ACSS II 18-R-0011 Q and A No. 1.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) N66001-18-R-0011

ADVANCED CYBER SUPPORT SERVICES (ACSS)

IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT NETWORK OPERATIONS AND SECURITY CENTER

Questions and Answers (Q & A) #1:

Q1: Would the Government consider sponsoring a Top Secret Clearance for companies that might already have final Secret?

A1: No. A current TS/SCI facility clearance is required at time of proposal submittal.

Q2: Section L 3.1 Section (e) “The offeror should demonstrate organizational experience operating enterprise-level wide area networks worth at least $12.5M per year”. A minimum threshold for RIS TO’s valued at 12.5 million is very unlikely for companies operating under the NAICS Code 541512 (27.5m/annual rev).

A2: The scope and scale of the requirement warrants the need for an equivalence of this size. However, the Government indents to amend RFP with the following language, “The offeror should demonstrate organizational experience operating enterprise-level wide area networks worth at least $10.5M per year.” Amendment 0001 to the RFP to reflect the aforementioned change is forthcoming.

Q3: Section L 3.1 Section (e) “Offerors are not allowed to aggregate multiple task orders on to one Reference Information Sheet.” Does this mean that a single contract with multiple delivery orders on it has to be broken up and each delivery order must be treated with an individual RIS?

A3: Ys, that is correct.

Q4: Section M 1.2.1 states: “Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the solicitation with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value”. It is unclear how the evaluation criteria addresses these items. It is also unclear how and what “other” items may be scored based on the usage of the language “Relevance may include, but is not limited to….“ A4: See M-TXT-06, paragraph 1.2 “Evaluation of Capability” for how the factors will be evaluated. The use of “…not limited to…” allows the evaluators to consider other information, beyond “complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value” that may help to establish relevance.

Q5: Why is “number of tasks” part of relevance, and please define “number of tasks”?

A5: This is our standard language for Organizational Experience. As it is written, relevance “may include” the “number of tasks.” “Number of tasks” refers to the number of tasks on a referenced contract (i.e.

did the work on the referenced contract involve many different tasks or was it primarily centered around one or a few tasks, etc.)

Q6: How do “complexity, scope and type” of work differ?

A6: Please see the dictionary definitions of these words. While there is overlap in the definitions of these terms, there are also differences which are evident in the dictionary definitions.

Q7: How are the above items scored, and what is the weighting between them if any?

A7: All evaluation factors will be evaluated in accordance with provision M-TXT-06.

Q8: Will the bidder be judged for lack of SPAWAR/Navy Past Performance?

A8: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in the RFP.

Q9: Can we reference subcontractor Past Performance in a bid?

A9: See provision L-TXT-12, paragraph 3.1(a), where it says, “Cite at least one reference for work performed by the prime offeror, no more than one reference per subcontractor, and no more than three (3) references total.”

Q10: Is the Prime Contract respondent required to have the GSA schedule?

A10: The ACSS requirement is competitively solicited on a 100% small business set-aside basis and will result in a new, stand-alone contract; this contract/solicitation has nothing to do with GSA or any GSA schedules.

Q11: Are there any specific Contract vehicles that are required for a contractor to respond to this opportunity?

A11. No.

Q12. Relevant experience is considered to be network operation and maintenance services projects of a similar magnitude to this acquisition. The offeror should demonstrate organizational experience operating enterprise-level wide area networks worth at least $12.5M per year. Offerors are not allowed to aggregate multiple task orders on to one Reference Information Sheet. Offerors should clearly describe the size and complexity of the network, including number of end users supported, number of locations supported, number of endpoints/devices supported, and how many FTE’s were employed on the contract. Proposals that fail to meet these criteria may be rated lower. We request that the requirement of $12.5M/ year be reduced to ½ of the current requirement to $6M/ Year. A $6M/Year requirement will still demonstrate experience with managing network operation and maintenance services projects of a similar magnitude to this acquisition without being overly restrictive to small businesses.

A12: See A2.

Q13: Is there a requirement to have the DCAA audit completed, being that this is a CPFF contract?

A13: There is no requirement to have a DCAA audited accounting system. However, a contract may only be awarded to a “responsible” offeror. One of the factors in the Government’s responsibility determination is whether or not the offeror has an accounting system that is adequate for a cost reimbursement contract of this nature. It is the Contracting Officer, not DCAA, who will make this determination. See provision L-TXT-12, Paragraph 2.7(b)(2) for instructions to follow if your accounting system has not been audited by DCAA.