcontractors is also a Prime competitor under a separate proposal.

31 CME: Who is incumbent for current Seaport CND/CNDSP work?

The Seaport task order for CND that John Aller briefed at a recent TO industry day has not been awarded. The current work for CND and CNDSP is staffed by various industry partners, large and small.

32 CME: Please elaborate on your definitions of “Protect and Defend.”

The “Protect and Defend” area is responsible for identification, analysis, and mitigation of threats to internal IT systems or networks.

The draft PWS included in the draft RFP provides more detail.

33 CME: How are the cyber tech activities here at SPAWAR working to leverage and interact with CEMA activities at Aberdeen?

CEMA = Cyber Electromagnetic Activity (CEMA). There is currently no direct interaction with CEMA at Aberdeen.

34 CME: Will there be a Cyber Mission Assurance MAC or has the scope been included in the CME MAC?

No, there will be no CMA MAC. The requirement will be cancelled. The CMA relevant TS/SCI access requirements have been incorporated into the CME MAC. Non TS/SCI access scope for mission assurance work will be supported via Seaport E or other external vehicles.

35 CME: Can the Government explain further what a TS/SCI contract is in relation to the CME contract?

The CME requirements shall be at the TS or TS/SCI access level. As a result, the Government requires demonstrated experience performing efforts which required access and use of TS/SCI information. The RFP will be updated to clarify the TS/SCI contract references are for TS/SCI access contracts vs. TS/SCI classified contracts.

36 CME: Why is there no technical scenario required for the CME MAC if being done on the CMS MAC?

Utilization of a technical scenario is not necessary to evaluate offeor’s technical capability to perform the CME identified factor requirements.

37 CME: When you say all contract references will be TS/SCI, what do you mean: CPARS, Gov references, Past Performance?

The Government will update the RFP to clarify the contract references must cite contracts which required access to TS/SCI data, but not a TS/SCI classified contract.

38 CME: Concerning the requirement for all references at the TS/SCI level, do all references need to be from Prime? Can references come from team members also?

References shall be submitted by Prime and Significant Subs only.

39 CME: What contract vehicle will you use in place of CME until it is awarded?

The BA Pillar is being utilized, as well as Seaport orders.

40 CME: If the work falls in an area designated for SB, does the prime pass all of that work through to SB Subs?

Only SB Primes may bid on a designated scope carve out area or any scope requirement equal to $1M or less per year.

Large Primes are prohibited from bidding on scope carve out/$ threshold efforts reserved for SB awardees.

41 CME: Can you provide additional information on the SB Reserve for CME?

1) Is the timeline the same as the F&O contract? 2) Are the Section L subfactors

1) The timeline is the same for large and small offerors with no evaluated distinction between SB and Large business offerors. 2) Factors and Subfactors and evaluation criteria the same? 3) What is the dollar threshold for past performance citations?

are the same for both small and large business offerors. 3) The dollar threshold for past performance citations is $50M cumulatively between prime and significant subs as stated in the Draft RFP

42 CME: Will KO’s monitor the SB Participation Plan on this effort? There is concern that LB is not meeting their goals, nor is being held accountable.

The KO’s will monitor the SB Participation Plan in accordance with FAR Part 19.705-6.

43 CME: Will a contractor SCIF space be required for the CME RFP?

As per PWS 8.1.1.1 SCIF will only be available from Government Facilities as identified on the DD254. Contractors are not expected to have their own facility SCIF, and will not generate any SCI deliverables.

44 CME: Why is the SB reserve $1M/year?

This dollar threshold is considerably lower than what SB primes can accomplish. It also makes it very easy to “game” the system and artificially inflate the IGEs through the addition of a nominal number of FTEs in order to avoid SB. This also means that all SBSA tasks will be below the GAO protest threshold. Finally, this threshold means that many SBSAs will submit bids for which they cannot get a debrief due to SPAWAR’s position that they do not normally debrief under $5.5M. Because of this we will never get feedback allowing us to improve the quality of our bids. Will SSC-Lant commit to conducting debriefs on all tasks?

The government reviewed historical information, formal and informal market research, and RFIs to industry. The government will review the reserve again 18 months after contract award. SSC Atlantic’s debrief policies are not changing at this time.

