S5121A-15-R-0012_Q A.pdf

RFP Section RFP Paragraph # RFP Page # RFP Text Question Response ADDENDUM 52.212-1 ADDENDUM 52.212-1 19 The Government states, “Note: Offerors shall clearly identify what information provided in its proposal satisfies the Go/No-Go factors identified in the technical evaluation factors(shall not exceed 3 pages) of the technical proposal. Offerors shall not rely on the Government to make assumptions about its ability to satisfy the Go/No-Go factors”`

Please confirm our understanding that the three-page Experience Factor response is not included in the 45-page-limited material within Volume II?

The three-page Experience Factor response is not included in the 45-page-limited material within Volume II.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 TAB F: Factor 1:

Experience

21/22 Please confirm that the information required in Tab F:

Factor 1: Experience table on pages 21 and 22 of the RFP in response to the Go/No-Go factors should / can be for the same customers / contracts we provide in the Volume III:

Factor 3: Past Performance table on pages 23 and 24 of the

RFP.

Yes, note the evaluation criteria is different.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS

17 The solicitation indicates a 25% small business set-aside with at least one award to this category

How will acceptable small businesses be competitively evaluated; only against other small businesses or against all submissions including full & open competition?

The contractor(s) for the set-aside portion will be selected from among the small business concerns that submitted responsive offers on the non-set-aside portion.

Addendum 52.212-1 Section (7), Paragraph 1, 19 This paragraph permits color printing to be used for “graphics, photos, etc.” May offerors also use color for section headings to ensure maximum ease of reading for the evaluators?

Yes

Addendum 52.212-1 Section (7), Paragraph 1, 19 The table in this section identifies a requirement of one (1) digital copy of each proposal volume.

How should the digital copies be submitted? (I.e., on a CD- ROM or via email?)

CD-ROM

Addendum 52.212-1 Section (8), Paragraph 4, 19 This paragraph specifies 1-inch margins at the top and bottom and 3/4-inch side margins

May header and footer material (e.g., company logo, solicitation number, and page numbers) be within that margin (e.g., 1/2-inch from the edge of the page)?

Yes

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (7) Proposal Format: 19 Printing shall be easily readable (12 point font or 10 point font proportional spacing.)

Can the Government confirm that the font size is 10 point for tables, figures and graphics?

The minimum font size is 10 point for tables, figures and graphics.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (7) Proposal Format: 19 Technical Capability Page Limit of 45 Pages

Due to the amount of requirements that are required to be addressed, will the Government consider increasing the Technical Capability Page Limit to 50 pages?

No

Addendum 52.212-1 Section (11), Paragraphs 1–3, 20 Our understanding is that only Factor 1: Experience and Factor 2: Technical Capability are included in the 45-page limit for Volume II. Please confirm that, of the tabs listed at the bottom of page 20, Tabs A–E and Tab H do not count against the 45-page limit.

The 45 page limit is specific to Tab G, Instruction have been updated with additional page limitation instructions for clarity for Volume II see para 11.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 10) Volume I – Contract/Price

20 Offerors are requested to provide a completed SF1449 with the Contractor’s TIN and DUNS number; however, the SF 1449 provided does not contain the appropriate boxes for this information. Please confirm that it is acceptable for Offerors to provide these identification numbers in the cover letter.

Offerors shall provide these identification numbers in the cover letter.

Addendum 52.212-1 20 Please confirm Tabs B - D are excluded from the page count limitations.

Tabs B - D are excluded from the page count limitations.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

(10) Volume I – Contract/Price: 20

For evaluation purposes only, off-site Hourly Rates should be based on a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be DCMA Fort Lee, VA.

Will the government confirm that for the pricing submission on the IDIQ Off-Site Price Sheet Tab that the Place of Performance should be at the Contractor site as opposed to DCMA Fort Lee, VA?

The IDIQ Off-Site Price Sheet should be at the Contractor site as opposed to DCMA Fort Lee, VA

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

(11) Volume II - Technical Capability: 20 Tab C: RFP Compliance Matrix (Attachment 6)

Please confirm Tab C: RFP Compliance Matrix (Attachment

6) is not included in page count.

RFP Compliance Matrix (Attachment 6) is not included in page count.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

(11) Volume II - Technical Capability: 20 Tab D: Exceptions/Assumptions

Please confirm Tab D: Exceptions/Assumptions is not included in page count.

Tab D: Exceptions/Assumptions is not included in page count.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

(11) Volume II - Technical Capability: 20

Tab H: Security Qualification: Facility Clearance Level (If Applicable)

Please confirm Tab H: Security Qualification: Facility Clearance Level (If Applicable) is not included in page count.

Tab H: Security Qualification: Facility Clearance Level is not applicable and is not included in page count.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (10) Volume I – Contract/Price

20 The RFP instructions states, "All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only”. The price sheets calculate to the penny. Should Offerors adjust the price template to show to the whole $s or do the whole $s only apply to the

SF 1449?

The requirement to provide pricing in whole dollars has been removed.

Addendum 52.212-1 Tab F”, Paragraph 3, 21 This paragraph notes that offerors should identify what information in the proposal satisfies the Go/No-Go factors and that this “shall not exceed 3 pages.”

