QAs 6 October 2017.pdf

CYBER MISSION SYSTEMS, N65236-16-R-0036

Question Answer 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 respond to all task orders?

Awardees will not be required to propose on all delivery orders, however, the Contract 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 will 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

The contractor must comply with FAR clause 52.219-14 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?

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 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?

The Government is reviewing the threshold.

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

This section will be removed in the RFP.

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

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

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.

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 understanding is the required “Employee Compensation Plan,” (Section D), which all parties to the JV must submit.

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.

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.

34 CMS: NFS is estimating $30M under CMS. Mr. Lusk stated some of this work is SPAWAR Europe under Emily Jordan. The current AV I PIICO I Passive infrastructure work for SPAWAR Europe is releasing through the 409th on FBO. Do you expect this work to move from 409th on FBO to the CMS Contract?

Work being released from 409th is coming from specific SPAWAR COCOM Customers. We are looking to expand NJE IPT contracting options in order to cover our Naval, and other Joint, customers. In addition we are looking at the CMS contract as an avenue to allow the NJE IPT to provide more "turn-key" solutions.

35 CMS: There seems to be a conflict FAR clause 52.204-8 in the CMS RFP. 52.204-8 states that the NAICS code is 334220, and the size standard is 1,250. However immediately below that in paragraph (a)(3) the RFP States, “ The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees”.

This is a supply contract which will be diverse in sponsors and requirements; and the contractor should be the manufacturer. There will be delivery orders which will require the contractor to provide R&D, development, integration, testing, kitting, delivery, and deployment of a particular system which the offeror will be required to perform 50% of the effort. Kitting will be a component to the procurement but will not be the sole purpose of the effort, as described above. The contractor will be required to utilize drawings to develop and manufacture upgraded solutions, potentially redesigning and redeveloping an entire system specific to an individual program. It would be difficult for a contractor to outsource the entire manufacturing process for such a scenario.

Additionally, the contractor would not normally be selling these end items for retail or wholesale.

36 In Section L, Factor A gate criteria states that “To demonstrate compliance with the gate criteria above, Prime offerors shall provide…. a copy of their independently certified ISO Certification; and/or CMMI Level III certification.” SBA Mentor- Protégé joint ventures are by policy unpopulated and thus cannot hold certifications that heavily depend upon employees following certain approved processes/procedures. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and ISO certifications cannot be achieved by an unpopulated joint venture, but the partner companies can obtain both certifications. Would the Government confirm that if both individual joint venture partner companies hold the CMMI and ISO certifications, that meets the Gate criteria requirements?

Confirmed.

37 In Section M, Factor A gate criteria the Government states they “will evaluate the Prime offeror’s possession of an active SMO code at SECRET or above…at the time of issuance of the solicitation and at the time of contract award, based on the offeror’s response to Factor A.” Joint ventures formed under SBA’s Mentor-Protégé program are essentially newly incorporated companies and require the opportunity to complete foundational actions, such as receiving a facility clearance, in the first year of their existence. Would the government consider changing the requirement to a condition for award, not at the time of issuance of solicitation? If the government feels the risk is too great, would the government consider allowing joint ventures without a clearance (at the time of issuance of the solicitation) to provide a plan and schedule to achieve their clearance at the time of the proposal submission?

The evaluation factors are still under review.

38 The RFP specifies that in cases where an IDIQ reference has no IDIQ level CPAR, but does has TO level CPARs, a CPAR or PPQ is required for each TO included in the reference.

Please confirm that an IDIQ level CPAR is sufficient for an IDIQ reference, where no TO level CPARs are completed/available. Also, if no CPAR is available at either level, is one PPQ at the IDIQ level sufficient?

Confirmed. If no CPAR is available at either level, offerors shall rcontact references and request completion of the PPQ and email to contract specialist per the RFP instructions.

39 Section L FACTOR B 3rd paragraph and the Instructions on Attachment 1 B allow for multiple TOs on GSA, GWAC and DoD-wide IDIQ contracts to be combined into a single technical capability example/past perf reference.

Section M, last paragraph contradicts those sections, stating that TOs on IDIQs other than GSA, GWAC and DoD- wide contracts can be combined. Recommend changing Section M to be consistent with Section L language.

