DRFP.Responses_FBOv1_07092015.pdf

DRFP Q&A, Version 1.0 W52P1J‐15‐R‐0096 7/9/2015

Has the CHESS program office considered using acquisition approach similar to the GSA OASIS or GSA Alliant 2 programs utilizing a scoring sheet approach? The scoring sheet approach will not be used for ITES‐3S.

We do not see any 8(a) set‐aside possibilities being mentioned in various articles, publications and government announcements that we have seen. Is the government considering that as well, similar to HUBZONE, SDVOB and WOSB? The Government anticipates reserving 14 awards to small businesses.

3 What is the ITES‐3S acquisition schedule? See ITES‐3S Industry Day slide deck.

Will there be a complete RFP draft released prior to the final RFP?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

5 Will the final RFP solicitation contain sample tasks? If yes, how many sample tasks will there be? No

What is the projected number of large business awards?

The Government anticipates reserving 14 awards to small businesses and 10 unrestricted awards.

7 What is the projected number of small business awards? See response to question #6.

8 What are the projected performance periods (i.e. 5 year base, 1 five year option)? Five year base + one four‐year option (9 years total)

Will ITES‐3S eliminate the need for ITS‐SB follow on? At this time the Government does not anticipate a follow‐on to the ITS‐SB.

If ITS‐SB is going to have a follow on opportunity, how will the selection between ITES‐3S versus ITS‐SB be determined? See response to question #9.

Will the Past Performance requirements be evaluated for the entire team or just the prime submitting a bid similar to CECOM RS3 and Alliant‐2 Large and Small Business? For this solicitation, M.3.2.2 will be used.

Will a management and quality control plan be required as part of the submission?

No. A specific format is not required as long as the requested information is provided.

13 Will a team be required as part of the entire proposal submission or will the government only evaluate the prime submission material?

The Government does not understand the question as stated. See Section L.9.1.1 Management Approach, addresses the Prime's management approach. Section L.9.1.2 Corporate Experience, addresses the Teams' experience.

During IDIQ performance, will the Small Business pool see and be able to bid on all the Large Business opportunities?

There is only one pool. All awardees can compete on all task orders unless the task order is set‐aside.

16 During IDIQ performance, when will the small business have to recertify their size standard? Will this occur only at the option periods?

At the beginning of the fourth year the Government will poll SBs for their projected size at the end of fifth year. SBs will be required to officially recertify between 120 and 60 days prior to the end of the fifth year of performance per FAR 52.219‐28.

During IDIQ performance, if a small business is no longer able to certify as a small business, will they be moved to the large business category?

If a firm no longer certifies as a SB they will still be able to compete on task orders solicited on an unrestricted basis.

18 During IDIQ performance, if a small business is purchased by a large company, will the ITES‐3S IDIQ novate to the new company and be allowed to bid on the large business opportunities?

A small business being purchased by a large business may trigger the recertification requirements in FAR 52.219‐28, however, this would not affect the ability to compete for unrestricted task orders.

During IDIQ performance, will task orders be set aside for any particular socioeconomic category or will the task orders be competed amongst all small businesses?

Ordering Contracting Officer's have the discretion to set aside requirements for any socioeconomic category.

During ITES‐2S, task order competition was a SOO for the IDIQ which was intended to have all primes enhance competition by bidding on task order requests. Will ITES‐3S large company primes have a SOO or some other SLA/PWS requirement to bid a certain percentage of task orders? If there is a minimum percentage of task orders that must be bid, will the primes be removed or off ramped from the IDIQ if they do not meet the minimum percentage of task orders bid?

In accordance with Attachment 2, PRS #2, the minimum requirement is 30% annually. The Government will assess the contractor overall performance in determining consideration for off‐ramping.

In discussions with contracting officers during the execution of ITES‐2S, many were concerned and frustrated that large business were not meeting small business requirements on their respective task orders and the IDIQ overall.

What mechanisms is the government going to put into place to help ensure that small business subcontracting goals to include each of the socio economic categories are met by large business? If the large companies do not meet their overall subcontracting plan, will there ITES‐3S options be withheld? What other actions will be taken?

In accordance with Attachement 2, PRS#3, the contractors shall increase the use of subcontracting at a minimum of 25% annually. Attachment 1, PWS, 2.4.1 Contract Management, (4) Small Business Participation Report ‐ The Government will review the contractors Small Business Participation Report monthly. See H‐9 of the RFP.

During IDIQ performance, will ITES‐3S be mandatory use for the Army similar to what the USAF and Navy have implemented with NETCENTS and Seaport respectively? ITES‐3S will be the preferred source per AFARS 5137

During IDIQ performance, what on ramping or off ramping criteria will be established? For on ramping of small business, when will this occur if it does? See clauses H‐8 and H‐9 of the RFP.

During IDIQ performance, will there be any restrictions of large business primes teaming with other ITES‐3S primes for particular task orders that has the effect of reducing competition? No

Will ITES‐3S be decentralized execution with all government ordering officials having delegated authority similar to ITES‐2S? Yes.

