Copy of Comment_Matrix_12-Dec-19.pdf

FOPR COMMENT MATRIX

12-Dec-19

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment #3/Draft LOE Matrix All All Please confirm that all labor categories for non-Edwards AFB Locations are to use the Eglin AFB labor rates.

Geographic locations are separated into two categories: (1) Standard (includes

Eglin), and (2) Premium (includes

Edwards). A complete list can be found in

Attachment 3.

Attachment #4/Draft ITO Page 1 Paragraph 1.1

(3rd paragraph)

Please clarify the intent and/or potential scenario where the qualifier regarding the 5 work samples "…unless otherwise noted.", would apply.

For 3.1.6 - Financial Stability, a work sample is not required.

Attachment #4/Draft ITO Pages 4 and 7 Paragraphs 6.1 and 14

There is a page limit discrepancy for the Executive Summary; Sec. 6.1 states 3 pages, Sec. 14.0 states 2 pages. Is the Executive Summary limited to 2 pages or 3 pages?

The Executive Summary is limited to two

(2) pages.

Attachment #4/Draft ITO Pages 4 and 5 Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2

It is unclear whether the Self-Scored Matrix placed in Volume I(a) directly behind the cover sheet (as required by Sec. 6.1) is page counted toward the Executive

Summary page limit, as it is not listed in Sec. 6.2 as excluded from page count. Is the

Self-Scored Matrix placed in Volume I(a) excluded from page count?

Clarified language in Attachment #4 - The self-scoring matrix is not included in the

Executive Summary page limit/count.

Attachment #5/Draft TO

Evaluation Criteria Page 4 Paragraph 3.4.b

Please clarify the process for submission of the Past Performance Rating Form

(PPRF) from a subcontractor where no CPAR exists. Should the subcontractor attempt to provide the PPRF to a Government POC for the subcontract work identified in the PPRF and submit that completed PPRF with the proposal or should the subcontractor submit the PPRF to a Government POC for the 96 CTG FOPR for completion? If the latter approach is required, must the PPRF be submitted before the final proposal submission, received back from the 96 CTG POC and then included with the final proposal submission?

The Past Performance Rating Form

(PPRF) from a subcontractor where no

CPAR exists should be submitted to a

Government POC for completion. The

Government POC should then complete the PPRF and submit directly to the TMAS

Program Office. The PPRF is subject to the same deadline as the final proposal submission date. Suggest getting confirmation of sending from Government

POC completing PPRF.

Attachment #5/Draft TO

Evaluation Criteria

Paragraph 3.2.1, Step 2 of 2 Step

Process, 2nd paragraph

Please confirm that entries for ODCs, Travel, Studies, Relocation, OCONUS Mission

Essential Travel Allowances and CAF are not required from the Offeror in the TEP submission.

Confirmed - entries for ODCs, Travel, Studies, Relocation, OCONUS Mission

Essential Travel Allowances and CAF are not required from the Offeror in the TEP submission.

Attachment #7/Draft OCI

Mitigation Briefing (7a) and

Template (7b)

N/A N/A It appears the OCI Briefing and Template are missing from this attachment, please confirm these are to be provided in a future FOPR release.

All required attachments will be provided at final FOPR release.

Attachment #10/Draft CDRLs

(Exhibit A)

Page 4, CDRL

A003 Block 12

Please confirm that the initial delivery of this CDRL is due NLT 2400 CST on the first

Wednesday for the prior week following the start of performance for the base year

PoP.

Language updated to reflect the start of

PoP.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment #10/Draft CDRLs

(Exhibit A)

Page 5, CDRL

A004

Block 4 and

Block 14

Block 4 delivery instructions requests delivery of this CDRL item to "government quality assurance personnel (QAP), the Installation Safety Office and the Contracting

Officer", however the Distribution Instructions in Block 14 only require the CDRL to be delivered to AFTC/AZL and AFTC/PZZA. Suggest including the offices of the

Government QAP and Installation Safety Office in block 14 if delivery of this CDRL by the offeror to these offices is required.

The Government Quality Assurance

Personnel (QAP) requirement was removed. Installation Safety Office was added to blk 14.

Attachment #10/Draft CDRLs

(Exhibit A)

Page 9, CDRL

A008

Blocks 10, 11, 12 & 13.

The delivery instructions require submission of the CDRL item for personnel where experience is substituted for education "prior to the start of the PoP for approval.'.

Please clarify how far in advance of the start of the PoP the submission is required in this case, to allow sufficient time for approval before performance start.

CDRL updated to "..data shall be submitted

NLT 30 calendar days prior to start of PoP for approval."

Attachment #11/Draft DD Form

Page 5 Paragraph 3

Item 11.l references a CUI attachment which was not included. Please confirm the

CUI attachment will be provided in a future FOPR release.

The CUI attachment is included under the list of attachments. It can be located by selecting, and then clicking "view selected

Attachment" in the document

Attachment #15/Draft Standard

Past Performance Questionnaire and Attachment #16/Draft

Standard HRO w RRP PPQ

N/A N/A

Please clarify the titles referenced in the DFOPR Cover Letter and filenames for each of these attachments. The Draft TO Evaluation Criteria page 3, paragraph 3.4.a, references use of Attachment #15, but Attachment #16 is not referenced. Please clarify when the Standard Past Performance Questionnaire is to be used and confirm that this is Attachment #16.