Please clarify what exactly this three-page limit applies to – the entirety of Tab F (Experience)? Or only the narrative that identifies how the information in the provided table (at the bottom of page 21) satisfies the requirements of the Go/No-Go factors described in the Evaluation section (on page 25)?

The 45 page limit is specific to Tab G, Instruction have been updated with additional page limitation instructions for clarity for Volume II see para 11.

Addendum 52.212-1 TAB F:Factor 1;

(2) Technical Evaluation for Award.

21 The instructions for the Go/ No Go criteria has the note, “Offerors shall clearly identify what information provided in its proposal satisfies the Go/No-Go factors identified in the technical evaluation factors (shall not exceed 3 pages) of the technical proposal.“

Based on the criteria for the Go/ No Go Factors is it the government expectation that the three past performance qualifications that are submitted as part of Volume III Past Performance are the same contracts that will be submitted to show Contract Experience, Prime Experience and Project Experience to meet the Go/No-Go Criteria?

The past performance can be the same as long as it meets all the evaluation criteria

Addendum 52.212-1 TAB F:Factor 1;

(2) Technical Evaluation for Award.

21 In Tab F: Factor 1: Experience, is the government asking offerors to provide tailored past performance examples to address each of the 3 "factors" (contract experience, prime experience, project experience)? As we read this, the government is asking offerors to submit 6 past performance examples: 3 in response to Tab F and 3 in response to Volume III. Is this the government's intent in Tab F?

The past performance can be the same as long as it meets all the evaluation criteria identified in the evaluation factors.

Addendum 52.212-1 TAB F:Factor 1;

(2) Technical Evaluation for Award.

21 Instructions for Tab F: Factor 1: Experience provide a matrix that indicates how offerors may satisfy the Go/No- Go Factors, which is straightforward and reinforces the instructions in the text. Should offerors consider Factors 1- 3, in effect, “Sub-factors” 1-3 on the same evaluation level as Sub-factor 2 in Tab G?

Yes

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

(11) Volume II - Technical Capability: 21

Tab H: Security Qualification: Facility Clearance Level (If Applicable)

Will the Government please clarify what information should be provided here and the format?

JPAS Visit request for Key Personnel.

Addendum 52.212-1 Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach”, Paragraph 1, 22 This paragraph states, “The Offeror shall describe in detail its technical and management approach.”

However, “Management Approach” is sub-factor 2.

Does DCMA expect the offeror to address management approach in both sections?

No, Language has been revised to provide clarity.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

(11) Volume II - Technical Capability: 22

TAB G: Factor 2: Technical Capability: Sub-factor 1:

Technical Approach (ability to satisfy requirements in PWS Technical Capability):

The Offeror shall describe in detail its technical and management approach.

Sub-factor 1 and 2 both ask for Offeror to detail its management approach. To prevent duplication of information, request Sub-factor 1 be updated to state, "The Offeror shall describe in detail its technical approach."

Language has been revised.

Addendum 52.212-1 7 23 Paragraph 7 stipulates: “A minimum of three (3) Questionnaires should be received by the contract specialist prior to the date established for the RFP closing.”

The government does not describe the effect to the bidder’s relevancy and confidence scores in the event that a government contract POC fails to deliver the questionnaire. Please describe how failure of a government contract POC to return the questionnaire would affect scoring.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Addendum 52.212-1 Para 12 23 The Government states, “Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the PWS primary tasks and subtasks.”

There is a discrepancy in the instructions. The first sentence states that all subcontractors and teaming partners should be referenced. Later on, the Government indicates that no more than three (3) references shall be provided. Please confirm that the Government’s intent is for offerors, inclusive of all subcontractors and/or teaming partners, to submit a total of three (3) past performance references in Volume 3.

The Government’s intent is for offerors, inclusive of all subcontractors and/or teaming partners, to submit a maximum of three (3) past performance references in Volume 3.

Addendum 52.212-1 Para 12 23 The Government states, “The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.”

Please confirm the consent letters required are outside the 10-page limit for Volume III.

The consent letters required are outside the 10-page limit for Volume III.

Addendum 52.212-1 TAB F: Factor 1:

Experience”, Paragraph

2/matrix, 25 Would the Government consider changing the CMMI Level 3 requirement (part of Factor 2 in the matrix) to be a “Prime or Team” requirement, instead of a “Prime Only” requirement? This requirement may unnecessarily limit competition or exclude small business Primes that possess strong technical expertise in all task areas and critical management experience on multiple-award IDIQ contracts, but do not possess this certification. Requiring CMMI Level 3 certification across the team would still ensure that DCMA is able to obtain the required technical support without limiting Prime competition.

Request is denied, Based on the Government market research, the requirement that the prime have this certification does not cause undue restriction or burden to SB’s as there are a large number of small business with this level of certification available commercially.

Addendum 52.212-1 27 A. ADDENDUM 52.212-1: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Paragraph 10, Volume I – Contract/Price, page 20, The Government states, “For evaluation purposes only, off-site Hourly Rates should be based on a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be DCMA Fort Lee, VA.”

