QandA Log for after 2nd Draft RFP.pdf

Question and Answer Log for CoMSupCen DRAFT RFP #2 – W9133L24R3801

Question #

Document (e.g., PWS, Solicitation, Attachment, etc.)

Page # Section/

Paragraph Reference

Line # Question Response

1 DRFP PWS 5.1.4 47

In 5.1.4, the first paragraph talks about managing NGB’s web-based MIS, but the next paragraph talks about establishing a website (that we must also host, per the Q&A). Is the Offeror to assume the Government wants the Offeror to build and host the front end for the MIS and the Offeror will not be able to utilize the current program’s website (true development)?

The Offeror will be able to use the current website, but it is responsible for managing the website and MIS pursuant to PWS paragraph 5.1.4.

2 DRFP PWS

Att 13 SOG PWS 5.1.4;

SOG 3

Other than the broad-brush requirements and password restrictions, are there any additional requirements listed for the hosting and development of the website?

There are not any additional requirements other than those cited in the PWS and the

SOG.

3 DRFP PWS 5.1.4 47

Does the MIS SQL DB communicate with the Maximo CMS system, and if so – which data takes precedence?

The MIS SQL DB feeds the Maximo CMS system.

4 DRFP PWS 5.1.4 47

Does the MIS have a stand-alone ATO and is it the intention of the government to add the website into the authorization boundary of that ATO (through the assess only process)? Does the CMS system have an ATO? What parts/roles of the RMF process is the contractor responsible for and for what system(s)?

Currently, neither the MIS nor the CMS have ATOs, because they are based on a commercial network using commercial standards and are not utilized on a Government network. The contractor shall ensure that applicable commercial RMF standards are used for both the MIS and the

CMS.

5 DRFP PWS 1.4.1.1 18

Will the government provide GFE to support contingency and or national emergency requirements to those assigned to telework?

The Government will not provide any additional GFE other than what is identified in Attachment 5.

6 DRFP PWS 1.4.1.1 18 Is the Telework plan an element of the contractor’s COOP plan?

Pursuant to PWS paragraph 1.4.1.1, “a telework program may be enacted to ensure that the Government's mission-critical operations stay operational during times of national emergency or incidents of national significance.”

7 DRFP Section L 2.c.(iv)

Volume IV – Past Performance

(iv) and (3)

143, Given as indicated in Section L.2.(iv)(3). Section 3 - Past Performance of Individuals, Predecessor Corporations or Corporate Parent/Affiliates and Joint Ventures the Government will consider past performance of a parent or affiliate where the Offeror clearly demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate were meaningfully involved in the past performance contract and the Offeror includes an express commitment that the resources of the parent or affiliate will be available to and meaningfully involved in performance under this Contract AND the recent addition to Section L.2.(ii).c. Organizational Experience “The Government will evaluate the Organizational Experience of a parent or affiliate as a prime contractor to a Federal entity within the past 5 years where the Offeror demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate were meaningfully involved in the Organizational Experience reference, and the Offeror includes an express commitment that the resources of the parent or affiliate will be available to, and meaningfully involved in, performance under a contract awarded pursuant to this solicitation” with respect to the 3 contract references used to demonstrate organizational experience, there appears to be an inconsistent approach to how the contract references are attributed to the prime Offeror between Volume II Go/No-Go Criteria and Volume IV Past Performance.

We assume that the Government has included this language to align the approach between these volumes and maintain consistent and compliant use of affiliate experience/past performance IAW FAR and GAO decisions. It has been this contractor’s experience that other Government customers with similar requirements have inserted the following language into their RFPs for clarity: The Government will allow an Offeror to take credit for relevant experience project(s) from a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an

A) No, the verbiage in L.2.(iv)(3) regarding Organizational Experience is consistent with the applicable GAO case law.

B) No, see previous Answer.

Document (e.g., PWS, Solicitation, Attachment, etc.)

Page # Section/

Paragraph Reference

Line # Question Response

Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) so long as there is a meaningful relationship to the Offeror and it is demonstrated how the affiliate will be meaningfully involved in the proposed effort.