CYBER MISSION SYSTEMS, N65236-16-R-0036

1 CMS: Factor A includes SDR. This is a very unique area with limited industry prime past performance. Can this be removed?

This factor will not be removed.

2 CMS: Is the Factor X in CMS –kitting an oral or written response?

Written response; no oral presentation.

3 CMS: Can a SB Bid on CMS unrestricted task order?

The entire CMS effort is set aside for SB.

Therefore, there will be no unrestricted delivery/task orders under this MAC.

4 CMS: Is CMS considered a services contract? It is a supply contract.It may have minor services related to providing the end item deliverable (incidental to supply).

5 CMS: If an offeror has an IDIQ with two contracts (one F and O, one SB) can the offeror use the value of both contracts under the same IDIQ’s combined task order to meet the $25M threshold?

The relevancy requirements are under evaluation.

6 CMS: Although this was briefed as an end-to-end solution contract, the selection criteria seem to have little to do with delivering solutions. It does not seem to match the contract’s intent (ex. test capabilities, prototyping, FAT, supply chain management)?

All of these areas are covered in the PWS.

The Government is evaluating the areas that we feel are key discriminators in determining the best value to the government.

7 CMS: The draft RFP pg 164 states “offerors may submit multiple orders under single

IDIQ”. So if we have a large IDIQ with 5 task orders that span SDP, crypto, STCOM and

SDR, is that all covered but one past performance citation at the IDIQ level? (Then we would describe tech cap by referring to the specific task orders).

For the purposes of the Factor C: Past

Performance, the following information is provided in Section L of the RFP, “If the contract reference is an Indefinite Delivery contract for which CPAR records were not completed at the contract level but were completed on individual task orders, the offeror is required to identify the task orders used to satisfy the requirements of Factor A in Attachment 1A, and provide past performance information for each task order as described above.”

8 CMS: Section L-317 under CMS requires the contractor deliver a SDP as part of the kitting proposal. Could the government clarify that a

SDP developed by a sub and delivered as part of their sealed package meets the section L requirements as was the case with the pillar solicitations.

The RFP specifies the SDP can be developed by the prime and/or subcontractor and must be part of the prime’s proposal.

9 CMS: Have you looked at also use of the DTIC

CS TAT vehicle for additional support? If not, why?

Thank you for the feedback. The

Government will research this further for possible future use.

10 CMS: Pages 74 and 75 (Key Personnel) of the

CMS draft includes requirements for 7 key personnel; however, another section states

“key personnel will be identified at the TO level, when applicable.” Could the

Government clarify that no key personnel are required for the MAC proposal?

Furthermore, since an actual SDP is required, recommend waiving the 2 page limit.

The labor categories that will be classified as key personnel are identified at the basic contract level. Evaluation of key personnel may be identified at the delivery/task order level.

We will review the page limitation for the

SDP.

11 CMS: Section L-317, page 164 states “offerors must submit multiple orders under a single

IDIQ contract in order to meet the relevancy threshold.” Could the Government clarify that the offeror may combine TOs under a single contract reference to meet current and relevant requirement?

The RFP currently states, “offerors may submit multiple orders under a single IDIQ contract in order to meet the relevancy threshold.” However, offerors are reminded that the RFP also states, “offerors shall demonstrate the relevancy of these orders to this specific solicitation and all of the orders shall meet the currency requirement of performance and be similar in scope to the requirements of this solicitation .” It will be the offerors responsibility to demonstrate how the orders are relevant to our requirement.

12 CMS: Will IDIQ awardees be expected to Awardees will not be required to propose on all delivery orders, however, the Contract respond to all task orders? Specialist may request rationale for an awardee not providing a proposal to a given delivery/task order solicitation.

13 CMS: What is the anticipated number of awardees? It was noted there would be 5-8 for CME.

The CMS effort also anticipates 5-8 awardees.

14 CMS: Will offerors for CMS be required to be

ISO certified given the engineering and design delivery requirements? Would the

Government consider ISO as a gate criteria?

The gate criteria for CMS are yet to be determined but this will be taken for consideration.

