DRFP.Responses_FBOv2_12022015.pdf

After award, can the primes add teammates with or without government approval?

The Government defines teammate as a subcontractor. Subcontractors will be added in accordance with Section I-177, 52.244-2 Subcontracts clause.

The Government is strongly considering requiring the Prime to provide notification/request consent prior to removing a major subcontractor, particularly in cases where that sub was integral to the Prime being able to perform all 8 Task Areas (i.e. where subk/team member capabilities contributed to the basis of award of the basic contract).

28 Is the government planning on instantiating the rule of 2?

For all task orders over $150,000.00, the ordering contracting officers shall first conduct market research to determine if there are at least two responsible awardees that can perform the task order and comply with the limitations on subcontracting. If market research reveals there are two or more small business contract holders capable and willing to compete, the task order will be restricted to small businesses.

Reference Page No.: 72 and 82 Reference Paragraph No.: L.9.1.1.3 and M.3.1.1.3 Applicable Question: Will the government rate Offerors more favorably for having achieved certifications in ISO 9001, ISO 27001, CMMI Level 3, and having a DCAA Approved Accounting System? Recommend removing the words “and/or” from section M.3.1.1.3 and replacing it with the word “and”. Yes. The requirement remains as stated.

The references to the applicable contract type(s) in Solicitation Section A (Draft RFP, top of page 2) and Solicitation

Section L-9 (Draft RFP page 77) [i.e., Firm Fixed Price (FFP)] appear to be inconsistent with several other provisions in the Solicitation which refer to FFP, Time and Materials, and Cost Reimbursable contract types [Section A, General

Summary, paragraph 1 (Draft RFP page 2); Sections E-1, E-2, and E-3 (Draft RFP page 7); Section I-176 (Draft RFP page

28); Section L.9.1.1.1 (Draft RFP page 72) and Section M.3.1.1.1 (Draft RFP page 82) which seek the offerors’ approach for administering cost type contracts; and Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.6.5)]. Please clarify these apparent discrepancies. Additionally, please verify the inclusion of Section I-28 (Draft RFP page 16), and Sections I-168 and I-169 (Draft RFP page 23).

The awarded labor rates are ceiling rates for firm-fixed price and time-and-materials task orders. However TOs may also be cost reimbursable and would be negotiated at the TO-level.

Solicitation Sections L.2.5 and L.3.7 (Draft RFP page 69) state that in the event discussions are conducted with the offerors in the Competitive Range, “all proposal revisions must be submitted as a complete electronic resubmission of the affected electronic file”. Does this provision mean that the offerors’ revised proposals must meet the page limitations identified in Solicitation Section L.7.2 (Draft RFP page 71)? If so, how is this process consistent with the requirement for the discussions conducted by the Government to be “meaningful” in cases where the offeror has used the entire page allocation for its initially submitted proposal and now must delete potentially strong proposal content in order to have the requisite space to address the Government’s questions?

Yes - Offerors revised proposal must meet the page limitations identified in

Section L.2.

DRFP Q&A, Version 2.0 W52P1J-15-R-0096 12/02/2015

Please confirm that Solicitation Sections L.9.3.4.1.2 and L.9.3.4.1.3 (Draft RFP page 74) and M.3.3.5.1.2 and M.3.3.5.1.3

(Draft RFP page 84) do not apply to Small Business offerors.

They do not apply to Small Business, however, Small Businesses shall identify that as a SB, the don't have any information to submit in response to these paragraphs.

Please verify the inclusion of Solicitation Section L-12, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Draft RFP page 77) since it appears that there will be adequate price competition in this acquisition.

Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing

Data may be required at the task order level.

“Step 4” in Solicitation Section M.1.3 (Draft RFP page 80) states that “[i]f a Competitive Range is established, the

Government will open Discussions with all offerors in the Competitive Range. If the Government does not establish a

Competitive Range, the Government will open Discussions with all offerors”. Please verify the accuracy of the second sentence cited above. It is noted that FAR 15.306(c)(1) states that “Agencies shall evaluate all proposals in accordance with 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range” (emphasis added). The Government will revise.

Page 72, Section L.9.1.2: Is there a maximum number of Corporate Experience examples that may be submitted? No limit, however Mission Support page limit applies.

78 Reference L.9.1.1.1: Assume the phrase "administering cost type contracts" includes FFP, T&M, CR, etc?

The phrase "administering cost type contracts" refers to cost type contracts.

84 Reference M.3.2.2: What is meant by "partnership"?

A teaming arrangement between two or more companies that the offeror does not deem to be either a joint venture or a prime/subcontractor relationship.

85 Reference M.3.3.2: Assume these stated goal percentages are measured at the IDIQ aggregate leve vice on each

Yes. Goal performance is measured at the IDIQ level.

Ref. Section A - General Summary: Can the government please clarify what types of FFP and Cost Reimbursable task orders they intend to issue under this IDIQ?

No. Ordering is decentralized and the scope of the ITES-3S is broad in order to provide customers with a large variance in types of orders that may be acquired under the contract.