These paragraphs don’t contradict. The Section L paragraph indicates those types of orders can be individual contract references. The Section M paragraph distinguishes individual orders under a single IDIQ and those types of orders and explains they will be considered as an aggregate.

40 In two places, L-317 pg 9 & 10, the Government states that all data for primes must pertain to work done by the prime. Please confirm that the term “prime” may be defined as a populated or unpopulated formal legal joint venture

Confirmed.

entity and that past performance references will be accepted from individual JV partners/members.

41 Please verify that there are no key personnel required for the

IDIQ.

Key personnel categories are identified for the IDIQ.

The key personnel will be identified at the order level.

42 When will the Government provide the Task Order's Attachment 1 (QASP) and Attachment 2 (CAM) to the offerors?

These will not be provided for the Technical Approach.

43 The "Directions" worksheet makes reference to the "OTHER LABOR DATA" sheet. Is this a worksheet the offeror must create or is it missing in the Excel workbook?

The Government will update the attachment.

44 None of the required information associated with electronic submissions references back to several of the main sections in the PWS (e.g., Program Management, Systems Engineering Support, Testing and Evaluation, Lifecycle Logistics Support, Cybersecurity, and System Implementation). Does the entire PWS need to be addressed in the offeror's response, and if so, will the Government consider additional page count to do so?

No additional page counts. The offeror should write their proposal for each Factor to incorporate the experience using the PWS requirements. The elements being specifically evaluated are identified in Sections L&M.

45 Some of the factors will have multiple files submitted while other factors only have one file. Does the Government want the offeror to group the files into folders by each factor prior to compressing the entire submission into one zipped file?

Not required.

46 There is a page count of one referenced immediately following Attachment 1B. Is this referring to the first page of Attachment 1B (questions 1 - 12)? If so, is the page count of 20 then associated with the second page of Attachment 1B (question 13)?

The Government will update Attachment 1B to fit on one page. The response to question 13 begins the 20 page cumulative count for references.

47 The Gate Criteria as stated is good. However, given the size of potential delivery orders on this IDIQ we would suggest inclusion of a financial gate criteria that assures the proposed prime has a documented credit limit of not less than $25M.

The Government is still reviewing the evaluation factors.

48 "If a subcontractor is proposed to perform the majority of the software integration or development…". If the prime elects to use a subcontractor for this work must that subcontractor be tagged as "Significant"?

The teaming arrangement is at the discretion of the Prime given they meet all the RFP requirements.

49 Drawing 09014B1221 FN3 references a part number 09014B1230-01 "Block, Spacer" which is not found in the TDP.

Will this drawing be provided?

This drawing will be provided with the RFP in Attachment 4A.

50 Drawing 09014C0000 references part numbers 09014C2010-01, 09014C2020-01, 09014C2060-01, 09014C4001-01 and 09015A4014-01 which are not found in the TDP. Will these drawings be provided?

This drawing will be provided with the RFP in Attachment 4A.

51 Drawing 09014E0000 references part number 09014E4001-01 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

52 Drawing 09014A1000 references part number 09014H0000-01 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided?

This drawing will be provided with the RFP in Attachment 4A.

53 Drawing 09014J4001 does not provide information on the source of the product, only a note that states "ALL

SPECIFICATIONS HELD BY MARCORSYSCOM CODE MAGTF

C41SR, TPCS PROJECT OFFICER". How is this item to be procured without source and part number? Is it provided as GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

54 Drawing 09014A0000 references part number 09014G0202-01 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided?

This drawing will be provided with the RFP in Attachment 4A.

55 Drawing 09014G0302 does not provide the source of supply This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as information for the cable indicated within, only the information for the labeling. Has note stating "ALL SPECIFICATIONS HELD BY

MARCORSYSCOM CODE MAGTF C41SR, TPCS PROJECT OFFICER".

How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as GFP?

GFP.

56 Drawing 09014G0316 does not provide the source of supply information for the cable indicated within, only the information for the labeling. Has note stating "ALL SPECIFICATIONS HELD BY

MARCORSYSCOM CODE MAGTF C41SR, TPCS PROJECT OFFICER".

How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

57 Drawing 09014G0317 does not provide the source of supply information for the cable indicated within, only the information for the labeling. Has note stating "ALL SPECIFICATIONS HELD BY

MARCORSYSCOM CODE MAGTF C41SR, TPCS PROJECT OFFICER".