15 CMS: A single contract reference with $25M in invoices seems excessive to levy on a SB.

Would the Government permit SB to consolidate references to meet the $25M invoice requirements?

The relevancy requirements are under evaluation.

16 CMS: Does the $25M threshold for experience need to be invoiced within the last

5 years or does the project POP need to be within the last 5 years and the cumulative invoicing can include a period prior to 5 years?

The Government is reviewing the relevancy thresholds.

17 CMS: How is the government planning to require offerors to price materials on CMS?

Will the government release Att. 3 pricing spreadsheet with next draft release?

The Government is still developing the evaluation factors. The Government intends to require offerors to price the technical scenario provided on a FFP basis, for evaluation purposes only. Attachment 3 is being developed and will be released when available.

18 CMS: Will representative resumes be allowed?

At this time there is no requirement to provide resumes at the basic contract level.

19 CMS: May a prime leverage partners’ experience, so long as the prime can meet

50% of the work?

For contract references, the potential prime can leverage sub experience as long as they qualify as a significant sub, as stated in the

RFP. The offeror must comply with FAR

52.219-14 as applicable.

20 CMS: Is there a reason Global Networks

(3.1.2.5) is not included as a Technical Eval

“element”?

The Government is evaluating the areas that we feel are key discriminators in determining the best value to the government.

21 CMS: Pages 74 and 75 (Section 5232.237-

9601) Key Personnel includes requirements for 7 key personnel; however, it is unclear if these names are required at the Multiple

Award Contract (MAC) level or at the Delivery

Order (DO) level. The last statement in that section states that “*Key personnel will be identified at the task order level, when applicable.” Could the Government clarify that no key personnel are required for the

MAC proposal?

The labor categories that will be classified as key personnel are identified at the basic contract level. Key personnel may be evaluated at the delivery/task order level.

22 CMS: Section L-317 (pages 162 and 166) require the contractor deliver a Software

Development Plan as part of the proposal;

however, the table on page 162 only allows for 2 pages for the SDP. We believe this to be in error since the offeror must deliver an actual SDP. Since an actual developed SDP could be of varying page lengths, we recommend the Government consider removing page restrictions on the SDP.

The government wil review the page limitation for the SDP.

23 CMS: Section 5.2.1.9, Limitation on

Subcontracting (page 32), states that the

“prime contractor shall perform at least 50% of the total contractor labor cost” and later states that “If the prime contractor’s total labor cost is under 50% at either the contract and/or TO level”. Could the Government clarify if the limitation on subcontracting to below 50% is at the MAC contract level or the

DO level?

The contractor must comply with FAR clause

52.219-14

24 CMS: After reviewing the draft solicitation for

N65236-16-R-0036, we identified a concern we wanted to bring to your attention. For a small business, $25 million invoiced on a single contract reference is

The Government is reviewing the threshold.

uncharacteristically high. Strong small businesses are diversified in their customer and contract base. In light of the fact that

SPAWAR, as a Navy Working Capital Fund, is unable to control its funding stream, the result is that many projects are contracted across multiple contract vehicles, rather than a single contract vehicle. Would the government consider a collection of past performance references with invoiced amount equal to or exceeding $25M to achieve relevancy, rather than a single reference?

25 CMS: The draft RFP states that, “For a minimum of one DoD ACAT level SATCOM system, the offeror shall demonstrate their experience providing the following:” Since many SATCOM systems are not DoD ACAT designated, will the Government consider removing the ACAT level requirement for the program?

The Government doesn’t intend to remove the ACAT level requirement.

26 CMS: The draft RFP states that, “Providing system development, kitting, delivery, and deployment for one or more DoD ACAT level

Cryptologic Intelligence Support Systems that identifies, collects, exploits, analyzes, and disseminates Signals of Interest (SOI) in High

Frequency (HF)/Very High Frequency (VHF)/

Ultra High Frequency (UHF)/Super High

Frequency (SHF) communication for a tactical intelligence effort.” Since many Cryptologic

Intelligence Support Systems are not DoD

ACAT designated, will the Government consider removing the ACAT level requirement for the program?

The Government doesn’t intend to remove the ACAT level requirement.