However, at the top of both the IDIQ Off-Site Price Sheet and IDIQ On-Site Price Sheet within the Attachment_5_DCMA_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx file, the Government states, “For evaluation purposes only, On-site Hourly Rates should be based on a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be Fort Lee VA (DCMA Headquarters).

Offerors must submit pricing by completing Attachment 6 – Pricing Sheet - Revised. Failure to complete the Pricing Sheet will result in exclusion of Offeror for consideration of award.”

Please confirm our understanding that offers should propose only the On-Site hourly rates with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be DCMA Fort Lee, VA.

Offeror’s should propose both On-site and Off Site hourly rates. On-site place of performance is Fort Lee, VA. See revised pricing sheet.

Addendum 52.212-1 2.7 73 We are required to have a Cover Memo/Letter with all proposals, will this go against page count?

No

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (7) Proposal Format: 19-20 Digital Copies Can offerors submit the digital copy in PDF format? PDF Format is acceptable.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (7) Proposal Format: 19-20 Volume II page limitation to 45 pages We request that RFP Compliance Matrix (Tab C), Exceptions/ Assumptions (Tab D), and Security Qualifications (Tab H) be excluded from the 45-page limit for Volume II. In particular, the RFP Compliance Matrix (Tab C) takes many pages.

The 45 page limit is specific to Tab G, Instruction have been updated with additional page limitation instructions for clarity for Volume II see para 11.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (7) Proposal Format: 19-20 Volume III page limitation to 10 pages Offerors are allowed up to three past performances, each limited to 3 pages – for a maximum of 9 pages. This volume also requires consent letters from each subcontractor. We request that consent letters be excluded from the 10-page limit for Volume III. Are Consent Letters required only from Subcontractors whose contracts/projects are submitted?

Past performances, is limited to 4 pages per submission – for a maximum of 12 pages.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 A. (11) Volume II – Technical Capability. Tab

H:

19-20 Security Qualification: Facility Clearance Level (If Applicable)

The RFP does not provide instructions on what should be submitted under Tab H. Should offerors provide evidence of their facility clearance?

Facility clearance are not applicable.

Instructions have been updated.

Addendum 52.212-1 Sub-factor 3: Key Personnel

23, 27 There is a lack of alignment between the instructions and the evaluation criteria as concerns Management and Key Personnel. Tab G, Management Approach Sub-factor 3, Key personnel: The instructions (pg 23) do not align with the bulleted evaluation criteria (pg 27).

Tab G, Sub factor 2, Management Approach, paragraph 4 (pg 22) instructions appear to align with bullets 1 and 2 (pg 27) of the evaluation factors for Sub-factor 3, Key personnel.

Will the Government please clarify by aligning instructions with the evaluation criteria?

Instructions with the evaluation criteria have been revised to better align.

Addendum 52.212-1 Section 12, Paragraphs 4, 5, and 7

23-24 Paragraph 7 then states that a “minimum of three (3) Questionnaires should be received,” which seems to suggest more than three past performance references might be included in the proposal

Please clarify whether (a) the maximum of three past performance references is for the entire proposed team or

(b) the maximum of three references is for only the prime contractor and each subcontractor should also submit a certain number of references.

Paragraph 7 has been revised to state that a “maximum of three (3) Questionnaires should be received,” the maximum of three past performance references is for the entire proposed team.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 (2) Tab F: Factor 1:

Experience

25-26 Go/No-Go Factors represent minimum qualifications, experience, and/or capabilities that Offerors should possess in order to successfully carry out contractual requirements.

Are offerors allowed to use the same contract for Sub-factors 1, 2, and 3?

Yes, as long as it meet all the criteria’s.

Addendum 52.212-1 Section “Sub-factor 3”, Paragraph 1, 25-26 Please confirm that the required experience listed in this section (“Project Experience”) can be satisfied by the experience of the team as a whole, and not only by the experience of the prime contractor. We base this understanding on the table included in section “Tab F” on page 21, which states the “Project Experience” factor is the responsibility of “Prime or Team.”

The required project experience (not to be confused with contractor experience, sub factor 1) may be satisfied by the experience of the team as a whole, and not only by the experience of the prime contractor.

Addendum 52.212-1 ADDENDUM 52.212-2

EVALUATION CRITERIA,

Paragraph 2

Technical Evaluation Factors for Award, FACTOR 1, Sub-factor 2 Prime Experience, Number 6.

We request this rating be applied to the Offeror’s team as some primes, particularly small businesses, may not have this certification, but are otherwise fully qualified and meet the other stated requirements in the GO/NOGO criteria.

This requirement was not stated in the earlier pre solicitation notice when teams were solidifying and will restrict some bidders from participation as a prime that would otherwise offer the DCMA a best value solution as a prime.

Request is denied, Based on the Government market research, the requirement that the prime have this certification does not cause undue restriction or burden to SB’s as there are a large number of small business with this level of certification available commercially.