Attachment 16 is referenced within the ITO, Section 1.2 - Clarity of Proposal. Updated the Cover Letter. Attachment 16 shall be provided with every work sample submitted.

Attachment #17/Draft Self-Scoring

Matrix Page 1 3.1.2

The additional risk reduction gained in setting this location criteria at 7 geographically separated sites versus 4 or 5 geographically separate sites is minimal. The offerors ability to manage multiple geographically separated sites can be reasonably assessed by demonstration of this capability for 4 geographically separated sites.

Change the max count for this to 4.

Max count remains unchanged. All criteria is based on expected TMAS 2 requirements. The minimum criteria is selected at a level where a reasonable person would be confident in a contractor's ability to meet the TMAS 2 requirements while not restricting competition. The maximum criteria is selected at a level where high confidence in performing the

TMAS 2 is achieved.

Attachment #17/Draft Self-Scoring

Matrix Page 1 3.1.3

The additional risk reduction gained in setting this criteria equal to the total number of incumbent position on this task order versus setting it at 250 - 300 positions is minimal. The offerors ability to manage the large scale transition of incumbents can be reasonably assessed by demonstration of this capability for 250-300 positions.

Change the max count for this to 250.

The maximum number is reduced from 510 to 400 based on a high confidence that an offeror will be able to recruit and retain enough qualified personnel for the TMAS 2 estimated requirement.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment #17/Draft Self-Scoring

Matrix Page 1 3.1.5

The additional risk reduction gained in setting this criteria equal to the total number of position on this task order versus assessing the offerors Facility and Personnel

Security Management Program is minimal. The offerors ability to manage a large number of employees with Tier 3 clearances can be reasonably assessed by evaluation of the DSS Vulnerability Rating criteria in paragraph 3.3.1. Delete this evaluation criteria factor in lieu of the DSS Vulnerability Rating item in paragraph

3.3.1.

The maximum number is reduced from 510 to 400 based on a high confidence that an offeror will be able to recruit and retain enough qualified personnel for the TMAS 2 estimated requirement.

Attachment 18/Work Sample

Cover Sheet Page 1 Part I

Part I, Work Sample Identifier instructions refer to a "drop down box" that does not exist. Will a revised Attachment 18 be released to include the drop down box in Part

I, Work Sample Identifier?

"Drop down box" added to Part I, Work

Sample Identifier category in revised

Attachment 18.

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix Row 3.1.5 Row 3.1.5 has a maximum value of 510 but Column F doesn't allow offerors to enter numbers over 96. Update to correct cell.

Corrected

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix, Atch 5

Eval Criteria Row/Para 3.1.2

The Government has listed the requirement to have at least 10 CMEs at each geographic location. We recommend that the Government revise this to be at least 3

CMEs at each geographic location.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix, Atch 5

Eval Criteria

3.1.5 Recommend decreasing the transition time to 60 days instead of 90 days.

No change. The Government estimates transition time to be 90 days for TMAS 2.

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix, Atch 5

Eval Criteria Row/Para 3.1.4

The Government has listed the requirement to have Offerors demonstrate hiring of

20 non-incumbent cybersecurity Engineering Support positions. We recommend the

Government revise this to state 20 non-incumbent positions regardless of the type of requirement the person is providing since there are other types of requirements being performed on this contract and Offerors will need to hire multiple types of labor categories.

Revised to state 10 non-incumbent

Cybersecurity Engineering Support positions.

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix, Atch 5

Eval Criteria

For Scoring areas 3.2.1 - 3.2.9, we recommend the Government revising the scorings areas to be based on the number of CMEs that are providing these types of requirements instead of the number of contracts that are providing these types of requirements.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Atch 4 ITO 1 1.1

The Government notes that a single award IDIQ contract is an acceptable work sample. We recommend not allowing single award IDIQ contracts as allowable work samples.

No Change.

Atch 4 ITO 5 6.1 Recommend increasing the Volume II page limit to "No Limit". Volume II page limit changed to "No Limit."

Atch 4 ITO 5 and 6 6.1

Due to the substantial number of pages required for Volumes II and III, we recommend the Government require Offerors to submit digital media versions and remove the requirement for hard copies. For proposals of a similar nature, we have submitted over 1000 pages for Volumes II and III.

No Change. One (1) Hard copy still required for Government evaluation purposes.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 4 ITO 5 and 6 6.1

6.1 requires Offerors to provide the self score matrix behind the cover sheet in

Volume I(a). Recommend excluding the self-score matrix from the page count for

Volume I(a).

Updated Language within 6.2 Cover pages, self-scoring matrix, tables of contents, separator tabs, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits.