26 Will ITES‐3S be “No Access or Usage Fee” similar to ITES‐2S? Yes.

27 Will ITES‐3S be able to have all contract types (FFP, CP, T&M)? Yes.

The Draft RFP outlines the requirement of releasing Adverse Contract Performance in the last three (3) years. Can you clarify what “Adverse Contract Performance” is? (Ex: An Unsatisfactory in CPARS, a late deliverable submittal, a Cure notice, etc) Examples are given. See L.9.2.7 and L.9.2.8 of the RFP.

30 In reference to L.9.1.1.3 and M.3.1.1.3. Sections L and M corporate certification requirements don’t match exactly.

Can the Government clarify the certifications required to achieve the most favorable evaluation on this subfactor?

Section L.9.1.1.3 will be updated to reflect ISO 9001 and ISO 27001 to be consistent with section M.3.1.1.3

In reference to L.9.1.1.3 and M.3.1.1.3. Since ISO 27001 is not a quality certification unlike ISO 9001 and CMMI, would the Government consider removing this requirement?

ISO 27001 is not a requirement but will reflect more favorably on Offerors that have it.

In reference to I‐177(i) under Section I of the draft solicitation, could the Government clarify the reference for FAR 52.244‐2 which states, “The Government reserves the right to review the Contractor’s purchasing system as set forth in FAR Subpart “44.3.i”; is it actually 44.3? Also, would the Government permit a third‐party audit review of a contractor’s Purchasing system?

The correct FAR reference is FAR "44.3". Yes ‐ The Government will permit a third‐party audit review of a contractor's purchasing system.

In reference to L.9.1.1.3 and M.3.1.1.3. ISO 27001 is not a quality certification, but is information security management system related to a specific site. Since this RFP is for award of an IDIQ contract vehicle, would the Government consider removing this requirement at the IDIQ level and imposing this requirement at the task order level instead? See response to question #31.

In reference to L.6, when will the Government post the missing templates including the mission support form, pricing, etc?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

35 In reference to L.9.1.2. If an offeror cites an IDIQ with multiple task orders as one of their corporate experience citations, can a subordinate task order on that IDIQ contract vehicle be provided as an additional citation? Yes ‐ Examples of experience from contracts or task orders are acceptable.

In reference to L.9.1.2 and M.3.1.2. In order to provide a more competitive playing field for mid‐tier companies, would the Government allow offerors to include major subcontractors when discussing corporate experience?

Recommend that the Government revise L.9.1.2.2 and M.3.1.2 to include company prime providing 3 citations and up to 2 major subcontractor citations. The Government is taking this under advisement.

In reference to L.9.4.2.2.2. Will the Government provide a representative ODC plug number for inclusion in the pricing volume? Yes

In reference to M.3.4. Will the Government include price realism as part of the price evaluation to minimize low ball bidding, as permitted under FAR clause 15.04? Recommend the Government add a risk subfactor to the price or management factor to account for unrealistic pricing. Provided for reference is the approach taken by the VA for their T4 NG IDIQ competition, which was included as a subfactor under the management approach factor. “(2) Feasibility of Approach ‐ The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s management techniques and controls and team will meet the PWS requirements and whether the proposal provides the Government with a high level of confidence of successful performance. The Government may evaluate the Offeror’s proposed blended labor rates to determine if the proposed blended rates are unrealistically low in order to assess the ability of the Offeror to meet the PWS requirements and whether the proposal provides the Government with a high level of confidence of successful performance. Unrealistically low blended labor rates proposed for a labor category(ies) and its associated hours may indicate a high‐risk approach to contract performance. Since the proposed blended labor rates are binding, the Government’s price evaluation shall not be adjusted as a result of this analysis due to the fact that the Government is not performing a cost realism analysis. This analysis, if undertaken, is solely for the limited purpose of aiding the agency in measuring the performance risk of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the PWS requirements.” The Government is taking this under advisement.

Reference Page No.: 14 Reference Paragraph No.: H‐7 Small Business Under ITES‐3S Applicable Question: Does the government intend to only set aside Task Orders under $150K? Recommend that the threshold be increased to $2M to reduce the burden on the government from doing RFIs since most Task Orders will be over $150K and because SB primes will have already proven their capability to successfully perform contracts worth at least $2M, as demonstrated by the Past Performance references submitted with this proposal. The $2M threshold recommendation is noted.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.1.1.1 Applicable Question: Does the government intend for this to be a performance based contract IAW FAR Subpart 37.6‐Performance‐Based Acquisition? Yes.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.1.1.2 Applicable Question: The instructions request “the plan for providing all eight task areas and products as described in Section 2 of the ITES‐3S PWS.” Please confirm that Offerors are only required to address the eight services in PWS 2.2, and not address PWS Section 2 in its entirety? Offerors shall address the Task Areas in PWS 2.2.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.1.1.2 Applicable Question: Does the government intend to include only major subcontractors in its definition of “team”? Recommend the government include non‐major subcontractors in its definition of “team” to ensure communication amongst the offeror’s entire team.