A) Will the Government consider rewording Section L.c.(iv) stating that affiliate contract references presented in Section 1 Contract or Order Descriptions and Section 2 Performance will be credited to the prime Offeror's past performance?

B) If so, will the Government adjust the wording of Section 3 Past Performance of Individuals, Predecessor Corporations or Corporate Parent/Affiliates and Joint Ventures so that it can be used to describe the meaningful involvement of the affiliates presented in Sections 1 and 2, since the past performance will have already been presented in these sections, while continuing to allow Section 3 to be used for past performance and meaningful involvement from any other individuals, predecessor corporations, or affiliates of the parent organization not presented in Sections 1 and 2?

Document (e.g., PWS, Solicitation, Attachment, etc.)

Page # Section/

Paragraph Reference

Line # Question Response

8 Section L.2.b

Table 2 – Proposal Volumes, Volume IV Past Performance

Per Section L 2.b Table 2 – Proposal Volumes, Volume IV Past Performance indicates each contract reference, excluding the summary section and any show cause, cure notice, termination for default or convenience, and letter(s) of concern information, are not to exceed 3 pages.

Given that the contract information requested in Section 1 can take most of one page, leaving 2 pages for Section 2 Performance for each reference, will the Government consider increasing the page limit to 6 pages for each contract reference to allow Offerors adequate space to describe their relevant experience given the scope, magnitude, and complexity of these efforts and align the page restriction to what Offerors are typically allowed for past performance contract references across DoD contracting organizations?

The Government has increased the Past Performance page limit for each reference to 6 pages.

9 Section L 2.c.(iv)

Volume IV – Past Performance (iv)

Considering that this opportunity is an 8(a) Competitive Small Disadvantaged Business set-aside and the magnitude and complexity relevancy requirements for past performance contract references presented in Section L.2.c.(iv) Volume IV – Past Performance, it is our opinion that these requirements will overly restrict the ability for fully qualified 8(a) firms to participate in this bid. In order for the Government to achieve sufficient competition and establish a competitive pool of Offerors, we recommend contract relevancy requirements be adjusted to levels that are more consistent with the past performance that fully qualified 8(a) firms will be able to provide. We recommend the following as it is consistent with what we have seen on similar proposals with scope, magnitude, and complexity requirements.

A) For Magnitude: With the assumption that the $500-$925M value of the CoMSupCen effort includes labor and procurements and the labor effort for this opportunity is valued at +/- $10M annually, will the Government consider adjusting the magnitude relevancy requirement to contracts with a total value of $100M or greater. This threshold is more representative of what is required to operationally meet the mission requirements while maintaining the flexibility to accomplish the large-scale procurements that this program requires, since Offerors will be providing proof of working capital/credit arrangements that provide greater than $57M in the Financial Responsibility (Section L.2.(ii)d.(i-vi)) portion of Volume II Go/No-Go Criteria?

B) For Complexity: Given that Section M.C.4.d Table 2 states Very Relevant past performance efforts involve essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexities, and Relevant past performance efforts involve similar scope, magnitude, and complexity AND that due to the

A) No, the Government will evaluate and assign a relevancy rating for all past performance information received consistent with the solicitation, DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3).

B) No, as provided above the Government will evaluate and assign a relevancy rating for all past performance information received consistent with the solicitation, DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3). Moreover, the Government will assign a Confidence Assessment for each offeror, which is based on the recency, relevancy and quality of the offerors past performance consistent with the solicitation, DoD Source Selection Procedures, and AS3.

Document (e.g., PWS, Solicitation, Attachment, etc.)

Page # Section/

Paragraph Reference

Line # Question Response unique complexity of this opportunity, the incumbent is likely the only bidder with a past performance that meets or exceeds all the complexity requirements (average levels of inventory, unique items, pieces, serialized pieces, etc. managed), will the Government consider adjusting the complexity criteria to level the playing field for all small business Offerors and additionally, state that the evaluation criteria will consider in aggregate, the past performance contract experiences provided to establish relevant complexity?