Attachment 8. Given the different levels of risk inherent in T&M and FFP orders, will the Government provision for separate rates for each task order type? No. The rates incorporated into the contract are ceiling rates. Cost

Reimbursable and Time & Material rates will be negotiated at the TO level.

90 FAR clauses 52.230-2 and 52.230-3. Please confirm the CAS clauses apply only to cost reimbursement task orders.

Cost accounting standards clauses apply only to cost reimbursement task orders.

The price volume instructions, in the DRFP, only describe/discuss the Attachment 8 price model. Does the government anticipate that the offeror will also be required to provide a Cost Volume (Narrative, in WORD), or documentation of pricing, outside of Attachment 8?

It is at the offeror's discretion to include a basis of estimate with their proposal, however no constraints or assumptions that take exception to the

Final RFP will be accepted.

92 FAR 52.215-20: a) Please confirm that certified cost and pricing data will not be required, given the presence of adequate competition; b) If other than certified cost and pricing data is required, please clarify what information will satisfy the requirement.

Not knowing future task order requirements given the decentralized nature of these contracts, the Government cannot confirm whether or not certified cost and pricing will be required at this time for future TOs. FAR Table 15-2 provides offerors what type of data will be required to support proposals.

Reference L.4.5: The DRFP states “…Paragraphs shall be numbered and titled.”

Does this mean that every single paragraph in the proposal response should have a title, as opposed to having more than one paragraph under one title?

No. Major sections shall be titled. Multiple paragraphs under one title is acceptable. All paragraphs shall be numbered.

Will the Earned Value Management System (EVMS) proposed by each contractor be evaluated for compliance before contract award?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

104 Reference L.9.1.1.1: Assume the phrase "administering cost type contracts" includes FFP, T&M, CR, etc?

The phrase "administering cost type contracts" refers to cost reimbursable

(CR) contracts.

Reference L.5.2.4: RFP subject paragraph states: Tables and illustrations shall not use a font size less than 10-point and may be in landscape orientation. Tables, illustrations, graphs, etc. shall be limited in size to 8.5 X 11. Considering an electronic email proposal submittal, will the Government please allow larger pages, such as 11x17, 8.5x14, etc., commonly used for Organization Charts, Pricing Templates, and electronic spreadsheets?

The recommendation is noted. The Government will consider revising.

Does PM CHESS plan to conduct additional industry days, along with one-on-one sessions, to acquire industry feedback on the acquisition and DRFP?

At this time the Government does not anticipate conducting additional industry days.

Ref: OPSEC/Cybersecurity Training: Will the government reimburse for the cost of these annual and reoccurring training and certifications? No.

Should bidders fill in applicable contract clauses in Sections H and I? If so, in which Volume should these sections be submitted?

No. The fill-ins for sections H and I will be filled-in by the Government prior to release of the final RFP.

124 In which Volume does the Govt want bidders to submit the required Mission Essential Services Plan? The Government does not understand the question.

125 Are there font size constraints for headers and footers? No less than 10-point.

Major subcontractor includes any subcontractor that is considered integral and/or critical to the performance of the

IDIQ contract. Will the Government please define "integral" and "critical". No. It is at the offeror's discretion what it considers integral and critical.

130 The Government states that, “For all task orders over $150,000.00, the ordering contracting officers shall first send a

Request for Information to each of the small business awardees to determine if there are at least two small business awardees that can perform the task order and comply with the limitations.” Is it the intent of the government to apply this to all ITES 3S task orders or will there be types of work that will be established as “Unrestricted.”

For all task orders over $150,000.00, the ordering contracting officers shall first conduct market research to determine if there are at least two responsible awardees that can perform the task order and comply with the limitations on subcontracting. If market research reveals there are two or more small business contract holders capable and willing to compete, the task order will be restricted to small businesses.

139 This clause requires an approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS) if the contract has a value of $50 million or more. Please confirm that this value criterion applies to individual Task Orders, not to the base IDIQ contract.

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

Does the instruction regarding paragraph numbers and titles apply to Volume 5 which has contract documentation –

Representations and Certifications, SF33, etc.? No.

Given the wide range of scope for this acquisition, please provide more insight as to the anticipated distribution of Task

Orders. For example, what % of TO's are anticipated for the following:

- LWN and Army Enterprise Services sustainment

- LWN and Army Enterprise Services improvement

- JIE technical areas of support

Ordering is decentralized and the scope of the ITES-3S is broad in order to provide customers with a large variance in types of orders that may be acquired under the contract. Therefore, the Government cannot provide the anticipated distribution of task orders requested.

For PRS #3, the Standard is listed as "Bid rate using small business partners to lead task orders". Since Prime contractors have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to perform and deliver on awarded TOs, it is only possible for a SB to 'lead' a TO in name only. Additionally CPARS ratings are assessed against the prime only and therefore there is no corrective mechanism for non-performance of a SB lead, except to issue cure notices, terminations and assess negative CPARS against the prime. Recommend that this be rewritten to state that the standard is to "Bid with small businesses to achieve the stated goal against TCV."