How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

58 Drawing 09014T1000 references part number 05008E0822-01 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided?

This drawing will be provided with the RFP in Attachment 4A.

59 Drawing 09014T0100 does not provide the source of supply information for the antenna indicated within. Has note stating

"ALL SPECIFICATIONS HELD BY MARCORSYSCOM CODE MAGTF

C41SR, TPCS PROJECT OFFICER". How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

60 Will the Government accept a CMMI ML 2 or ML 3 certification?

Finally, will the Government allow the ISO and CMMI gate criteria to be satisfied collectively by the Prime and their significant subcontractor(s)?

The evaluation factors are still under review.

61 Drawing 09014T0200 does not provide the source of supply information for the antenna indicated within. Has note stating

"ALL SPECIFICATIONS HELD BY MARCORSYSCOM CODE MAGTF

C41SR, TPCS PROJECT OFFICER". How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

62 Drawing 09017A1100 references part number 09017A1110-02 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided? Missing drawing 09017A1110-Rev2 will be provided.

63 Drawing 09017C0000 references the following part numbers which are not found in the TDP; 09017C0011-01, 05008A9015- 01, 09017C0020-01, 05008A9014-01, 05008A9018-01, 05008A9017-01, 05008A9030-01, 05008A9023-01, 05008A5101- 01, 05008A5102-02, 09017C0016-01, 09017C0005-01, 09017C1000-01, 09017C1000-02, 09017C1000-03, 09017C1000- 04, 09017C1000-05. Will these drawings be provided?

All missing drawings (09017C0011, 05008A9015, 09017C0020, 05008A9014, 05008A9018, 05008A9017, 05008A9030, 05008A9023, 05008A5101, 05008A5102, 09017C0016, 09017C0005, 09017C1000) and lower level drawings not previously provided (05008A9011, 05008A9031, 09017C0013) will be provided.

64 Drawing 09014G0319-01 does not provide the source of supply information for the antenna indicated within. Has note stating

"SOURCE OF SUPPLY INFORMATION HELD BY MARCORSYSCOM

CODE PMMI TPCS PROJECT OFFICER." How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as

GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

65 Drawing 09014G0320-01 does not provide the source of supply information for the antenna indicated within. Has note stating

"SOURCE OF SUPPLY INFORMATION HELD BY MARCORSYSCOM

CODE PMMI TPCS PROJECT OFFICER." How is this item to be

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as

GFP?

66 Drawing 09014G0323-01 does not provide the source of supply information for the antenna indicated within. Has note stating

"SOURCE OF SUPPLY INFORMATION HELD BY MARCORSYSCOM

CODE PMMI TPCS PROJECT OFFICER." How is this item to be procured without the source and part number? Is it provided as

GFP?

This drawing is classified. Assume this is provided as

GFP.

67 Drawing 09014A0000 references part number 09014G0327-01 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided? Missing drawings for 09014G0327 will be provided.

68 Drawing 09017A0000 references part number 09017B1130-01 which is not found in the TDP, Will this drawing be provided?

Missing drawing 09017B1130-Rev will be provided.

Will the drawings that are identified as being classified be provided as GFI to the contractor after contract award?

Drawings that include the classified information will not be provided. Drawings listed above with omitted vendor information provide the necessary physical description and dimensional information.

70 Are any of the items being delivered as GFP classified, thus needing to be stored appropriately at the contractor facility? If so, can we get an estimate of the storage space required for these classified GFP?

No.

71 Can the Government provide a clarification as to whether or not the Attachment 3A, Team Hours tab, may be modified to represent additional subcontractors if necessary?

Yes, team added subcontractors and modifications to team hours can be modified by offerors.

72 Can the Government provide a clarification as to how the total evaluated cost for the base contract will be analyzed?

Final evaluation criteria will be provided in revised Section M of the RFP.

73 Can the Government provide a clarification as to whether or not the government requires rates for labor categories which the contractor has assigned to indirect pools?

Direct labor rates should be provided as specified in provision 52.215-20 Alt IV of the RFP and the provided pricing model.

74 Is the task order specified in Attachment 4B awardable? The technical approach order will be used for evaluation purposes only.

75 The Primary Place of Performance item b indicates Contractor facilities as Charleston, South Carolina. May the offeror use an alternative facility outside of Charleston for integration on this task?