Section L 2.c.(iv);

Section M.C.4.c(ii)

Volume IV – Past Performance (iv); Factor 3

– Past Performance Factor (ii) Relevancy

143, It has been this Offeror’s experience that the Government has great latitude in assigning NAICS codes to procurements. By design, the NAICS classifications allow overlapping capability across a broad swath of the NAICS designators. To include NAICS assignment as a part of evaluation criteria may severely limit highly relevant contracts held by Offerors from inclusion.

We recommend you remove the reference to NAICS code 541614 in the following sections from the relevancy requirements in Section L and M other than to establish the size of the contract:

Section L.2.c(iv) & Section M.C.4.c(ii) – Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the solicitation requirements, as well as the effort as compared to NAICS code 541614 required by the RFP.

The Government will evaluate and assign a relevancy rating for all past performance information received consistent with the solicitation, DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3). To that end, NAICS code 541614 was used for the small business size standard, because it reflects the preponderance of the CoMSupCen effort. As such, it is reasonable to use NAICS code 541614 as a guide for relevancy, which includes scope, magnitude and complexity for each past performance reference.

Notwithstanding, the Government has analyzed all functional areas of performance required by the solicitation. While NAICS code 541614 accounts for the preponderance of the CoMSupCen effort and, therefore, is the single NAICS code assigned by the contracting officer to this procurement, there are other tasks to be performed that fall outside the selected NAICS code. In this regard, the Government has identified three additional NAICS codes where a minimum of 10 percent of the direct labor hours are estimated to be performed.

The additional NAICS codes that have been incorporated in the relevant Section L and Section M sections within the solicitation, in numerical order, includes 493110 (General Warehousing and Storage), 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services), and 811210 (Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance).

To acknowledge that labor categories are diffused across other performance areas, the solicitation has been updated to incorporate the aforementioned additional NAICS codes into how the Government will evaluate and

Document (e.g., PWS, Solicitation, Attachment, etc.)

Page # Section/

Paragraph Reference

Line # Question Response assign a relevancy rating for all past performance.

After reviewing the draft RFP could you please clarify if we must respond to all of the PWS:

Logistical Operations, Maintenance, Purchasing Information Technology (IT), and Facility Operations OR can we respond to one area (i.e.

IT) as a small business set aside?

Prime offerors must respond to the entire RFP.

12 Section M C.4.c.ii. 152

Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor;

Relevancy

With respect to the following: Offerors are advised that their past performance as a prime contractor is more relevant than their past performance as a subcontractor or member of a joint venture.

Will the Government consider evaluating subcontractor or joint venture member past performance experience as equally relevant as prime contract experience if Offerors can demonstrate that the scope, magnitude, and complexity of their subcontract/JV member experience is essentially the same or similar to the work they will be assigned under this solicitation/project?

The solicitation has been updated to reflect the fact that the Government will consider the past performance of small business offerors that have been members of joint ventures or have been first-tier subcontractors pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 125.11.

Draft Attachment 07 Historical Workload Data

What percentage of the 8,190 maintenance actions referenced in 3. Analytical Equipment Support were performed by an EOM?

None of the 8,190 maintenance actions were performed by an “EOM” (please be advised, since the acronym “EOM” was not defined, the Government interprets this to mean “Original Equipment Manufacturer” (OEM)).

Draft Attachment 7 Historical Workload Data

What percentage of the 528 repairs shown were performed by an EOM?

Please be advised, the Government cannot discern from where in Draft Attachment 7 the total of 528 repairs is being taken. As such, the government cannot provide an answer to this question.

Document (e.g., PWS, Solicitation, Attachment, etc.)

Page # Section/

Paragraph Reference

Line # Question Response

DRFP PWS –

Performance Requirements

47 5.1.4

If the offeror is expected to take over and utilize the existing website, will be source code;

database access; server, host, and domain access; and documentation (installation guide, APIs, services and dependencies, configuration settings, code scans, etc.) be available at transition?

Yes, the source code; database access;

server, host, and domain access; and documentation for the existing website will be available to the awardee at contract award.