Atch 4 ITO 15 17.2.4.2

The ITO states, "There shall only be one (1) rate and fixed fee/ hour per labor category at a given skill level, and location. For example, if a Subcontractor is providing the Scientist and Engineer Level 4 at Edwards AFB labor category, then their rate shall be the only rate included in the B-Table for that particular labor category, burdened through the Prime’s indirect rates and fixed fee." However, this goes against Offeror's and Subcontractor's approved accounting policies. A subcontractor can only burden their rate with the sub's approved rate and the Offeror can only burden the direct rate with the Offeror's approved rate. Recommend eliminate the verbiage noting that a subcontractor is burdened through the Prime's indirect rates.

Prime should utilize the higher of the burden rates with no pass-through.

Supporting information is required.

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix, Atch 5

Eval Criteria

The phrase “Primary Purpose” is used repeatedly in Sections 3.2.x of the Eval Crit.

Does that mean if the primary purpose of a contract is (e.g.) C4ISR A&AS Support of which a significant portion is (e.g.) Cybersecurity, that that contract doesn’t count since it’s “Primary Purpose” is not just one narrow aspect? Since most A&AS contracts are broad in scope and meet multiple requirements (e.g. systems engineering, cybersecurity, program management, etc..) this would exclude many relevant contracts from being used as a work sample. Recommend removing the terminology "Primary Purpose" from those sections.

The phrase "Primary Purpose" is removed.

Atch 4 ITO 14 17.2.2.1

Subcontractors that are performing a meaningful number of total number of professional employees are required to provide a total compensation plan. Will the

Government provide clarification on the number of positions the Government considers a meaningful number?

Per the ITO, Subcontractor performing

10.00% or more of the total effort price

(excluding travel, Other Direct Costs

(ODCs), and studies and analyses) shall be considered a "major" Subcontractor and a Subcontractor performing less than

10.00% of the total effort shall be considered a "minor" Subcontractor.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 4 ITO 14 17.2.3.2.2

Offerors are required to fill-in the indirect ceiling rate(s) within Section H, EGLIN-

H015, Indirect Ceiling Rates (Aug 14), for each team member. However this information could be considered proprietary to team members. Will the Government allow sealed package submittal of the team member information?

Yes, the Government will allow sealed package submittal of the team member information. With regards to the H-Clause, the Prime is required to submit for all team members, as these rates are intended to go on contract. The buildup of these rates

(within UPT) can be sent directly to the

Government by the subcontractor for evaluation purposes.

Atch 17 Scoring Matrix, Atch 5

Eval Criteria 4,6 3.1.1, 3.1.3

The Government requires 510 CMEs to maximize the score for the total number of positions on a single contract, 3.1.1, and the number of incumbent positions transitioned, 3.1.3. We recommend the Government keep 510 as the maximum requirement since this provides a good indicator of whether an Offeror will be able to recruit and retain qualified personnel, and manage a contract of similar score, complexity, and size to the 96 CTG requirement.

The maximum number is reduced from 510 to 400 based on a high confidence that an offeror will be able to recruit and retain enough qualified personnel for the TMAS 2 estimated requirement.

Atch 1 PWS, Atch 3 LOE Matrix, Atch 6 UPT PWS pg. 4 PWS 1.1

There are multiple places of performance listed in the PWS and the LOE matrix;

however, the UPT only requires Offerors to price Eglin and Edwards and the LOE matrix only provides direct rates for Edwards and Eglin. Does the Government anticipate providing additional UPT tabs and Direct rates to price the other locations?

If no, how does the Government anticipate Offerors to execute rates for Eglin and

Edwards at other performance locations when the cost to hire, retain, and the cost of living varies from location to location?

Geographic locations are separated into two categories: (1) Standard (includes

Eglin), and (2) Premium (includes

Edwards). A complete list can be found in

Attachment 3.

Exhibit A - Table of Contents Page 1 The Sequence Numbers, CDRL numbers, and titles in exhibit do not always match

PWS. Update the PWS or Exhibit A to reflect correct information.

Unable to locate CDRL-PWS mismatches.

Please identify specific instances and the

Government can update/clarify.

Atch 10 Draft CDRLs Page 1 Not all CDRLs are listed in PWS such as A007 and A008. Update PWS to address

A007 and A008 if necessary.

A007 is within the EGLIN-H011 OCI clause. CDRL A008 is located within PWS under 2.3.1 Project Management.

Atch 2 Draft CLIN Numbers of CLINS do not match Attachment 19 Draft TO. Update CLIN numbers in

Draft TO.

CLIN structure removed in Attachment 2

Atch 19 Draft TO All of Section B

Pages

The CLIN Numbers do not match the Attachment 2 Draft CLINS. Revise either document to match the other CLIN numbers.

CLIN structure removed in Attachment 2

Atch 19 Draft TO Page 4 For CLIN BASIC - DATA 0500, the start and completion Dates are incorrect (29 Aug

2016 and 30 Sep 2016). Update with correct date.

Updated dates to reflect correct timeline and start date.

Atch 19 Draft TO Page 6 For Option 1 - ODCs and Training 1101, Oct is misspelled (Ocr). Corrected

Atch 19 Draft TO Page 23 The CLIN Numbers do not match the Attachment 2 Draft CLINS. Revise either document to match the other CLIN numbers.