The technical approach PWS requires facilities in Charleston, SC.

76 Does the statement "DoD Operations Center System that integrates a minimum of one Mission Assurance Category (MAC) I system in accordance with Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705.1" imply that the DoD Operations Center had to be designed and built in a SCIF to be qualifying?

No.

77 There is no timeline or schedule offered for delivery of the TSCS systems. For proposal planning purposes, will the government accept delivery of all 10 systems at one time?

Yes.

78 For the Technical Approach, there are no system requirements listed anywhere in the PWS. Will the government release the requirements we will be testing to, since test is one of the required activities under FACTOR C, Element C2?

The system requirements are included in the technical approach drawings of the RFP.

79 Section L- Factor F – Professional Employee Compensation Plan indicates Prime Offerors shall complete the “Benefit Summary” and “Salary Data” charts contained in the Pricing Model, however Attachment 3A Prime Pricing Model does not include these tabs for completion. Would the government please revise

These charts will be added to the pricing model.

Attachment 3A to include the required tabs or revise the requirement to provide offerors with an alternative?

80 Section L - Factor F indicates that only Prime Offerors are required to submit the Professional Employee Compensation Plan. If the Prime is a Joint Venture, would it be acceptable if each entity within the JV submits the required information?

All joint ventures must submit the PECP.

81 If one JV partner holds the certifications and the other does not, there is no way of ensuring that the appropriate CMMI and ISO processes will be followed upon execution at the task order level. This would increase risk to the Government. Would the Government confirm that both joint venture partner companies will need to hold the certifications?

A small business prime contractor is required to hold the certifications.

82 Would the government confirm that Seaport-E will be considered a DoD-wide IDIQ (rather than a Navy contract) for the purposes of determining whether multiple orders could be combined under a single Seaport-E IDIQ contract reference/example or whether each SeaPort-E order would count as separate references?

Each Seaport-E order can be considered as a contract reference if it meets the requirements.

83 Element D: Software Development Plan Rationale Section L states: If a subcontractor is proposed to perform the majority of software integration or development, the offeror shall include in their rationale how the Prime will ensure that the work provided by the subcontractor is appropriate to the required processes and framework identified in IEEE Std 12207-2008. To reduce additional risk in execution, recommend the Government consider requiring the Prime to submit the SDP to demonstrate their experience in this area.

The evaluation factors are still under review.

84 Section L, Factor B states, A significant subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor or intercompany work agreement (IWA) team member that will be performing at least 20 percent of the total proposed labor hours. No more than a total of five of the most current and relevant contracts may be submitted for the team (prime and significant subcontractors).

Section M, Factor B states, Factor B will automatically be assigned a rating of Unacceptable if: . . . 2) At least one current and relevant contract reference is not submitted for work performed by each significant subcontractor.

Question: Would the Government consider amending its definition to include critical functions while leaving the provision that any company receiving an allocation of 20% or more in the labor model submit a contract reference? This change would still meet the Government’s intent, while allowing prime offerors the latitude to present a realistic portrayal of their team.

The evaluation factors are still under review.

85 Reference: CME Draft RFP, Page 35 of 169/CMS Draft RFP, Page 31 of 176, Section 5.2.1.6 Labor Rate Limitation Notification, “(a) Fully burden labor rates per person (subcontractor included) charged on contract/task order – If the actual invoiced fully burden rate (inclusive of fee) of any individual in any labor category exceeds the threshold amount of $165.00/hour and

Confirmed.

the individual's rate was not disclosed in pre-award of the basic contract (or TO for IDIQ contracts), the contractor shall send notice and rationale (CDRL A010) for the identified labor rate to the COR who will then send appropriate notification to the Contracting/Ordering Officer. NOTE: Within one labor category, if the total collective estimated and/or actual hours in any given period of performance are less than or equal to 500 labor hours, the labor category is excluded from the required CDRL notification regardless if an individual within that labor category exceeds the threshold.”

Question: Please confirm, per the CDCA Small Business and Industry Outreach Initiative (SBIOI) Symposium #44, on 14 June 2017 in a brief delivered by Mr. John O’Connor, that the “tripwire” hourly rate has been revised from $165.00/hour and 500 hours to $182.00/ hour and 200 hours, and will be updated in the final RFPs for CME and CMS.