Addendum 52.212-1 The Government states, “Note: Offerors shall clearly identify what information provided in its proposal satisfies the Go/No-Go factors identified in the technical evaluation factors(shall not exceed 3 pages) of the technical proposal. Offerors shall not rely on the Government to make assumptions about its ability to satisfy the Go/No-Go factors”`

Please confirm our understanding that the three-page Experience Factor response is not included in the 45-page-limited material within Volume II?

The three-page Experience Factor response is not included in the 45-page-limited material within Volume II?

Addendum 52.212-1 The Offeror shall identify its key personnel and describe their ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror must submit the qualification documentation for the key personnel positions to include all security requirements (see Section 3.0 of the PWS – Key Personnel) which demonstrate the qualifications of the individual and their ability to meet the required specialized experience. Each resume is limited to three (3) pages.”

Please confirm our understanding that the only resumes required with this proposal are the two Key Personnel resumes, one resume per position?

Offerors are not required to provide resume for all of the labor categories, Resumes are only required for the identified key personnel in para 3 of the PWS. Resumes will be required at the TO level.

Addendum 52.212-1 We were looking through the MOCAS, Solicitation #S5121A- 15-R-0012, evaluation criteria and noticed CMMI Level 3 rating requirement. We are currently an 8(a) EDWOSB whom are ISO 9001:2008 certified and would like to pursue such an opportunity, but lack the CMMI Level 3 rating. Currently, we are pursuing the process of becoming level 3 rated, but that will not be in place until the later part of next year. Is the CMMI Level 3 rating going to be required for the 25% of the small business set-aside portion of this IDIQ? Please let us know.

The CMMI Level 3 rating is required for all prime vendors.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, Paragraph 12

23 The Government states, “Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the PWS primary tasks and subtasks.”

There is a discrepancy in the instructions. The first sentence states that all subcontractors and teaming partners should be referenced. Later on, the Government indicates that no more than three (3) references shall be provided. Please confirm that the Government’s intent is for offerors, inclusive of all subcontractors and/or teaming partners, to submit a total of three (3) past performance references in Volume 3.

The Government’s intent is for offerors, inclusive of all subcontractors and/or teaming partners, to submit a total of three

(3) past performance references in Volume 3.

Addendum 52.212-1 3 21 Note: Offerors shall clearly identify what information provided in its proposal satisfies the Go/No-Go factors identified in the technical evaluation factors(shall not exceed 3 pages) of the technical proposal. Offerors shall not rely on the Government to make assumptions about its ability to satisfy the Go/No-Go factors.

To assure sufficient space to provide contract-specific details for each project supporting the Go-No Go factors, will the government expand the page limit for TAB F from 3 pages to 7 pages?

To assure sufficient space to provide contract-specific details for each project supporting the Go-No Go factors, the government expands the page limit for TAB F from 3 pages to 6 pages.

Addendum 52.212-1 2 23 The Offeror must submit the qualification documentation for the key personnel positions to include all security requirements (see Section 3.0 of the PWS – Key Personnel)

Please clarify what documentation the Offeror is to provide to prove ADP/IT II clearance for key personnel.

Offerors shall submit a JPAS Visit request for all key personnel. ADP/IT II clearance will be validated by the Government for all key personnel.

Addendum 52.212-1 1 23 The offeror shall submit a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor…

Are the subcontractor consent letters outside of the page count for the Past Performance volume?

The consent letters are outside of the page count for the Past Performance volume.

Addendum 52.212-1 1 23 The offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter…

Are the client authorization letters outside of the page count for the Past Performance volume?

The client authorization letters are outside of the page count for the Past Performance volume. Past performances, is limited to 4 pages per submission – for a maximum of 12 pages.

ADDENDUM 52.212-1: (7) Proposal Format 19 Please clarify that the black and white text requirements does not apply to headers and footers, number paragraph headings, and table row and column headings.

The black and white text requirements does not apply to headers and footers, number paragraph headings, and table row and column headings.

Addendum 52.212-2 Section “Addendum 52.212-1”, Paragraph 2, 17 This paragraph states, “if no acceptable proposals are received from a small business at a fair market price, the 25% small business set aside will be automatically dissolved.”

If this 25% small business set aside is dissolved, will the large business contractors be required to have a small business plan? I.e., is there a small business requirement for large business offerors?

52.219-8 and 52.219-9 Alt II and 252.219- 7003 are applicable to this solicitation.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 (10) Volume I - Contract/Price, iii

20 The instructions require information regarding the financial ability of the Offeror and its subcontractor (such as current financial statement or a D&B report, etc. and limits this section to 5 pages. Please consider removing the page limitation since financial statements and/or D&Bs for Offerors and its subcontractors will exceed the 5-page limit.

Page limitation has been increased to 5 pages per company.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 (11) Volume II - Technical Capability, Tab H: Security

Qualification: Facility Clearance Level (If

Applicable)

21 Please confirm that a TS facility clearance level is required. No facility clearance level is required.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 (11) Volume II - Technical Capability, Tab G:Factor 2:

Technical Capability, Sub-factor 2: Management Approach (quality oversight, staffing)

22 The instructions state, "the offeror shall identify, consider, and address any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) concerns. If required, the offeror shall present a written mitigation plan". Please confirm that Offerors, if applicable, may include the required OCI Mitigation Plan as a separate Attachment or Appendix that is excluded from the 45-page limit for Volume II, Technical Capability.