CLIN structure removed in Attachment 2

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 19 Draft TO Page 38

The Government has included a provision for Indirect Ceiling Rates (H015). This inclusion of this provision on the contract creates risk associated with:

1) Benefits per ITO/Attachment 4, Page 14, Paragraph 17.2.3.3, Benefits are re-evaluated each year to insure compliance with FAR 52.222-46.

2) Unforeseen/Unpredictable Labor Market Conditions per PWS, Page 16, Paragraph

2.13.

3) Flexibility to allow contractor to manage to the contract ceiling.

4) Period of Performance is 5 years, it is impossible for a contractor to predict provisional rates at the time of proposal.

5) Unique insurance requirement such as transportation/handling of hazardous munitions or munitions components.

Recommend the Government remove this provision to reduce contract management risk, and allow Offerors to manage the contract to their approved rates each year so they are recouping all overhead costs associated with management of the contract.

No Change. Provision still included.

Atch 1 PWS Page 35 4.2 What Contractor Personnel are required to have a valid drivers license - there is not a labor category that incorporates the qualifications of this requirement.

No Change. Paragraph 4.2 states "as required." No separate labor category will be created to identify the requirement for a valid drivers license.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 1 PWS Page 35 4.2

The PWS states, "All such handling/transporting of hazardous munitions or munitions components shall be IAW DoD 4145.26-M. The Contractors Worker's Compensation

Insurance shall cover such activity." However, Contractors Workers' Compensation

Insurance does not cover handling/transporting hazardous munitions or munitions components.

Although Workers Compensation Insurance would cover the driver with the license, the fact that the driver is transporting hazardous munitions the rate normally proposed for this type of insurance would be higher. The contractor would have to know the level of workmans compensation required in order to price the insurance and provide the certificate of insurance.

Note: Only certain insurance companies cover handling and transporting of hazardous munitions or munitions if transportation requires access to "public ways".

Can the contractor be reimbursed through ODC for additional insurance that would be necessary to insure this PWS mission requirement and the stated requirements of

DoD 4145.26-M, AFI 24-301, AFI-204 ?

Also, can the Government clarify the PWS and provide additional information regarding this requirement for pricing of the proper insurance which would be over and above the normal contract requirements for Workmans Compensation.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth in the technical requirements provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Atch 10 CDRLs 1 A003

CLIN Item A003 requires a significant amount of overhead management (almost an full-time FTE to accomplish this requirement) that the Offeror is required to provide through their management of this contract in addition to a contract program manager/task lead. This is a significant financial burden to Offerors. Is there a place for Offerors price this additional person to be covered by the contract cost?

Concur. Accomplishment of this CDRL is estimated by the Government to be up to one (1) FTE. This cost can be accounted for as the offeror sees fit.

Atch 1 PWS 15 2.1

The PWS states that, "The Contractor shall be responsible for arranging all

Contractor personnel travel during the program effort in IAW the DoD Joint Travel

Regulation." However, Contractors' employees traveling under their contracts cannot use the JTR as the JTR contains provisions that cannot be applied to Contractor's personnel. Recommend that the PWS be revised to state that, "The Contractor shall be responsible for arranging all Contractor personnel travel during the program effort as use the DoD Joint Travel Regulation as guidance."

Added language stating "where applicable" to account for portions of the JTR where contractor employees are incapable of meeting JTR provisions.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 1 PWS 54 Attachment 1

Labor Category Level 2 requires 3 to 10 years of experience. This is a wide range for

Offerors to bid as a minimum requirement. One Offeror could bid 3 years of experience and another Offeror could bid 10 years of experience which would result in unrealistic evaluation of direct labor rates. This wide range would present a difficultly in the Government evaluating Offerors cost proposals depending on the number of years experience bid by each Offeror. Recommend Government specify a minimum number to be used by offerors and the Government in developing their estimate for consistency.

The Government is providing

Representative Rates. The offerors can propose how they see fit, within the parameters set forth in the FOPR.

Additional information can be included for price fair and reasonableness determinations.

Atch 3 LOE Columns R-T

Based on current TMAS contract actual and salary survey data, we believe that the

Information Management Support positions (at all levels) have low direct labor rates that will not support the hiring and retention of qualified personnel. We recommend the Government review these rates to see if the rates are appropriate for these positions to meet market demand.

The offeror can propose how they see fit, within the parameters set forth in the

FOPR. Additional information can be included for price fair and reasonableness determinations.

Atch 3 LOE Columns R-T

In reviewing the provided pricing data, the Eglin rates are higher than the Edwards rates provided. Normally Eglin has a lower direct rate than Edwards based on locality factors. Can the Government confirm these rates are correct and that the Eglin and

Edwards rates are not switched?

Correction made to include Eglin rates as

"Standard," and Edwards as "Premium."

Atch 1 PWS Page 54

In other FOPR documents providing similar requirements, the Administration Support and Engineering Technical usually only requires an Associates Degree or less plus years of experience. Recommend the Government revise the minimum degree requirements for the Administration Support and Engineering Technician positions.

Still under Government consideration.

Atch 1 PWS Index The page number are incorrect, please update. Page numbers corrected.

Atch 3 LOE Columns R-T

Are the representative labor rates by location the current government target rates for the positions or does the government plan to generate updated rate by labor category when the final FOPR is released? If so, what is the government's basis or source for the targets (i.e. salary surveys, actuals, etc.)?