86 Regarding Element B3, Software Defined Radio (SDR), the description in Paragraph 3.2.2.3 and the evaluation criteria in Section M detail several representative systems. Question: If a bidder has done extensive SDR for similar systems in OCONUS environments, but technically the systems meet all the defined SDR requirements, will the Government accept this information as compliant?

87 Would the Government consider (1) allowing either ISO9001 or CMMI certification rather than requiring both, and (2) eliminating the DODAAC requirement altogether?

The evaluation factors are still under review.

88 Would the Government consider changing the DODAAC element of the Gate Criteria by: (1) allowing any member of the team to hold an active DODAAC at the time of proposal submission; (2) requiring an active prime contractor DODAAC prior to task order award; or (3) eliminating the DODAAC requirement from the Gate Criteria.

89 Would the Government consider easing the Gate Criteria to promote competition?

The evaluation factors are still under review.

90 To ensure the Government receives a valid Software Development Plan and reduce execution risk, we recommend clarifying the term “finalized” with additional specificity using the following update in the sentence: “…an equivalent C4ISR systems software development effort as identified in this solicitation and which has been developed, submitted, and deemed compliant on a contract awarded within five years of the date of this solicitation issuance”

The evaluation factors are still under review.

91 A significant subcontractor is defined as a team member that will be providing at least 20% of the total proposed labor hours.

Is the percentage of work allocated over the life of the IDIQ? For the individual task order, will this allocations be different based on who does the work?

The percentage of work is allocated over the life of the IDIQ. Individual task orders requirements and definitions may vary.

92 Does the Team Summary Chart in the cost proposal narrative include all subcontractors that are on the team or just the

All of the subcontractors.

proposed Significant Subcontractors?

93 Under cost realism it appears the Government is utilizing CPFF

Prime/Subcontractor pricing models (Attachment 3A and 3B) to assess the degree to which the cost/price reflects the requirements of the PWS. It is unclear how that assessment is being performed. Can the Government describe the pass/failure criteria of that assessment?

Cost realism utilizes various proposal analysis techniques including the examples identified in FAR 15.404-1.

94 The Government will combine the proposed FFP portion of the price analysis (Attachment 4) and the total evaluated cost to derive the total evaluated price. Can the Government describe more details on the process associated with combining these elements?

The evaluation factors are still under review.

95 Does Attachment 3A need to identify all subcontractors or only the Significant Subcontractors? If all, are we to imply we are limited to four subcontractors?

All of the subcontractors. The form may be edited to add subcontractors.

96 Is Attachment 3B required from each subcontractor or only Significant Subcontractors? Is the Prime required to submit Attachment 3B as a sealed document or will the Significant Subcontractors be required to submit it directly to the Government?

Attachment 3B is required from each subcontractor.

Subcontractors can submit directly to the Government.

97 How are products handed off to the Government at the completion of integration? Is shipping to a location required?

Does the Government take ownership following a DCMA audit at the contractor's site?

Shipping will be handled at the order level.

98 Under Factor F, the file titled "PrimeCost" is to be submitted as an Excel file, containing Attachment 3A along with the (2) Uncompensated Overtime Policy. The Uncompensated Overtime Policy is a Microsoft Word file. Is it acceptable to deliver it as a separate PDF file?

The policy should be delivered as an Excel file per L- 317.

99 What is the reason for the Contractor facility being in Charleston? This requirement could limit reasonable competition. We recommend that the requirement be eliminated or expanded to include contractor facilities to any CONUS location within 1 day travel of Charleston (e.g., approximately 500 miles).

The specific locations required for facilities or support will be determined at the order level as detailed in PWS paragraph 10. The pricing model location is for evaluation purposes only.

100 Since system categorization has shifted from the use of a Mission Assurance Category (MAC) and Confidentiality Level (CL) to the utilization of the CNSSI 1253, recommend the Government modify the B1 requirement for a MAC I accredited system to one that meets the current standards IAW DoDI

8510.01 for similarly manufactured systems (i.e., up to moderate confidentiality, up to moderate integrity, and up to medium availability).

MAC are still valid and the solicitation allows contractors to demonstrate past experience

101 All rates requested are aligned to either the Charleston or Norfolk locations. Does the government require that all work occur at these locations, thus implying that the contractor must have an integration facility in one or both of those locations?