Yes. A major subcontractor includes any subcontractor that is considered integral and/or critical to performance of the IDIQ contract.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.2.1 Applicable Question: Is there a limit to how many major subcontractors an offeror may propose?

No. It is at the Offeror's discretion as to the number of major subcontractors to submit.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.2.1 Applicable Question: Are all proposed major subcontractors required to include references in the Past Performance Volume?

No. It is at the Offeror's discretion as to the number of major subcontractors to submit.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.2.1 Applicable Question: "Will the government evaluate more favorably Offerors who submit 3 past performance references (the maximum number) from the prime, and less favorably Offerors who submit only 1 or 2 past performance references from the prime?" No. Reference M.3.2.5, M.3.2.6, M.3.2.7 and M.3.2.10.

Reference Page No.: 72 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.2.1 Applicable Question: Are Offerors required to only submit 1 past performance reference? Recommend removing the words “up to” from section L.9.2.1.

No. It is at the Offeror's discretion to submit up to three (3) references. No change to the solicitation is necessary.

Reference Page No.: 72 and 82 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.1.1.3 and M.3.1.1.3 Applicable Question: Is it the government’s intent for Offerors to have specifically achieved ISO 9001 and ISO 27001 certifications rather than ISO 9000 and ISO 27000 certifications? See response to question #30.

Reference Page No.: 75 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.4.2.2.1 Applicable Question: Does the government intend for the Offeror to submit blended labor rates for the labor categories provided in the PWS? No

Solicitation Section L.9.1 (Draft RFP page 72) refers to the management approach and corporate experience “elements”. Are these elements sub‐factors within the Mission Support Factor? Are they of equal or differing importance? Will they receive separate evaluation ratings?

There are no subfactors under the Mission Support Factor. Mission support will be considered and rated in its entirety as a single factor.

54 The first sentence of Solicitation Section L.9.4.3.2.1 (Draft RFP page 75) appears to require the offerors to provide their ODC rate for the base year only, however, the fourth sentence of that section appears to require that the offerors provide their ODC costs for each year. Please clarify this apparent inconsistency. The Government will revise.

The “Evaluation Factor Relative Order of Importance” is set forth in Solicitation Section M.2.5.1 (Draft RFP page 81), and states that the Mission Support Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor, and the Mission Support and Past Performance Factors are more important than the Small Business Participation Factor. Please indicate the relative importance of the Past Performance Factor individually and the Small Business Participation Factor, and the relative importance of the Small Business Participation Factor and the Price Factor. The Government is taking this under advisement.

Solicitation Section M.3.1.2.2 (Draft RFP page 82) states that “Offerors that are able to demonstrate a diversity of experience, including all task areas, may be viewed more favorably” (emphasis added). Does this mean that an offeror that is able to demonstrate experience in, for example, the first seven of the eight task areas will not be viewed more favorably than other offerors that demonstrate less diverse experience?

Although Offerors are not required to demonstrate experience in all task areas of the ITES‐3S PWS, the greater the number of task areas in which experience is demonstrated, the more favorable the Offeror may be viewed.

Page 72, Section L.9.1.2 and Section L.9.2: Can the Corporate Experience and Past Performance examples be different? If different, is there also a dollar value minimum (like for Past Performance) that must be met? The Government is taking this under advisement.

Page 72, Section L.9.2.1: Is there a maximum number of Major Subcontractors for which an offeror may submit Past Performance examples?

No. It is at the Offeror's discretion as to the number of major subcontractors to submit.

Page 72, Section L.9.2 Past Performance: The Government states that “In addition, the Offeror may submit Joint Venture (JV), partnerships, or proposed major subcontractors and up to two project/contract reference(s) for each.”

If an Offeror is also a JV, is it limited to two examples as noted for JVs? Or is each JV partner given the opportunity to submit 2 each? Or is the JV/Offeror limited to 3 for either partner or the JV itself? Each JV member is limited up to two (2) references each.

Page 83, Section M.3.2.4: Does the Government’s statement that it is “particularly interested in work performed in 3 or more service task areas” mean that it wants to see a total of 3 or more task areas covered by all Past Performance examples of the Offeror and its major subcontractors? Or will the Government give more credit to Offerors that show that 3 or more task areas are covered in each (or several) past performance example(s)?

M.3.2.4 clearly states the relevancy and M.3.2.5, M.3.2.6, M.3.2.7, M.3.2.6.10 provide the criteria for evaluation.

Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.5.2 The offeror shall provide its proposed subcontracting plan as required by FAR Clause 52.219‐9, Alt II, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Please reference DFARS Clause 252.219‐7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts). If required, this plan will be negotiated concurrently with the rest of the proposal. Are small businesses pursuing a small business award required to submit a small business subcontracting plan? L.9.5.2 only applies to other than small businesses.