The required OCI Mitigation Plan may be submitted as a separate Attachment or Appendix that is excluded from the 45-page limit for Volume II, Technical Capability. (See updated instructions)

Addendum 52.212-2 Sub-factor 3: Key Personnel

23 Please confirm that DCMA expects the offeror’s proposal to include one resume for each of the 38 labor categories identified in Section 3.2 on page 80. Please also confirm that some or all of these resumes may be representative resumes that demonstrate the offeror’s ability to fill these positions.

Offerors are not required to provide resume for all of the labor categories, Resumes are only required for the identified key personnel in para 3 of the PWS. Resumes will be required at the TO level.

Addendum 52.212-2 Volume III: Factor 3: Past Performance

23 If the Offeror has a CPAR for a federal Government reference and that reference will not complete a Past Performance Questionnaire due to internal policies, would an acceptable, alternative method of providing the same or similar Past Performance information be a CPAR in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire?

No, the offeror should submit a letter identifying the company and all of the key required information. The Government will independently verify the company’s internal policy.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

(2) Technical Evaluation Factors for Award:

Evaluation Method:

GO/NO-GO FACTORS Sub-factor 2: Prime Experience 25

6. Offerors shall be Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 rated and have experience as a Prime Contractor for one successful period of performance Minimum (12 Months) on any Federal/DoD or commercial contract by the close of the RFP date to be qualified to provide support for MOCAS Lifecycle Investment Management (LIM), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and other DoD ecommerce Project/Programs with the referenced task areas and labor categories.

Will the Government please consider removing commercial contract examples from the CMMI Level 3 requirement?

Companies may be able to state they are CMMI Level 3 or higher by using an off-shore delivery center for their certification. This would not be relevant to this solicitation as Federal, especially DoD contracts do not permit the use of off-shore delivery center for work performance, thus making it not relevant and deceiving to the Government.

The Government will not remove the commercial contract examples from the CMMI Level III requirement.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

(2) Technical Evaluation Factors for Award:

Evaluation Method:

GO/NO-GO FACTORS Sub-factor 2: Prime Experience 25

6. Offerors shall be Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 rated and have experience as a Prime Contractor for one successful period of performance Minimum (12 Months) on any Federal/DoD or commercial contract by the close of the RFP date to be qualified to provide support for MOCAS Lifecycle Investment Management (LIM), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and other DoD ecommerce Project/Programs with the referenced task areas and labor categories.

Will the Government please make offeror's CMMI Level 3 Certification documentation required as part of the proposal submission? Recommend adding a Tab I for this and is not included in page count.

Recommendation accepted.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 B. (2) Sub-factor 3 – Project Experience

26 3. Experience in successful development and implementation of user interface of major commercial systems for modernization and migration to modern web based technologies.

Does the Government intend to refer to the user interface of both commercial and Government systems, instead of just commercial systems?

Experience, successfully migrating persistent data storage and providing migration solutions for Legacy or other commercial or Government software.

Addendum 52.212-2 Section “Sub-factor 1:

Technical Approach”, Paragraph 2

26 The second bullet states, “Offerors shall be … (CMMI) Level 3 rated.”

Please confirm that only the prime contractor needs CMMI Level 3 certification.

Only the prime contractor needs CMMI Level 3 certification.

Addendum 52.212-2 Factor 2: Technical Capability/Approach Sub-factor 1 – Technical Approach

26 The second bullet repeats the same CMMI Level 3 “experience” requirement from Factor 1: Experience Sub-factor 2 – Prime Experience. It refers to the need for having experience, which does not cleanly align into an “approach” section. Can the Government clarify if experience alone satisfies this requirement?

The second bullet has been deleted.

Addendum 52.212-2 Factor 2: Technical Capability/Approach Sub-factor 1 – Technical Approach

26 Since CMMI Level 3 experience elsewhere may not translate to the same CMMI methodologies being used for DCMA, it would be more appropriate for DCMA to put the CMMI Level 3 requirement in the Technical Approach section only, requiring the contractor to show how they will apply CMMI Level 3 methodologies for DCMA efforts.

Sub-factor two bullet has been removed

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

(2) Technical Evaluation Factors for Award: (3)

FACTOR 2: - TECHNICAL

CAPABILITY/APPROACH 26

The extent to which the proposed technical and management approach meets the applicable functional and technical requirements and demonstrates a high likelihood of success with low risk, in accordance with the PWS.

Based on our review of the RFP and our understanding of DCMA’s requirements, modernization is a critical success factor for this RFP and the evaluation criteria should explicitly consider this. Therefore, we recommend that an additional bullet be added to SubFactor 1 – Technical that states: "• The offerors ability to provide a holistic, enterprise solution to modernize the MOCAS system."

The offerors ability to provide a holistic, enterprise solution to modernize the MOCAS system may be evaluated at the TO level.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 B. (3) Sub-factor 3 – Key Personnel

27 The offeror’s ability to successfully manage staff, recruit and provide continuity of qualified personnel to perform the requirements of the PWS in a timely manner including for urgent requirements (surge support) at all DCMA locations.