Per PWS section 10.0, it's not required at the basic contract level to possess facilities at these locations but may be required at the order level. Each order is based on mission requirements.

102 The labor categories listed in Attachment 3A do not map to the position descriptions within the model contract (pages 56 – 74).

Is it the Government’s intent to update one or the other document in order to be in sync for appropriate estimation?

Yes, these will be updated.

103 Based upon the tabs having no yellow cells, is it correct to Correct.

assume nothing is required to be completed on the Material and Travel tabs of this workbook?

104 Regarding PrimeCost, # 1 - Professional Employee Comp Plan: Is the requirement for this satisfied by providing the indirect rates associated with labor within the Attachment 3A Contractor Data Input tab, or what is required to satisfy this?

The solicitation's requirements and the requirements in the provision FAR 52.222-46 need to be met. A PECP tab is being included in the Pricing model to be completed.

105 The latest change to the draft RFP alters the gate criteria from meeting compliance with DODAAC to meeting 3 separate criteria. Can the Government explain the rationale behind this change?

Based on the requirements of this action, the Government determined these Gate criteria are relevant to this acquisition.

106 Many offerors have already invested time/money into this effort assembling teams, pre-proposal meetings/drafting responses, etc. based on meeting the gate criteria as it was published. With this change, all of that will be for nothing since many won’t meet the new gate criteria. Will the Government reconsider its decision to strictly limit the competition based on the new criteria?

The Government has considered the impact of change in gate criteria and has revised the criteria as posted in the latest revision of Sections L&M as it applies to the gate criteria.

107 Section M Cost Realism 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…” However, the Pricing Model only requires submission of prime offerors’ costs, only for Charleston, and only for Professional LCATs, which would not reflect accurate costs for the requirements of the PWS. Since offerors are not permitted to include pricing from teammates (even those included in Attachment 1C), the Pricing Model would not allow the government to assess the degree to which the costs included in the cost proposal accurately represent the work efforts included in the proposal. Furthermore, the government acknowledges in the FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractor Data section that “the specific, discrete proposal costs are not known at the basic contract level.” Analysis of prime contractor rates are unlikely to provide the government with an accurate idea of actual costs of delivery by an offeror and its team for an order placed under the IDIQ.

Therefore, it is unclear how the government could accurately evaluate cost realism at the IDIQ level, and the government’s stated evaluation method for cost is likely to produce a misleading result. Would the government consider eliminating the Pricing Model and total evaluated price evaluation at the IDIQ level and deferring

The Government does not anticipate revising the cost analysis for this requirement.

price evaluations to the task order level? Alternatively, given the limited pricing information required, will the government simply conduct an analysis to ensure labor rates are fair and reasonable for prime contractors and teammates included in Attachment 1C?

108 The updated DRFP states, “Offerors shall provide the data required under FAR 52.244-2, paragraph (e)(1) for all Subcontractors the offeror intends to identify as an Approved Subcontractor to utilize for performance under issued task or delivery orders under this contract. 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.” Will the government provide clarification about the type of data and analysis required by the offeror since subcontractors are not permitted to propose rates?

The Prime offeror shall provide the information required under FAR 52.244-2(e)(1). Subcontractors are not required to provide labor rates in response to the RFP; however, the Prime offeror is required to evaluate subcontractor costs/rates in accordance with

FAR 52.244-2.

109 PWS paragraph 6.2.1 states “The prime contractor shall be CMMI for Services, CMMI for Acquistions and/or CMMI for Development Level III appraised at their local facility at time of contract award…”; however, Sec L Gate Criteria requires “CMMI Level III appraisal at the company level.” Please confirm that for purposes of the IDIQ proposal requirements, the requirement for CMMI Level III is a corporate (vice site-specific) requirement and that it can be in any of the 3 areas.

Please refer to the revised Gate Criteria and PWS for updated requirements.

110 On page 182 under PART I--COST LABOR INFORMATION, it states, “Current, actual unloaded rates are to be submitted for any "proposed individual". A "proposed individual" is defined as a current employee specifically proposed to perform an estimated number of hours for a labor category.” If offerors use rates for proposed individuals, how will the government evaluate or confirm qualifications against LCAT requirements since resumes are not required? What independent verification techniques will the government utilize to ensure proposed individuals actually meet or exceed LCAT requirements and to discourage offerors from using unqualified staff names, e.g. via payroll screen shots, to validate its proposed rates? Would the government consider eliminating the Pricing Model and total evaluated price evaluation at the IDIQ level and deferring price evaluations to the task order level where it would make more sense for the government to require resumes of actual “proposed individuals?”