Evaluation factors list small business participation as the third factor. In section L, there are multiple statements that small businesses will not be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan. Can you clarify how potential small business winners will be evaluated under factor 3?

All offerors are required to submit a "small business participation matrix".

As stated in L.9.3.5, Other than small businesses shall also submit a "Small Business Subcontracting Plan". All offerors will be evaluated based on the stated evaluation criteria in Section M.3.3. Note carefully the difference between a "Small Business Participation matrix" (required for all offerors) and the "Small Business Subcontracting Plan" (only required for other than small offerors). Furthermore, all offerors will be evaluated on the stated evaluation criteria in Section M.3.3.

Reference Paragraph No.: M.3.3.1 Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offerors Small Business Participation plan demonstrates the Offerors commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. What evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate small businesses under factor 3? See response to question #65.

Will Rock Island continue as the contracting shop for task order awards? Will Rock Island personnel entertain visitors to discuss qualifications and other issues?

Ordering under ITES‐3S will be decentralized and is open to Army, DoD and all federal agencies.

Will task orders be awarded under a central ordering system or will distributed ordering for tasks be done at any potential Army post?

Ordering under ITES‐3S will be decentralized and is open to Army, DoD and all federal agencies.

69 Will any resumes be required with the initial proposal submission? No 70 Can team members be added to a winning team after initial award? Yes

Reference Paragraph No.: M.3.2.6 In evaluating performance history, the Government may review the Offeror, JV, partnership, or proposed major subcontractors current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement: quality of performance, products and services; timeliness of performance; operations management; subcontractor management; problem resolution and, if applicable; cost control. In terms of paragraph M.3.2.6, can the government define what a proposed major subcontractor is and the percentage of work they must be allocated? It is at the Offeror's discretion as to the definition of a major subcontractor.

Reference Paragraph No.: M.3.2.4 Relevant means performance that demonstrates recent work efforts performed by the Offeror, JV, partnership, or proposed major subcontractor as a prime contractor or first‐tier subcontractor that have at least a $2,000,000.00 dollar total value of each individual project/contract and/or order; that have actual work in progress or completed; and demonstrates a broad range of Information Technology (IT) services and solutions in support of existing systems, to include incidental equipment and software; and in CONUS, OCONUS, or warzones that are the same or similar as the requirements of the ITES‐3S solicitation. The service task areas are listed in descending order of importance. Can the government state the difference between a major subcontractor and a first‐tier subcontractor?

It is at the Offeror's discretion as to the definition of a major subcontractor as it applies to M.3.2.4 Relevancy. A first‐tier subcontractor pertains to the contract reference submitted under L.9.2.1.

Reference Paragraph No.: M.3.2.4 Can the government state if the $2M requirement will be at the task order level or the IDIQ level?

M.3.2.4 clearly states that the contract must be at least $2M total value and as defined for Information Technology (IT) services and incidental equipment and software provided by the relevancy statement.

Reference Paragraph No.: M.3.2.4 Can the government state how the $2M requirement will be calculated? Will it be for services only? Will option periods be included to include potential extensions?

M.3.2.4 clearly states that the contract must be at least $2M total value and as defined for Information Technology (IT) services and incidental equipment and software provided by the relevancy statement.

Reference Paragraph No.: M.3.2.4 On past performance areas, the government states it is highly interested in each offeror having Past Performance in at least 3 areas. Does this apply to the prime only or will first‐tier subcontractors count as well? Yes, the same applies to both.

Reference Page 2, Paragraph 5: The $150k limit appears to be exceedingly low for an IDIQ contract that requires such strict criteria for an award to a Small Businesses. Would the government considered raising that amount to $1.5M / annual to ensure the effort put into this partnership is commensurate with the potential revenue?

In accordance with FAR 13.003 (b), acquisitions under the SAT are reserved exclusively for small business concerns. The $1.5M threshold recommendation is Noted.

Solicitation states in L.2.3.1 that Offerors will submit two names as POCs for the Tool and then after submission the Tool will be used for future communications (ENs, etc). But in Section L.5.3, it tells Offerors to submit their proposal in the ASSIST Tool. There appears to be a conflict since the Offerors will not have their ASSIST TOOL Usernames, etc in time to submit their proposal. Please clarify.

L.5.3 states, "The Offeror's proposal will be loaded into the ASSIST tool by the Government." Offerors will not be required to load their own proposals into ASSIST.

Reference L.9.1.2.2: The last sentence states for JVs to explain the structure of their JV organization. But no where in this same section does it have the non‐JV explain their organization. Please confirm where non‐JV arrangements need to explain their organization structure.

Question is in reference to section L.9.1.1.2 rather than L.9.1.2.2. It is at the Offeror's discretion as to how to fully demonstrate its management approach off the ITES‐3S RFP.

Reference L.9.2.4: No Information regarding where to submit the PP questionnaires is provided. (This information may be included on the Attachment 0005 form). Information provided on Attachment 0005 PPQ form.