The offeror’s ability to reduce the risk of performance by understanding the unique skill sets required for successful performance and recruiting and retaining for those skill sets.

Should these two evaluation factors be moved to Sub- Factor 2 – Management Approach, as these items are discussed under Sub-factor 2?

No, Factor 3: has been relabeled as "Staffing & Key Personnel Management"

Addendum 52.212-2 FACTOR 4: PRICE

EVALUATION FACTOR”

29 The Evaluation Factor 4 states, “The Government will apply the offerors quoted price for each labor position to the estimated IGCE labor hours for each labor position/category for the base and all option years of the IDIQ to calculate the total estimated award price solely for price evaluation purposes.”

Are the hourly estimates contained in the Attachment 5 spreadsheet synonymous with the “IGCE labor hours” reference as used in Evaluation Factor 4?

No, Evaluation Factor 4, language has been revised.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

(5) FACTOR 4: PRICE

EVALUATION FACTOR 29

"Subcontractor rate information shall also be included, if applicable."

We intend to propose a single set of rates that encompasses our entire team. We therefore assume subcontractor rate information is not applicable. Is this correct?

That is correct.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 B. (2) Tab F: Sub-factor 3:

Key Personnel

The Offeror shall identify its key personnel and describe their ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror must submit the qualification documentation for the key personnel positions to include all security requirements (see Section 3.0 of the PWS – Key Personnel).

PWS Section 3.0. All key personnel must have a current ADP/IT II clearance on file in Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) at the time of the submission of offer for all task orders.

Can the qualification documentation for the security requirements be excluded from the 45-page count?

The 45 page limit is specific to Tab G, Instruction have been updated with additional page limitation instructions for clarity for Volume II see para 11. Offerors shall submit a JPAS Visit request for all key personnel. ADP/IT II clearance will be validated by the Government for all key personnel.

Addendum 52.212-2 Para 3 There is a conflict between the Instructions to offerors and the evaluation criteria. In the eval criteria, we are required to address recruiting and retaining staff in Sub-factor 3:

Key Personnel. According to the Instructions to Offerors, we are to address that requirement in Sub-factor 2:

Management. Please clarify in which sections we should address staffing, recruitment, and retaining personnel.

Language has been revised to provide clarification.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

(1) Evaluation of Proposals b. Award for All of the Work:

The Government contemplates making four (4) awards as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made.

Is the Government willing to consider proposed additions and/or clarifications to the solicitation terms and conditions?

Questions deadlines was 10 Nov 2015.

Addendum 52.212-2 We were looking through the MOCAS, Solicitation #S5121A- 15-R-0012, evaluation criteria and noticed CMMI Level 3 rating requirement. We are currently an 8(a) EDWOSB whom are ISO 9001:2008 certified and would like to pursue such an opportunity, but lack the CMMI Level 3 rating. Currently, we are pursuing the process of becoming level 3 rated, but that will not be in place until the later part of next year. Is the CMMI Level 3 rating going to be required for the 25% of the small business set-aside portion of this IDIQ? Please let us know.

The CMMI Level 3 rating is going to be required for tall prime offerors.

Addendum 52.212-2 Factor 1: Experience Sub-factor 2 – Prime

Experience

25 Item 6 discusses the requirement for the offeror to be CMMI Level 3 rated and have experience as a Prime Contractor for one successful period of performance for any contract. Can the Government clarify how that experience requirement is related to CMMI Level 3, or are they two separate requirements (CMMI rating and project experience)?

They two separate requirements

Addendum 52.212-2 Factor 1: Experience Sub-factor 2 – Prime

Experience

25 We operate several contracts at CMMI Level 3, and have our formal SCAMPI C scheduled for mid-November. Can the results of that SCAMPI C be used as evidence to satisfy the CMMI requirement?

Your SCAMPI, applied to a contract under which you acted as Prime per the requirements of the RFP, must be completed before the proposals are due to the Government.

Addendum 52.212-2 Factor 1: Experience Sub-factor 2 – Prime

Experience

25 Is the CMMI Level 3 requirement for DEV (Development) or SVC (Services), or will either suffice?

The Government is open to either, but the contractor should explain how their level 3 assessment applies to the work being proposed.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 (5) FACTOR 4: PRICE

EVALUATION FACTOR 29

The evaluated price used in determining the awardee will be determined based on the total estimated cost as derived by the Government IGCE for the total cost of the requirement. The Government will apply the offerors quoted price for each labor position to the estimated IGCE labor hours for each labor position/category for the base and all option years of the IDIQ to calculate the total estimated award price solely for price evaluation purposes.

Please confirm that the hours provided in the Pricing spreadsheet (Copy of Attachment_5_DCMA_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx) are the same as the IGCE hours referred to.

Pricing spreadsheet has been revised, see Attachment 5.

Attachment 4 Attachment 4 Organizational Conflicts of

Interest (OCI)

118 Please clarify if the requested Comment Letter is an SEC issued Comment Letter.

Attachment 4: OCI has been updated requirement for comment letter has been removed.