27 CMS: For CMS, Section 13.0 states, “Pursuant to FAR clause 52.219-9, the contractor shall effectively implement their Government approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan

This section will be removed in the RFP.

throughout the life of the contract.” Please confirm that this requirement is not applicable since this solicitation is a Small

Business Set Aside.

28 CMS: Is there an IGCE or estimated total price range established for this contract? If so, will the government share the IGCE or range, and provide information about the methodology the Government will use to conduct cost realism at the IDIQ level, particularly as it relates to section 52.222-46?

The Government has provided the estimated values of the contracts. See Sections L & M and clause 52.222-46 for the methodology to be used in the evaluation of the Professional

Employee Compensation Plan.

29 CMS: Section L states, “If the offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture, the offeror shall be compliant with the Small Business

Administration development program (if applicable). Additionally, the following information should be provided: … (c) the

Small Business Administration’s approval of the Joint Venture.” The SBA will only approve a joint venture agreement when the government intends to set aside awards specifically for 8(a) companies. Since the government does not intend to set aside 8(a) awards, companies will self-certify in SAMS.

Joint ventures formed under an SBA approved

Mentor-Protégé Agreement should provide evidence the Agreement is still in good standing, and that the JV Agreement meets the provisions of 13 C.F.R. § 124.520. If the government does not intend to set-aside awards for 8(a) entities, please consider removing this note from the final RFP.

The information to be provided in regards to the JV documentation is under evaluation and any revisions will be reflected in the issued RFP.

30 CMS: The RFP requires several previously developed plans and processes (i.e. Quality

Plan, Software Development Plan, etc.).

Please confirm a joint venture may offer the examples from any partner in the joint venture. Please confirm the exception to this

Joint ventures may offer examples from other partners in the joint venture. The exception to this is the Employee

Compensation Plan, which all joint ventures must submit.

understanding is the required “Employee

Compensation Plan,” (Section D), which all parties to the JV must submit.

31 CMS: How many small businesses responded to the CMS market survey with past performance building and kitting SATCOM systems?

This was not part of the market survey.

32 CMS: This effort has been socialized as a supply contract. However, Section 1.2 Scope states, “This PWS covers oversight and review, systems engineering, test and evaluation, technical, logistics acquisition, sustainment and management support services for SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic.” Would the government please provide the estimated percentage of supplies versus services anticipated under this contract?

Services under the CMS are intended to be directly related to the end item deliverable.

Any other services will be incidental in nature.

33 CMS: will a Mentor/Protégé environment be considered or will it strictly be SBSA?

Mentor/Protégé and Joint Ventures are not prohibited from either CMS or CME RFPs.

CME and CMS Questions

1 CME/CMS: Does the target of 5-8 awards include the SBSAs? This applies to both CME and CMS.

Yes. The target quantity of awardees is the same for CME and CMS.

2 CME/CMS: Can a past performance contract reference be submitted for a subcontractor who is not a significant sub?

No.

3 CME/CMS: Are there separate evaluation criteria for small business to fairly compete for the contract based on the reserved scope or smaller dollar value?

There are no separate evaluation criteria for small business at this time. We welcome feedback.

4 CME/CMS: Will you allow offerors to participate on numerous teams for CME and CMS?

Yes. However, if a subcontractor is also bidding as a Prime, the Prime must submit a Prime/Sub disclosure form IAW the RFP requirements to ensure the Prime is cognizant that one or more of their subcontractors is also a Prime competitor under a separate proposal.

5 CME/CMS: What will be the process to determine what efforts will go on the Cyber MACs and what will go to external contracts?

What is the criteria for putting efforts on the Cyber MACs?

Each requirement goes through our Project Procurement Acquisition Board (PPAB). Mission Engineering focus is cyber requirements at TS/SCI and above. Mission Systems will focus on end item deliverables.

6 CME/CMS: Will task orders be competed annually, or do you anticipate task order awards being multi-year or life of contract?

The government anticipates awarding a variety or periods of performance throughout the life of the contract based upon the individual TO requirements.