Representative Rates are based on actuals, market research, and/or historical data. Any updates to these rates will be reflected in the final FOPR.

Atch 19 Draft TO Page 39 Item 4

EGLIN -H015 Ceiling Rates(JUL 2019). If an Offeror's fringe cost pool meets the conditions from H-015 (4.) then it does not appear that fringe is included in the indirect rate ceiling cap. If so, revise the table in b. (Page 39) to list that fringe pool is uncapped and not included in the ceiling.

An Offeror's fringe cost pool is only capped when it is combined into another category with a cap. The intent of the Government is to not cap compensation-related costs.

Atch 4 ITO Page 9 17.1.1

In other Air Force HTRO RRP FOPRs, the Government made a preliminary determination of adequate price competition in Paragraph 17.1.1. The 96 CTG

FOPR, 17.1.1 is less conclusive in regards to adequate price competition.

Recommend the Government make a preliminary determination that adequate price competition exists.

The Government is not making a preliminary determination of adequate price competition for this effort.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment 17 - Draft Self-Scoring

Matrix 3.2

There are nine separate categories, each of which refers to contracts with a "primary purpose." To achieve a maximum score for all items in this category would require the offeror to submit 45 different contract citations since, by definition, no contract can have more than one "primary purpose."

The phrase "Primary Purpose" is removed.

Attachment 17 - Draft Self-Scoring

Matrix 3.1

The requirements for items 3.1.1 and 3.1.3 are unduly restrictive, limiting the number of potential offerors who can score maximum points to no more than two or three total

The maximum number is reduced from 510 to 400 based on a high confidence that an offeror will be able to recruit and retain enough qualified personnel for the TMAS 2 estimated requirement.

Attachment 17/ Draft Self Scoring

Matrix pg.1 3.1.1

With regard to line 3.1.1 of the Self-Scoring Matrix, will the Government confirm that the max count of CMEs in column D of the scoring sheet is representative of the number of CMEs on the current contract and will be for as such for subsequent task orders?

Recommend the Government consider the max number of CMEs to be equal for subsequent Task Orders to the current number of CMEs for the current contract.

The maximum numbers are based on a high confidence level that an offeror will be able to fulfill the TMAS 2 estimated requirement. Most maximum counts are based on the TMAS 2 estimated requirement, with some lowered as high confidence is achieved with a number below the exact estimate.

Attachment 17/ Draft Self Scoring

Matrix & Attachment 5/ Draft

Evaluation Criteria

pg. 3 3.0

With regard to Section 3.0 of the Draft Evaluation Criteria and the description of

"work samples" falling into either Category 1 or 2, does the Government intend to allow relevant work experience as a subcontractor or Team Member, as defined in

Category 2, to count for more than just the Technical categories?

Recommend allowing Category 2 work to count as well as prime work experience.

Reference restrictions set forth in 3.1 and

3.2. Generally speaking, 3.1 is an

evaluation on the Prime Contractor. This is based on the premise that the Government will establish a contract with the Prime, and not the subcontractor.

Attachment 17/ Draft Self Scoring

Matrix & Attachment 5/ Draft

Evaluation Criteria pg.5 3.1.2

In Subfactor 3.1.2 of the Draft Evaluation Criteria it states, "For a location to count as a separate geographic location, it must be separated by at least 100 miles from another geographic location being claimed."

What is the significance of 100 mile distance restriction?

Recommend the 100-mile distance restriction be removed.

No Change. The 100-mile distance separation is based on the TMAS 2 requirement to manage separate geographic locations. The 100-mile distance separation is representative of a distance not typical of a daily commute.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria 7 6 Recommend reducing the scope of the technical requirements and focus on experience providing relevant labor types and personnel.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth in the technical requirements provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria 3 8 Strongly recommend removing the work sample restriction for these areas to better reflect the reality of contract operations.

No Change.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria 5 8 Will the Government consider reducing the number of CMEs required at each location?

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria 5 8 What is the Government's rationale for limiting an offeror's response to a single work sample for this category?

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements that include managing geographically separated locations.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria 5 4 Will the Government consider reducing the number of personnel needed to achieve a maximum score in this category?

Max count remains unchanged. All criteria is based on expected TMAS 2 requirements. The minimum criteria is selected at a level where a reasonable person would be confident in a contractor's ability to meet the TMAS 2 requirements while not restricting competition. The maximum criteria is selected at a level where high confidence in performing the

TMAS 2 is achieved.

Attachment 3 Draft LOE Matrix Does the contract require Administrative, Financial Management, Logistics, and

Information Management support?

The intent of the Government is to place all anticipated labor category rates on contract. These requirements will be annotated within the LOE. While all labor categories may not be utilized at the start of the PoP, all LCATs are intended to be evaluated for price fair and reasonableness.

Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria 6 1

Consider allowing offerors to use a maximum of five (5) work samples per category.