Attachment 4 Organizational Conflicts of Interest

Organizational Conflicts of Interest Should the Offeror include its representation on OCI in Volume I, Contract/Price

No, see updated instructions.

Attachment 4 Please clarify if the requested Peer Review report is an SEC issued report.

Attachment 4: OCI has been updated requirement for peer review letter has been removed.

Attachment 4 General 118 If a Subcontractor considers their responses to the OCI questionnaire to contain sensitive or proprietary information, will the Government accept sealed packages directly from the Subcontractor? If so, please provide an address where the sealed packages may be delivered.

Proposal submittal instructions are provided in Addendum 52.212-1.

Attachment 4 118 Please confirm that the audit information requested in Question C pertains to audits performed by DCAA or DCMA only? If not, then please specify the type of audit information being requested.

Attachment 4: OCI has been updated.

Attachment 5 Para 2 20 “The labor category rates provided are to be fully burdened rates that includes labor categories and rates (off-site) for the entire ten year ordering period.” The pricing spreadsheet (Attachment 5) only shows 5 years. Can the government please update the pricing spreadsheet to allow us to propose 10 years?

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been updated to reflect the projected 10 year

POP.

Attachment 5 N/A N/A

For evaluation purposes only, On-site Hourly Rates should be based on a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be Fort Lee VA (DCMA Headquarters). Offerors must submit pricing by completing Attachment 6 – Pricing Sheet - Revised. Failure to complete the Pricing Sheet will result in exclusion of Offeror for consideration of award.

In the instructions at the top of the Excel work sheets, it mentions an Attachment 6 - Pricing Sheet - Revised. Can the Government please confirm this is supposed to be Attachment 5?

It is supposed to be Attachment 5.

Attachment 5 N/A N/A "=([@[Estimated Rate/ Hours]]*0.01)+[@[Estimated Rate/ Hours]]"

Will the government adjust the mandatory rate escalation of 1% to align more closely with annual market estimates for salary escalations from an independent source such as DCAA, DCMA, IHS Global Insights, or Economics Research Institute? Doing so would enable rates that are more balanced and realistic across the life of the contract vehicle.

It is permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror?

Attachment 5 N/A N/A N/A

Attachment 5 appears to be structured around a 1 year Base Period and four 1 year Option Periods, while the CLIN Tables on Page 4 through 17 of the solicitation indicate a 2 year Base Period with four 2 year Option Periods. Will the government update Attachment 5 to more clearly align with the 10 year period of performance? If so, will the government consider implementing the following changes?

• Include a row to separately identify the Contract Period in addition to the Contract Year.

• Replace Base Year and Option Year references in Row 3 with Contract Year references (for example: Contract Year 1, Contract Year 2, etc...)

• Include Columns for Contract Years 6 through 10.

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been updated to reflect the projected 10 year

POP.

Attachment 5 DCMA_Pricing_Sheet For evaluation purposes only, On-site Hourly Rates should be based on a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be Fort Lee VA (DCMA Headquarters). Offerors must submit pricing by completing Attachment 6 – Pricing Sheet - Revised. Failure to complete the Pricing Sheet will result in exclusion of Offeror for consideration of award.

Header is the same for both “IDIQ Off-Site Price Sheet” and “IDIQ On-Site Price Sheet”.

Please confirm that the Government intended to refer to the document as “Attachment 5” and not “Attachment 6”.

Should Off-Site Hourly Rates be within a certain radius of Fort Lee, VA?

Are modifications allowed to the provided formulas?

Corrected

Attachment 5 Columns: estimated annual FTEs and estimated hours. If the base period and each of the option period are two years long, should the Government double the numbers provided in the columns: "estimated annual FTEs" and "estimated hours"?

No, The pricing sheet is being utilized solely for evaluation purposes and to establish the labor categories ceiling rates for the IDIQ.Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5

Attachment 5 The spreadsheet formula includes a 1% escalation rate. Is this mandated by the government, or can Offerors adjust to reflect anticipated inflation?

Offerors should adjust the spreadsheet formula to reflect anticipated inflation.

Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5

Attachment 5 For evaluation purposes only, On-site Hourly Rates should be based on a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) with 1,920 hours and Place of Performance to be Fort Lee VA (DCMA Headquarters). Offerors must submit pricing by completing Attachment 6 – Pricing Sheet - Revised.

Did the government mean Attachment 5, or is there a revised pricing spreadsheet?

The Government meant Attachment 5.

Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5

Attachment 5 DCMA Pricing Sheet The RFP indicates five, 2-year performance periods for a total contract term of ten years. However, the pricing sheet provides hourly estimates and pricing for four years only (Base Year and Option Years 1 through 4), including specific references to annual FTE count.

Please clarify this discrepancy and provide specific guidance for use in pricing. Specifically:

a) Are the “years” shown in the spreadsheet really the contract 2-year periods?

b) If the years are really the contract periods, are the estimates appropriate for the two-year periods.

Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5

Attachment 5 DCMA Pricing Sheet The referenced Attachment 5 spreadsheet appears to include annual escalation within the formulas for Option Years 1 through 4, at the rate of 1% per year. Is it permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror? If not, what provisions does the Government envision for accommodating changes to this element of the pricing after award?