Reference L.9.3.4: For Small Business contracts there is normally no SB Participation requirements. Therefore, Assume this submission requirement is not required for SB Offerors? Please confirm. This requirement applies to all offerors (both small and other than small.)

82 Reference L.9.3.4.1: In this section it describes that Offereors must explain their compliance with SB Goals on previous programs. It also states that if a SB does not have any SB Metrics that were required to state so. How is the Government going to evaluate when a SB does not have any history of mandated SB goals?

Note there are three subparagraphs to L.9.3.4.1. Small Businesses should be able to provide evidence of compliance in response to L.9.3.4.1.1. It is understood that SBs would not have information in response to L.9.3.4.1.2 and L.9.3.4.1.3, and should state so. The proposal will be evaluated without regard to these two areas.

Reference L.9.4.2.2.1: It appears that no rates are designated for OCONUS work? Are the rates provided in the submission to cover both CONUS and OCONUS rates? If so, how does the Offeror include the additional costs for theaters of war?

If a future task order has the requirement of OCONUS effort and uplifts are applicable, those rates would be evaluated specific to that task order.

Reference M.3.3.2: Assume these stated goal percentages are measured at the IDIQ aggregate leve vice on each individual Task Order, please confirm. Yes. Goal performance is measured at the IDIQ level.

Does the government intend to publish Attachment 8, Price Matrix, prior to the final RFP release?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Attachment 8. Please confirm the rates proposed in Attachment 8 will not become labor rate ceilings for any cost reimbursement task orders. The labor rates will be ceiling rates for all future task orders.

Reference L.9.1.2.2: Does the government intend to publish Attachment 0004, Mission Support Form (MS Form), prior to the final RFP release?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Reference L.9.1.2.2: Does the government intend to publish Attachment 0003, Mission Support Form Instructions, prior to the final RFP release?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Reference L.9.2.4: Does the government intend to publish Attachment 0005, Past Performance Questionnaire, prior to the final RFP release?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Reference L.9.1.2.2; L.9.2.1: Is it acceptable for offerors to propose the same 3 references for “corporate experience” and “past performance”? Yes

Reference L.9.1.2.2: DRFP states regarding the Mission Support Form, “Narrative fields can be expanded as required, however the maximum page limitation still applies.” Which page limitation is being referred to here? Is there a specific page limitation for each Mission Support Form reference?

No page limit for each Mission Support form reference, however, all references will be included in page limit for Mission Support section.

Reference L.9.1.2.2: Does the government intend for the offeror to submit the Mission Support Forms (Attachment 0004) as separate files or as part of Volume I – Mission Support?

Mission Support Forms (Attachment 0004) shall be included as part of Volume I.

Are large businesses who are bidding as a prime also permitted to team with small business primes as well? Yes

101 Should small business primes include the small business utilization matrix in their submission? Yes

Reference L.9.1.2.1, "The Offeror shall describe its company's ability and experience in performing the task areas identified in Section 2 of the ITES‐3S PWS." ‐‐Would the Army consider changing this requirement to allow small business contractors to respond to a smaller set of task areas instead of all 8. Many truly small businesses do not have experience that covers all 8 of these areas as they are quite varied. They do, however, have vast experience in specific areas. Changing this requirement would allow the Army to select small businesses that have strong past performance in 3 or 4 particular areas as opposed to a company that has experience in all 8 areas but isn’t strong in any one thing. The requirement remains as stated.

Reference L.9.1.1.1: The RFP states, "The Offeror shall provide a description of their management approach and best practices for administering multiple award, performance‐based, IDIQ contracts similar to the complexity and scope of the ITES‐3S contract." Regarding FAR Subpart 37.6‐Performance‐Based Acquisition; does the Government intend for ITES 3S to be a performance based contract? Yes

Reference L.9.1.1.2: The RFP states, "…the plan for providing all eight task areas and products as described in Section 2 of the ITES‐3S PWS." Will the Government please confirm that Offeror's are only required to address all eight task areas (2.2.1‐2.2.8) in Section 2 of the PWS and not all task areas in Section 2 of the PWS? Offerors shall address the Task Areas in PWS 2.2.

Reference L.9.1.1.2: The RFP defines a "Team" as: "Team is defined as the prime contractor, whether organized as a joint venture or a single organization, and its major subcontractors." Will the Government please clarify whether only major subcontractors should be included in proposals, or all team members, as it relates to its definition of "team"? See response to question #42

Reference L.9.2.1: The RFP defines a major subcontractor as: “A major subcontractor includes any subcontractor that is considered integral and/or critical to performance of the IDIQ contract.” Will the Government please clarify how many major subcontractors offerors can include as part of their submission?

L.9.2.1 ‐ It is at the Offeror's discretion as to the the number of major subcontractor to submit.