This encourages proposal flexibility without impacting the Government’s workload to validate scores and review substantiation. We do not believe that this will increase the documentation provided, since the same number of performance validation will be required.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 3 3

Minimum qualifications. Criteria limiting number of work samples to 5 total may not be representative of a prime offeror's ability and experience to successfully execute contracts of similar size and complexity, especially if only 3 are required as a minimum for the prime offeror.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria n/a 3.1

One criteria not included, which you might consider is to evaluate contractor work samples in terms of voluntary employee attrition experienced. Criteria should be open to all work samples submitted since subcontractor attrition can equally impact contract performance. Criteria should be applicable to all teammates providing a work sample

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria n/a 3.1

One criteria not included, which you might consider is to evaluate contractor work samples in terms of average time to fill a personnel vacancy. This is a standard metric companies track to measure their ability to meet staffing reuirements. Criteria should be applicable to all teammates providing a work sample

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria;

Attachment_3_Draft_96_CTG_LO

E_Matrix

6 3.1.5

According to Attachment 3, in the Base Year, there are 305 positions requiring a

Secret level clearance, with 205 requiring a Top Secret level. The criteria as written does not effectively capture the ability of the offeror to staff TS requirements which represent ~40% of the total staffing.

The maximum number is reduced from 510 to 400. The Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS 2 requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria;

Attachment_3_Draft_96_CTG_LO

E_Matrix

5 3.1.2

Criteria requiring at least 10 CME is too large (not representative of location requirements), recommend 4 CME as more representative criteria and change the

'max count' to 9 (instead of 7)

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 6 3.1.3 Criteria is limited to prime offeror only, why would subcontractor work samples be excluded?

The maximum number is reduced from 510 to 400 based on a high confidence that an offeror will be able to recruit and retain enough qualified personnel for the TMAS 2 estimated requirement.. Restrictions set forth in 3.1.3 are intended to be an evaluation on the Prime Contractor. This is based on the premise that the Government will establish a contract with the Prime, and not the subcontractor.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 6 3.1.4

Criteria is limited to non-incumbent Cybersecurity engineering support, which is only a sub-set of the entire PWS. Why not make the criteria simply the "number of non-incumbent engineering support personnel" hired in a 30 day span?

Criteria remains unchanged. The target of this criteria is specific to the Cybersecurity

Engineering Support requirement estimated for the TMAS 2 effort.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 7, 8 3.2.2

What is meant by "C4ISR/Cyber systems support in aircraft and inter-connected system-of-systems across the full Battlespace Arena and Kill-Chain"? Should the

"and" between aircraft and inter-connected really be "and/or"?

Changed verbiage to reflect "and/or"

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 8 3.2.3 Should the "and" between sensors and electronic warfare be "and/or"? Changed verbiage to reflect "and/or"

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 8 3.2.4

Why not separate the offensive aspects of cyber from the defensive aspects? Since several criteria cover many of the defensive aspects (e.g. 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8), why not change this criteria to just "offensive" and delete reference to "defensive" cyber?

Separated into two requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 9 3.2.7 The criteria to perform 'cybersecurity compliance' should be separated from a criteria for 'resiliency testing' Separated into two requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 9 3.2.8 The criteria to perform 'cybersecurity compliance' should be separated from a criteria for 'penetration testing' Separated into two requirements.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 9 3.2.9

The criteria is confusing as written. Not sure if you are looking for experience providing hardware and software or if you are looking for experience conducting tests of mission planning applications?

HW/SW and environment removed.

Attachment 5_Draft_Eval_Criteria 7, 8, 9 3.2 Question why the cybersecurity related criteria are limited to DoD contracts only Changed to also include all Federal/DoD

Government contracts.

Attachment 4 1 1.1

FOPR language: " If a joint venture is utilized as a work sample a copy of the Small

Business Administration-approved joint venture agreement shall be provided with the work sample."

Comment: under SBA regulations the SBA only approves JV agreements for contracts under the 8(a) program. By using this language, the RFP seems to prohibit the use of past performance from joint venture partners performing on non-8(a) contracts. This limitation is restrictive to small businesses with contracts to non-8(a) joint ventures that may otherwise qualify as work samples.

Recommendation(s): Please consider changing the requirement to allow use of any joint venture as a work sample. Please consider this recommendation for the other

TMAS FOPR's to be released.

FOPR language updated to remove "copy of SBA approved joint venture agreement."

and replace with new language: "If a joint venture is utilized as a work sample, provide the Joint Venture CAGE and a copy of the most current Joint Venture agreement."

Attachment 4 4 & 7 6.1 & 14.0

FOPR language: Executive Summary page limit

Comment: Section 6.1, page 4 states a 3 page limit and section 14.0, page 7 states a

2 page limit.

Recommendation(s): Allow offerors 2 pages since this content is not evaluated.

Limited to two (2) pages.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment 5 7-9 6.1 &

FOPR language: "DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is……."

Comment: Use of number of contracts does not fully address relevancy and it creates opportunity for non-successful offerors to protest. The government may have two offerors or more that have (5) task orders that meet the definition in terms of the function or scope, with one of the offers having much larger, complex work samples than another offeror.