The Government will not remove the cost/price evaluation from the basic contract. Prime offerors are required to propose personnel who meet the qualification specified in Clause 5252.237-9600.

111 The updated DRFP only allows for up to 2 teammates (subcontractors) to provide contract references, and requires those teammates to be identified in Attachment 1C, which must describe which of the Factor B elements the proposed team member(s) is proposed to perform. Sec L under Other Proposal Requirements states that the Teaming Arrangement agreement should “include agreements for Factor B.” Does the

Teaming Agreements are required for any potential subcontractor. Only Teammates who will provide a contract reference should be included in Attachment 1C.

government require all Teaming Agreements (even for subcontractors not listed in Attachment 1C), or just those for the teammates in Attachment 1C?

112 Section 5252.237-9600 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS states, “The Government will review resumes of contractor personnel proposed to be assigned…”. Would the government confirm that resumes would be reviewed at the TO level?

Resumes will be required at the task order level as applicable.

113 Would SPAWAR entertain the option of reverting back to the previous gate criteria where potential bidders would be allowed to meet three of the four criteria: DoDAAC, CMMI Level III, ISO9001, and/or SMO Code/Facility Clearance?

Please see revised Gate Criteria.

114 Will SPAWAR make the gate criteria a condition of contract award, rather than a condition of proposal submission?

Please see revised Gate Criteria.

115 Section L Factor F; Cost/Price. With the new change of only the prime submitting cost and pricing data. What is the process for getting subs approved at the MAC and Task Order Level?

Please refer to Section L “OTHER PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS” item #7 for details in accordance with FAR 52.244-2.

116 The Government is projecting 5-8 awardees with a not to exceed value of $949,900,000 which equals approximately $119M per awardee. Small business primes with a prime contract in the $10M range may not have the financial capability, lines of credit, and ability to finance incurred cost for tasks of the size anticipated under CMS. Would the Government consider changing Factor B Technical Capability requirement for at least one of the Prime’s contract reference from $10M to $25M.

The Government does not anticipate revising the relevancy threshold at this time.

117 The small business NAICS code chosen for this opportunity, 334220 with a size standard of 1,250 employees, suggests that firms performing in this industry classification would typically hold large dollar value contracts in the $25 million range and above. In last four years, the average contract value SPAWAR has awarded in NAICS 334220 was around $31M. Would the Government consider changing Factor B Technical Capability requirement for at least one of the Prime’s contract reference from $10M to $25M.

The Government does not anticipate revising the relevancy threshold at this time.

118 Would the Government consider adding an additional Gate Criteria – Factor A require the contractor to have an accredited Secure Storage Area (SSA) located within 30 miles of SPAWAR Atlantic Charleston, SC? Requiring the SSA be IAW Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705, Intelligence Community Standard (ICS) 705-1, Intelligence Community Standard (ICS) 705-2, and Intelligence Community Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities Version 1.3 for testing and storage of Contractor and Government procured equipment and material, per the PWS requirement to provide SPAWAR the opportunity for secure Pre-Installation and Test Check-Out (PITCO) of systems off-site followed by secure shipment to Government secure room locations for immediate install to support the Operation Center Systems and Cryptographic and Cryptologic Intelligence Systems Sub-Portfolio’s program and project requirements.

The Government does not anticipate any additional gate criteria at this time.

119 Would the Government consider changing Gate Criteria- Factor A item (1) from: (SMO) code at Secret Facility Clearance Level (FCL) to: (SMO) code at Top Secret FCL? This will allow contractors the ability to provide Top Secret cleared personnel immediately for projects with no delay. Facilities with only Secret FCL would not be able to provide Top Secret personnel and would require them to request an FCL upgrade through Defense Security Service (DSS). Top Secret (FCL) would also allow access to TS/SCI personnel for Cyber Mission Systems programs related to Operation Center Systems, Satellite Communication Systems, Software Defined Radio, and Cryptographic and Cryptologic Intelligence Systems programs and projects requiring TS and TS/SCI support.

The…