7 CME/CMS: Does the target of 5-8 awards include the SBSAs?

Yes. The Government is looking at a total of no more than 5-8 awardees

8 CME/CMS: Is the Government consideration for exclusivity across teams being considered?

Presently, Primes must provide written documentation identifying/disclosing their subs bidding as primes and competing against them IAW the RFP.

9 CME/CMS: PMO labor categories are not covered in the draft RFP. Will they be in final RFP? How will these costs be addressed if not in the RFP?

All categories will be in the Pricing Model.

10 CME/CMS: Not that anyone wants to slow the procurement process any, but would SPAWAR consider releasing CME and CMS after the 4th quarter TO surge? This will allow for higher quality proposal responses for SPAWAR.

A revision to the RFP timelines is not feasible.

Both RFP timelines are necessary to meet the Government’s current and future requirements and cannot be revised.

11 CME/CMS: Will the DD-254 flow down from the Government to the prime and then from the prime to their subs or will the Government flow

The DD-254 will be for primes and the prime will flow down the required clearance to the relevant subcontractors at TO level. However, down a DD-254 to each team member. for bidding purposes, only the Prime must possess the TS FCL at solicitation issuance and at contract award as identified in the DRAFT

RFP.

12 CME/CMS: We recommend that the Government clarify the EVMS requirements.

EVMS is stated in Section 5.4 (pages 32-33), Section H (pages 83-85), and Section 252.234- 7002 (pages 130-132). The dollar amounts for EVMS requirements differ amongst the sections, and it is unclear if a validated EVMS is required for the MAC or for specific DOs.

EVM dollar requirements in the clauses will be clarified in the next Draft RFP. The RFP specifies that EVM requirements will be established prior to order award.

13 CME/CMS: Section L-317 (pages 162 and 166) require the contractor deliver a Software Development Plan (SDP) as part of the proposal.

This requirement was also included in the pillar contract requirements. Could the Government clarify that a SDP developed by a subcontractor and delivered as part of their sealed package meets the Section L requirements, as was the case with all pillar solicitations?

The RFP specifies the SDP can be developed by the prime and/or subcontractor and must be part of the prime’s proposal.

14 CME/CMS: Section 5252.216-9217, Delivery/Task Order Procedures, states the process for how the Government will request and process DOs. In this process, the Government will have a 5 day turn around with just cost and resumes to determine winning bids. We strongly recommend the Government reconsider this approach. Being that this is a small contract bid, contractors will not have large “bench” teams readily available. We believe the Government will receive a large majority of one-contractor bids and that this process will significantly favor incumbents and wills stifle competition.

The Government will review the Delivery/Task Order Procedures outlined in the RFP.

15 CME/CMS: Section L-317(b) page 164 states that “…offerors may submit multiple orders under a single Indefinite Delivery contract (previously referred as contracts such as Seaport-E, NETCENTS, ITES-2S, Encore, etc.) in order to meet the relevancy threshold.” Could the Government clarify that the offeror may combine selected DOs under a single Indefinite Delivery contract to serve as a single contract reference meeting current and relevant requirements as defined in the solicitation?

Offerors may combine TOs under a single IDIQ in order to meet the current and relevancy requirements IAW the RFP. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure all combined TOs under a single IDIQ meet the recency and relevancy requirements of the RFP.

16 CME/CMS: The adjectival ratings seem to be an evaluation of an offeror’s “approach”; however, the Technical volume does not require a management or technical approach to be provided. The Technical Capability section appears to ask strictly for a description of an offeror’s previous corporate experience, not an “approach” that would describe how the offeror would perform the PWS requirements. Will the government consider requiring a tailored Management and/or Technical approach in the final RFP? This will give offerors the opportunity to propose an innovative solution specific to this solicitation, in addition to detailing their corporate experience.

The evaluation factors are still being developed.

17 CME/CMS: Is Defense Base Act Insurance Required?

Defense Base Act will be required for both CMS and CME.

18 CME/CMS: The process of adding a subcontractor on previous efforts (Pillars) has proved laborious and time consuming. Should offerors propose multiple subcontractors in order to have a group of subcontractors to pull from, to avoid this issue?

Teaming arrangements are at the discretion of the prime, provided they meet the requirements of the RFP.