Recommendation(s): Please consider specifying in the definition that the work sample must be of a minimum size (number of CME or dollar value) and complexity or consider using CME count such as is being done on many of the EPASS task orders. Please consider this recommendation for the other TMAS FOPR's to be released.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attachment 5 7-9 3.2

FOPR language: RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

Comment: Restricting work samples to only DoD limits offerors ability to use other relevant work samples that may be very representative of the work content and complexity of this task order. For example; cybersecurity service of a critical nature are acquired by many federal agencies including technical, security sensitive areas.

This same comment is relevant for the yet to be released TMAS task FOPRs.

Contractors provide R&DTE service that are very relevant to TMAS through contracts with other agencies such as NASA. NASA test facilities routinely test DoD hardware in classified environment with the contractor workforce doing the same or very similar type of work that is being done on TMAS in support of R&DTE. These contracts with other agencies include support for DoD classified testing.

Recommendation(s): Please consider changing the requirement so that is limit work samples to contracts that require DD-254s. Please consider this recommendation for the other TMAS FOPR's to be released.

Changed to also include all Federal/DoD

Government contracts.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Attachment 17 n/a 3.3

FOPR language: DSS Vulnerability Rating

Comment: The DSS vulnerability assessment rating point spread between

Satisfactory and Superior is too great. An Offeror that has a Satisfactory rating is meeting or exceeding the requirements for a fully compliant security program.

Although the same DSS Audit total point scale is used to calculate a company’s overall assessment level (i.e., 800+ Points Superior, 799-750 Commendable, 749-

650 Satisfactory, and so on), the calculation weights and number of audit categories applicable to each company’s assessment differ. Depending on the facility category a company is assigned (based on size, complexity, etc.), different weights are applied to the points assigned for various positive and negative findings. Further, the areas of

Classified Material Controls/Physical Security and Information Systems categories only apply to possessing facilities that have a requirement to store and handle classified, and as such, companies that don’t have such a requirement (non-possessing facility) cannot receive points in these areas. In short, a company that receives lower overall points than another does not necessarily have a lesser or less secure program than another company; it may simply be that one company received more points because as a possessing facility it was required to have the additional areas of Material Controls, Physical Security, and Information Systems areas audited and additional points awarded for those areas. Companies (in particular small businesses) that have TS Facility Clearances but have no contractual requirement to maintain a possessing facility are placed at a material competitive disadvantage under the current scoring schema."

Recommendation(s): Please consider making Satisfactory and above the same point value. Please consider this recommendation for the other TMAS FOPR's to be released.

No Change. The DSS Vulnerability Rating is assigned by DSS to indicate the extent by which a contractor’s security program meets, exceeds, or fails to meet the requirements of the NISPOM and other applicable industrial security guidance. The rating is designed to be indicative of how effective the security program is and how well it protects classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise

Recommend changing the strategy of a Two Step Highest Rated Offeror (HRO)

Evaluation Methodology, taking the two highest rated Offerors and awarding to the lowest price.

Strategy remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using the

HTRO strategy with provided self-scoring criteria provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Attch 5 Draft Evaluation Criteria Page 11

3.2 FACTOR 2:

Cost and Price

Request that some form of actual price competition (not just cost comparison to a

Most Probable Cost or to an Independent Cost Estimate) be used for this single task order award.

The HTRO process includes methods where the Government can award a contract to an offeror not the highest technically rated (see Step 2). The inclusion of Eval Criteria 3.1.7 in the Self-

Scoring Matrix (in Step 1) also illustrates the Government importance placed on cost/price.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 5 Draft Evaluation Criteria and Atch 17 Draft Self-Scoring

Matrix

Page 7 - 9 Subfactor 3.2:

TECHNICAL

Recommend changing the Subfactor 3.2 Technical section criteria that are based on work sample count (Number of Contacts/TOs) to being based on personnel/CME count. Tie the high bar to the actual 96 CTG requirements. For example, if the LOE has 30 personnel having a certain primary purpose, then the high bar should be 30 for that purpose to score max points.

Criteria remains unchanged. The

Government is confident that using criteria set forth provides for a fair and balanced assessment based on the expected TMAS

2 requirements.

Atch 5 Draft Evaluation Criteria Page 8 and 9

Category 3.2.3, Testing for ground/airborne sensors and electronic warfare, and

3.2.9, Number of contracts whose primary purpose is supporting mission planning systems for hardware and software on aircraft

Request that the Restrictions limiting work samples to DoD contracts/TOs only be changed to also allow NASA contracts.

Changed to also include all Federal/DoD

Government contracts.

Atch 17 Draft Self-Scoring Matrix

3.3.1 DSS

Vulnerability

Assessment

Recommend the same number of points be awarded to Offerors that have a

Satisfactory or better DSS assessment. Negative points would still be awarded for less than a Satisfactory assessment.

No Change. The DSS Vulnerability Rating is assigned by DSS to indicate the extent by which a contractor’s security program meets, exceeds, or fails to meet the requirements of the NISPOM and other applicable industrial security guidance. The rating is designed to be indicative of how effective the security program is and how well it protects classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise

Atch 5 Draft Evaluation Criteria Page 1

1.1 Ties and Tie-

Breakers Recommend that the first tie-breaker be Cost.