It is permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror.

Pricing sheet has been revises see attachment 5

Attachment 5 DCMA Pricing Sheet The estimated hours and Annual FTE columns for Option Year 4 contain zero entries. Does the Government require that labor hour pricing be provided for the labor categories in year four with no evaluated quantities?

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been updated to reflect the projected 10 year

POP.

Attachment 5 3.2 and Pricing Attachment

There are discrepancies between the pricing attachment table and the LCAT descriptions listed in the PWS. (i.e. The pricing table is missing LCAT descriptions for the Administration Specialist, and Program manager. There are two descriptions for the Project manager, and a description for the 3.2.29 Information Systems Training Specialist which does not appear on the pricing table.)

Will the government be issuing a new pricing attachment?

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been updated to reflect the projected 10 year POP. The identified labor categories have been added to the price sheet.

Attachment 5 The RFP indicates five, 2-year performance periods for a total contract term of ten years. However, the pricing sheet provides hourly estimates and pricing for four years only (Base Year and Option Years 1 through 4), including specific references to annual FTE count.

Please clarify this discrepancy and provide specific guidance for use in pricing. Specifically:

a) Are the “years” shown in the spreadsheet really the contract 2-year periods?

b) If the years are really the contract periods, are the estimates appropriate for the two-year periods.

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been updated to reflect the projected 10 year

POP.

Attachment 5 The Evaluation Factor 4 states, “The Government will apply the offerors quoted price for each labor position to the estimated IGCE labor hours for each labor position/category for the base and all option years of the IDIQ to calculate the total estimated award price solely for price evaluation purposes.”

Are the hourly estimates contained in the Attachment 5 spreadsheet synonymous with the “IGCE labor hours” reference as used in Evaluation Factor 4?

No, Note: Attachment 5: pricing Sheet has been revised.

Attachment 5 The referenced Attachment 5 spreadsheet appears to include annual escalation within the formulas for Option Years 1 through 4, at the rate of 1% per year. Is it permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror? If not, what provisions does the Government envision for accommodating changes to this element of the pricing after award?

It is permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror.

Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5

Attachment 5 The estimated hours and Annual FTE columns for Option Year 4 contain zero entries. Does the Government require that labor hour pricing be provided for the labor categories in year four with no evaluated quantities?

Yes, Note: Attachment 5: pricing Sheet has been revised. Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5.

Attachment 5 Attachment 5 - Price Sheet lists Annual FTEs for the Base Year and each Option Year. The Base and Option Year estimated hours are the annual FTEs multiplied by 1920, the Government's dictated annual FTE hours. However, page 91 of the solicitation lists each Option as two calendar years. Can the Government please clarify?

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been updated to reflect the projected 10 year

POP.

Attachment 5 Pricing Instructions/Pricing Spreadsheet: There appears to be a discrepancy between the CLIN structure and the pricing spreadsheet. In the RFP, CLIN structure, and period-of-performance section (page 91) stipulates a 10 year contract (2016 – 2026); with the base and option periods each two years (ten years total). The Pricing Spreadsheet has the base and option periods each one year (five years total). The pricing spreadsheet also describes each period as a "Base Year" or "Option Year" with an FTE having 1920 hours for the year. Is the offeror to price according to the instructions in the pricing sheet? Or will another set of instructions be issued?

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been

Attachment 5 Pricing Spreadsheet: A 1% rate escalation is built into the formulas for each option period with the pricing spreadsheet based only on one-year option periods versus two-year option periods stipulated in the RFP. If the Government's intent is that the Pricing Spreadsheet is to match the 10 year contract duration, is the offeror required to accept a 1% escalation factor or can an offeror-defined escalation factor be applied?

It is permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror.

Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5.

Attachment 5 The pricing sheet is pre-populated with billing rate escalation of 1% per year. Please confirm that each Offeror is able to amend the calculations to input its own escalation based upon its own estimates prepared in accordance with its estimating practices and applicable rates and factors.

It is permissible for the offeror to change the assumed escalation of 1% to a value determined most appropriate by the offeror?

Pricing sheet has been revised see Attachment 5

Attachment 5 Please confirm that if an Offeror elects to submit it proposal based exclusively upon the labor category descriptions included in the solicitation and is not mapping the solicitation labor category to a separate company specific labor category that the “Offeror Proposed Labor Category” should merely reflect the same solicitation “Labor Category” name.

If the Offeror anticipates employing classes of employees not identified under Clause 52.222-42, or listed under the applicable wage determination, the offeror shall classify the unlisted employee labor categories so as to provide a reasonable relationship between the unlisted labor categories and the listed labor categories in the wage determination, per paragraph (c) of clause 52.222-41.

Attachment 5 The base period and each of the 4 option periods are 2 years each for a total of 10 years. The spreadsheet appears to be built around a one year base and one year option periods with the FTE count and hours. Is this correct?

Attachment 5: Pricing Sheet has been

Attachment 6 Instruction Column and Evaluation Column

119 Description Column For Instruction and Evaluation factors (where there is limited numbering to sub paragraphs in the RFP), is the Government…