109 Reference L.9.1.2.2, L.9.2.4, L.9.4.1, L.9.4.2.1, and Section J: Government references Attachments 0003, 0004, 0005 and 0008 in the Draft RFP. Will the Government please clarify when DRAFTS of these attachments will be provided?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

When will Attachment 0008 Price Matrix be released? DRAFT release of this matrix will enable industry to provide constructive feedback.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Will the government provide locations where the various labor categories are required? If so please include in the pricing matrix and for the SCA rates.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

114 Is the small business standard $27,500,000? Yes

The DoD CIO commissioned a study titled “The DoD Cloud Way Forward.” The study identifies actions the DoD must implement to remove current barriers to the usage of the commercial cloud. Given the emergence of cloud technology in the IT domain, would you consider adding cloud computing (and its derivative services, such as data center virtualization) to the scope of ITES‐3S? It’s not listed in the current 8 task areas.

Cloud Computing is indirectly included in this procurement as it encompasses a broad spectrum of IT services all of which are addressed in the 8 identified task areas.

Will a small business have to certify annually to the prime or if awarded a prime small business award their size standard to maintain qualifying as a small? No.

Will a small business remain a small for the duration of the total contract effort to include all 9 years of performance?

Recertification is required before the option period. Recertification will be required in accordance with 52.219‐28.

120 In which Volume does the Govt want bidders to submit the required Subcontracting Plan? Volume V 121 States the size standard as $27.5B virus $27.1M. Please clarify that it should be $27.1M. ITES‐3S size standard is $27.5M.

Recommend deletion of "every recent and relevant Government contracts(s) it was awarded that encountered any performance problems related to deliverables, services, and security breaches (i.e. data, physical, virtual, etc.); and" This clause is too broadly encompassing to respond to effectively. Problems related to deliverables and services are caused by a variety of issues, often not related to contractor performance. Also, the interpretation of what is defined as a "performance problem" can be very subjective. Recommend the adverse contract performance references be limited to terminations for default or cause, cure notices, and recorded security breaches received within the past 3 years. Reference L.9.2.7 and M.3.2.7. No change will be made to the solicitation.

States this will be a FFP Contract which conflicts with Page 2 General Summary with award Task Orders that will be FFP, T&M or CR. Please clarify that this award will be FFP,T&M or CR. The Government will revise.

M.3.3.2 ‐ Would the Government please confirm the objectives stated in M.3.3.2 are goals based on total planned subcontracting dollars to be utilized in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as required in accordance with FAR 52.219‐9 and not small business participation commitments based on total contract value to be utilized in Attachment 7, ITES3SContractParticipationMatrix? Please clarify.

The goals stated in section M are based on total contract value, NOT planned subcontracting dollars.

Would the Government please confirm the formula in cell H48 to be accurate? Please clarify.

The matrix has been changed. The correct formula is

=IF(H41<>0,H28/H41,0).

Will the government entertain providing the attachments so that we can review prior to final RFP?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS is included in the solicitation. Will the Government allow contractors to set overtime rates in the prime contract? No

Given the proposal response will be submitted via e‐mail, will the Government provide a Point to Contact who can confirm the files have been received? Very often contractors submit proposals but there is no one available to provide confirmation that the files submitted have been received. Yes.

The solicitation states: “Adverse Contract Performance: In addition to the project/contract references, the Offeror (and each JV, partner, and major subcontractor) shall identify every recent and relevant Government contract(s) it was awarded that encountered any performance problems related to deliverables, services, and security breaches (i.e. data, physical, virtual, etc.); and every recent contract that was terminated (for termination of default or termination for cause only), in whole or in part within the past three (3) years of issuance of this RFP. If there are no contracts that meet the description above, the Offeror shall state as such and include a statement in the Volume II proposal. The number of contract references provided in response to this paragraph is unlimited.”

Can we assume that only contracts that have performance problems that caused the adverse action, termination, and/or breach or have received Letter of Concern, cure notice, or show cause letters should be listed in the Volume II. L.9.2.7 clearly states the instructions and M.3.2.7. clearly states the evaluation considerations.

134 If the adverse contract performance will not be evaluated, can the Government clarify if references for classified or contracts to foreign entities should not be included?

a) Adverse contract performance will be considered (M.3.2.7); b) L.9.2.9 states that classified and foreign contracts will not be evaluated.

The Government contemplates award of a Firm‐Fixed‐Price contract resulting from this solicitation. Will the ITES‐3S IDIQ contract allow different contracts types? Can the Government clarify the statement? Yes ‐ FFP, T&M, CR

Was it the Government’s intent to only include the Associate level for the Administrator position?

In section 2.8 of the labor categories, the title "Administrator ‐ Associate" will be changed to "Project Administrator ‐ Associate".

Can the Government provide an estimated release date for the final RFP?

At this time the Government estimates the Final RFP will be released Dec 2015.

The Government recently amended the ITES‐2S contracts to extend the Ordering Period to 13 April 2018. In the event that the ITES‐3S contracts are awarded prior to 13 April 2018, will the ITES‐2S Order Period be shortened to avoid having two contracts in place addressing the same requirements?