The inclusion of Eval Criteria 3.1.7 in the

Self-Scoring Matrix (in Step 1) illustrates the Government importance placed on cost/price.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Minimum Direct Labor Rates

At TMAS 2 Industry Day 4 at the Emerald Coast Convention Center, an acquisition-related slide indicated the Government would provide minimum direct labor rates for all labor categories. These rates did not appear in the DFOPR. Will the Government provide minimum direct labor rates for all labor categories for the 96th CTG, and if so, when?

The Government is provided

Representative Rates in Attachment 3 -

LOE Matrix. The offerors can propose how they see fit, within the parameters set forth in the FOPR.

Atch 5 Evaluation Criteria, Subfactors 3.2.1 thru 3.2.9

All nine of these criteria start with the words, “Number of contracts whose primary purpose…” It is extremely difficult to obtain five work samples that have the “primary purpose” of nine different criteria. Suggest changing references to “primary purpose” to “direct support” in order to capture criterion requirements within applicable work samples without being overly restrictive. For example, Subfactor 3.2.4 states:

“Subfactor 3.2.4: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs”

Change to read:

“Subfactor 3.2.4: Number of contracts that provide direct support for testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs”

The phrase "Primary Purpose" is removed.

Atch 5 Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 3.2.1.

The definition references PWS 3.0 (Task Requirements) and 3.1 (General Test

Support). The para 3.0 reference appears to be very broad compared to the para 3.1 reference. Please clarify.

PWS 3.0 and 3.1 remain unchanged. 3.0 is intended to be more broad with 3.1 intended to be more specific. The

Government is confident that the PWS adequately defines the expected scope for

TMAS 2.

Atch 5 Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 3.2.2

Please define what will be acceptable for performance “across the full Battlespace

Arena and Kill-Chain” other than the scope of the current incumbent TMAS C4ISR

TO.

Any performance similar in scope to set forth in the PWS should be acceptable for evaluation purposes.

Atch 5 Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 3.2.4

(Testing of Offensive and Defensive Cyber Warfare Programs). Please confirm that

“testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs IAW PWS 3.1.6” is adequately defined by PWS para 3.1.6.

Offensive and Defensive are separated into two (2) requirements. PWS 3.1.6 definitions remain unchanged. The

Government is confident that the PWS adequately defines the expected scope for

TMAS 2.

Atch 5 Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 3.2.5 (Cybersecurity on

Aircraft)

Please confirm that “performing Cybersecurity on Aircraft IAW PWS 3.1.6, 3.1.8” is adequately defined by PWS para 3.1.6 and 3.1.8.

PWS definitions referenced remain unchanged. The Government is confident that the PWS adequately defines the expected scope for TMAS 2.

Attachment #/Document Page Para Comment Government Response

Atch 5 Evaluation Criteria, Subfactors 3.2.7 (Cybersecurity

Compliance and Resiliency

Testing) and 3.2.8 (Cybersecurity

Compliance and Penetration

Testing)

There is very little differentiation in the PWS references for both subfactors – 3.2.7

(PWS para 3.1.6, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.1) and 3.2.8 (PWS paras 3.1.6 and 3.2);

specifically, PWS para 3.2 incorporates 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.1). Please clarify.

Requirements separated for clarity.

ITO 17.2.2.1 & UPT 11

From ITO: A separate pricing tab must be completed by the Prime for all major

Subcontractors as instructed in the UPT. Will the Government add tabs to the UPT for Subcontractors?

Prime to create tab for Subcontractor data within UPT

ITO 17.2.3.2.2 14

From ITO: Offerors are required to fill-in the indirect ceiling rate(s) within Section H, EGLIN-H015, Indirect Ceiling Rates (Aug 14), for each team member. Will the

Government allow each Team Member to submit a separate sealed Section H, EGLIN-H015 package with their indirect ceiling rates?

Yes, the Government will allow sealed package submittal of the team member information. With regards to the H-Clause, the Prime is required to submit for all team members, as these rates are intended to go on contract. The buildup of these rates

(within UPT) can be sent directly to the

Government by the subcontractor for evaluation purposes.

ITO 17.2.4.2 16

From ITO: If, for example, a Subcontractor is providing some Scientist and Engineer

Level 4, and the Prime is providing some Scientist and Engineer Level 4 also (at the same location) the rate shall be blended according to the proposed weightings. The buildup and justification for each proposed composite/blended rate shall be provided in Volume III in the form of a BOE. If a blended rate is provided, how will the offeror provide the build up for both Prime and Subcontractor if the subcontractor’s indirect rates are proprietary and not available to the Prime?

Prime should utilize the higher of the burden rates with no pass-through.

Supporting information is required.

Removed language in reference to a blended rate.

PWS 2.12 18

PWS 2.12 gives a vague definition of transition. As far as pricing is concerned, the only mention is in the Eval Criteria that states it should not exceed $50,000. Please provide clarification on the pricing for the FFP Transition?

PWS definitions referenced remain unchanged. The Government is confident that the PWS adequately defines the expected scope for TMAS 2. Transition dollar amount is capped base on actual/historical costs.

Self Score Sheet - Attachment 17

We question the logic of the basis of scoring for every Technical category (3.2.1 –

3.2.9) being based on ‘number of Contract/TO whose primary purpose is….’ How can a single work…