The Government anticipates that no new orders on ITES‐2S if ITES‐3S is awarded and fully phased‐in prior to 13 April 2018.

We recommend that the Government provide the referenced Pricing Matrix (Attachment 0008) prior to release of the final RFP.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

We recommend that the Government provide the referenced Pricing Matrix (Attachment 0008) prior to release of the final RFP.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

143 We recommend that the page limit for Volume II (Past Performance) be amended to allow for a two‐page introduction summarizing the project/contract references and how they relate to the eight task areas of the PWS. No change will be made.

L.9.1.1.2 requires a Management Approach that includes descriptions of how the prime contractor will utilize and communicate with major subcontractors to provide services and products in all eight task areas of the PWS, and further defines the “Team” as including major subcontractors who are integral and/or critical to performance of the IDIQ contract. However, L.9.1.2.1 and L.2.1.2.2 do not include any information on the Corporate Experience of such major subcontractors. We recommend that the latter paragraphs be amended to include information on the Corporate Experience of any major subcontractors in Volume I. See response to question #36

L.9.3.5 instructions that Volume III shall include a Small Business Contracting Plan in the case of Offerors who are other than small business. L.9.5.2 requires the same Small Business Contracting Plan to be included in Volume V.

Does the Government want to have the same plan in two separate volumes of the Offer? The plan should only be submitted in Volume V

The instructions indicate rates will be provided for Government site and for Contractor site. For the Government site, in particular, the rates will depend on geographical location, including whether the location is CONUS or OCONUS. Will the Government specify location(s) to be used for labor pricing?

No. Offerors should use their best judgment in developing ceiling rates to be applicable across the entire PoP for any resultant contract.

The instructions indicate that fully burdened ceiling labor rates should be provided for Year 1. What should we assume as the starting date for Year 1?

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Are the Small Business Participation objectives provided in this paragraph based on total contract value, or the percent of subcontracted dollars? Total Contract Value.

Section J Identifies 8 attachments. Attachment 0007 CONTRACT PARTICIPATION MATRIX 19‐MAY‐2015 001 and Attachment 0008 PRICE MATRIX 19‐MAY‐2015 001 are not included. Please provide these attachments in the next RFP release/update so we may review them.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

The Offeror is required to submit 3 Mission Support Forms to demonstrate corporate experience. Please explain as to how the MS Forms need to be integrated with the Volume I submission. Please validate that the 3 corporate experience references should cover all of ITES 3S PWS Task Areas? Are these to be separate files?

Mission Support Forms (Attachment 0004) shall be included in Volume I.

Although Offerors are not required to demonstrate experience in all task areas of the ITES‐3S PWS, Offerors that are able to demonstrate a diversity of experience, including all task areas, may be viewed more favorably. Also please note that a minimum of three corporate experience references must be submitted. Other than the page limitation, there is no limit to the experience references submitted. See response to question #98.

The Offeror is required to submit Mission Support Forms to demonstrate corporate experience. Please provide these forms in the next RFP release/update so we may review them.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

The first three identified Service Portfolio areas (i.e., Cyber, IT, BPR) in addition to the specific task areas, PSC codes, each include a paragraph that defines the service. The remaining five areas do not include the definitions. Please provide full definitions in the next RFP release/update so we may review them. The Government is taking this under advisement.

What is the relevance of the codes identified to each sub task area? Are these Product Service Category (PSC) codes? Yes, these are the Product Service Category (PSC) codes.

Please provide a draft copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

Feedback and Context for Questions 8a ‐ 8d:

The term “performance problems” in L.9.2.7 is ambiguous and leads to subjective decisions on what to include in response to this proposal requirement. Any significant program will have a “performance problem” to some degree or another during its lifecycle, and deciding which contracts to include requires too much subjectivity on the part of each offeror. Because of differences in these subjective interpretations of “performance problems” there will not be a consistent set of information to evaluate. Here are two simple examples of subjectivity where one offeror may choose to report an event, while another may not:

a. A mature program submits a CDRL for approval using an existing contractor format. A new Government COR wants changes made to that format and rejects the CDRL to make that formatting change. This event may never appear on a CPAR as a problem, but it is a rejected deliverable and thus constitutes a “performance problem” per this RFP paragraph L.9.2.7.

b. On a services contract with 50 FTEs the contractor Program Manager sees a dip in productivity and changes out 2 employees. The productivity dip affected the services being performed (a “performance problem”) but it went unnoticed by the Government customer.

The recommendation is noted.

Is the list of Adverse Contract Performance citations provided in response to L.9.2.7 exempt from the statement in L.1.1 “IF A PROPOSAL IS INCOMPLETE IN ANY WAY, THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE FURTHER EVALUATED AND WILL

NOT BE FURTHER CONSIDERED FOR AWARD”?

No, Adverse Contract Perofrmance is not exempt. Reference L.9.2.7 and M.3.2.7.

Paragraph L.9.2.7 may conflict with existing Non‐Disclosure Agreements (NDA) in place between companies spread across various prime offerors under ITES‐3S. If a company (prime, JV, partner, or major subcontractor) is restricted from disclosing information regarding contract performance due to an NDA, will that be considered an incomplete proposal in reference to the statement under L.1.1?

IAW L.9.2.6 a Letter of Consent is required to authorize the Government to discuss past performance with the Offeror.

In response to “performance problems” in L.9.2.7, should each offeror include only those programs where a performance problem resulted in a formal contract action, such as a formally documented Cure Notice, Termination for Default, or Termination for Cause?

Reference L.9.2.7. the Offeror is to identify adverse performance as detailed in L.9.2.7.

160 Are the Government contracts requested in L.9.2.7 limited to those contracts performed by the responsible bidding business area of the offeror?

The Offeror is to identify adverse performance as detailed in L.9.2.7. for recent, relevant project/contracts for itself and JV, partners, or major subcontractors.

162 We recommend all primes be provided RFIs/RFPs that are SB set aside. The Government is taking this under advisement.

After award of a task order, during execution are the labor cat Job Descriptions binding only to T&M TOs? Please confirm FP and CR TOs are excluded.

At this time the Government estimates a second Draft RFP will be released Nov 2015, which will include all attachments.

The current price evaluation model is likely to result in significant gaming. Recommend including language similar to the T4NG procurement, such that the mission support factor rating is negatively impacted based on high‐risk, unrealisticly low pricing. The Government is taking this under advisement.

If a prime is on the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program (DCSP) will reporting of small business goal perfomance be based on DCSP?

For purposes of Subcontracting Plan, YES. However, the monthly small business reporting is based on the proposed goals in the participation plan.

If, as part of its participation plan, the offeror elects to propose different participation than in its DCSP, the offeror must submit its monthly report using the particpation plan goals

Will the Government accept the offerors DCSP as a subcontracting plan per this clause?

Yes. However, note that the subcontracting plan is different than the participation plan, and the participation plan is evaluated against the goals proposed for this procurement.

Will the Government apply FAR 19.502‐2(b) to ITES 3S?

Yes. 19.502‐2(b) was applied to ITES‐3S before deciding on the strategy selected.

168 Will the Small Business Participation volume be required for Small Business offerors? Yes.

170 The summary states the overall contract value shall not exceed $12,100,000,000. Would the Government provide an estimated average individual task order contract value range so that offerors can apply relevant size references? The average ITES‐2S task order equals approximately $11.8M.

171 Sec B‐M: The font size for these sections is too small. Suggest increasing to 8 Pt or higher. The Government is taking this under advisement.

The draft RFP states that proposal volumes be “logically assembled and indexed.” Would the Government consider using a compliance matrix vs. an index that maps requirements to proposal sections? This matrix could become part of the front materials inserted after the TOC. The Government is taking this under advisement.

Does the Past Performance requirement for references to be only as prime or first tier subcontractor also apply to Corporate Experience Table references (Attachment 4)?

Reference L.9.2. and M.3.2 apply only to the Past Performance Factor.

Each Factor has its own instructions and evaluation criteria.

174 L.9.2.1 ‐ Paragraph states, ”Government Agency contracts”. Can this be changed to include commercial contracts in order to show full depth of capability to provide support services across OCONUS locations?

Reference L.9.2.1. It is at the Offerors discretion as to the type of contract/project reference it submits. There are no restrictions to submitting commercial contracts.

May CPARS reports be used instead of completed PPQs (Attachment 5)? As many of our customers comply with the mandated Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) regulations and have submitted their evaluations to the system, they do not feel they should be required to fill out an additional survey or questionnaire.

Reference L.9.2.4. It is at the Offerors discretion to send PPQs to respondents; Reference L.9.2.8 allows the government to use other sources to obtain performance information. Also reference M.3.2.10, M.3.2.11 and M.3.2.12.

Is the order of importance of task areas as stated in M.3.2.4 “Service Task areas are listed in descending order of importance; or by the order they are provided in PWS Section 2.2 – 2.2.8? Business Process Engineering is not in the same order for both sections. The Government will revise.

177 Appendix 6 Required Reports should read Appendix 5 Required Reports The Government is taking this under advisement.

180 Page 3; Para. 5: Please clarify the sentence “An ostensible subcontractor which is to perform primary or vital requirements of a contract may have a controlling role such to be considered a joint venture affiliated on the contract with the prime offerer? “

If a small business subcontracts primary or vital requirements of a contract, the subcontractor may be deemed to have a controlling role, and may be considered affiliated with the SB for size purposes. This affiliation consideration could make the SB considered large for purposes of the procurement. See FAR 19.101 "Affiliates" and 13 CFR 121.103(H)(4) for more information.

Page 75. Para L.9.4.2.1: How will Price reasonableness be established? There are clearly some highly qualified personnel that are being requested. What mechanisms will be put into place to assure the final numbers are not driven arbitrarily low?