PRS #3 will be revised.

a. When deploying to high risk warzones in the CENTCOM AOR, will USCENTCOM MOD 12 be applicable per this contract? If so, will pre-deployment medical and dental evaluation costs be reimbursable on the contract? b. Will the requirement to have valid annual in-theater medical physicals/rescreening for all deployed personnel be cost reimbursable? This will be addressed at the task-order level.

178 Does Army intend to utilize an SLA as a framework for the attainment of performance metrics? No.

179 Does the Army intend/plan to compensate the vendor for over achievement of metrics? This is essential to the ongoing effort to provide/produce cost take out while maintaining a consistently high level of operations.

There is no financial compensation at the base contract level other than the minimum guarantee.

181 Page 6, Section C: Are there requirements to submit CMR at the Contract level or the Task Order level? CMR requirements are determined at the task order level.

Page 12, para 3. Will OPSEC plans be required at the contract level, or only at task order level? Recommend the latter

(only at task order level). An OPSEC plan is to be submitted/completed at the contract level. However, some task order my require an additional OPSEC plan at the task order level.

Page 12, Para 5: Is there evaluation criteria? What are the criteria for successful completion of OPSEC response?

Recommend this be done at the task order level only.

The annual assessment will be IAW DD 1423/DI-MGMT-80934C and the

OPSEC Assessment checklists and sample assessment responses noted on

Page 12, para. 5. The yearly assessments are conducted at the contract level, as well as task order level (as applicable).

184 Page 12, Para 8: Is CPAR issued on Contract or Task Order level? Recommend this be done at the task order level only.

Both.

185 Page 13, Para H-7: Is the TCV % referenced merely for LB as a prime and will the government calculate sub contract values into this number as well?

The Govt does not understand the question, however, offerors shall calculate their percentages for each category based on the TOTAL Contract Value. (i.e.

$12.1B)

Page 14, Para H-7: If a large business is a subcontractor on a task and uses SB, then the prime can count this participation in meeting its goal and report as SB participation at the contract level. No. The prime can only count first-tier subcontractors.

Page 15, Para H-9: There are very specific criteria for success with SB participation and bids. Can the government please explain the rationale for this criteria?

To ensure the maximum practicable opportunity for SBs on the ITES-3S procurement.

188 Page 23, Para I-168: General—does this apply at ID/IQ level? Determined at the task-order level as applicable.

189 Page 69, Para L-3: Proposal submission. How is the Army protecting submissions?

Government officials involved in the source selection agree to abide, and are governed by the terms of FAR 3.104. Also, IAW L.2.3, the Acquisition Source

Selection Interactive Tool (ASSIST) will be used by the Government to support the proposal evaluation and source selection process. A seperate tool, ASSIST2Industry, provides the ability for the Government to issue, and the Offerors to receive and respond to, all Evaluation Notices in a secure online environment.

Page 79, Para L 16: This is a PEO-EIS sponsored contract being run out of Rock Island ACC with leadership of AMC at

Redstone. Who do we go to for clarifications/updates/concerns? Army Contracting Command - Rock Island

Page 80, Para M 2: What is criteria for Best Value?

Reference M.2.5.1 Evaluation Factor Relative Order of Importance, and M.3

EVALUATION APPROACH

Page 91. Para 1.4.2.2. Can the government provide examples of meeting this objective today? Can the government tie the achievement of this objective to its methodology for determining the Total Proposed Contract Price (TPCP) [M.3.4

Factor 4 Price]?

It is incumbent upon the offeror to provide examples of how they can meet these objectives. The TPCP is provided by the offeror in accordance with

M.3.4.

Page 93, Para 1.6.1 QA Will a QA Plan be required at the contract level? (Recommend only at TO level)

The Government will have a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) at the basic contract level to ensure that the contractor has performed in accordance with the performance standards. A QASP may be created at the task order level as well.

Page 95, Para 1.6.7.5: Please specify details regarding the required Antiterrorism Training.

The details regarding Antiterrorism Training will be provided at the task order level.

Page 98, Para 1.6.13: Are OCI issues submitted at Contract or Task Order level ?

The Contractor shall immediately inform the Contracting Officer regarding actual or potential OCIs issues, both at the base contract and task order levels 198 Page 105 para 2.4.1 (3). Recommend replacing the ECTOP with a request for a CPARS report. The requirement remains as stated.

Page 108 Para 2.6. Recommend adding the word “subset” ….”

In accordance with the Small Business Subcontracting Participation Plan, contractors shall comply with meeting the mandatory small business subcontracting goal of 25% of the total contract value with additional specific subset goals for the following categories…

Paragraph will be revised.

Ref: L.4.5: Similarly, remove requirement to number and title each paragraph – Recommend the government request offerors provide logical header and sub-header numbering to provide for the same affect without a requirement at each paragraph level.

Major sections shall be titled. Multiple paragraphs under one title is acceptable. All paragraphs shall be numbered.

For the File Naming Structure for PPQs, please confirm that the Contract-Number is the offeror’s contract being referenced and not the contract number for ITES 3S. 'Contract-Number' is the offeror's contract being referenced.

204 Do the examples used in Volume I, Corporate Experience need to be the same as the references used in Volume II, Past

Performance?

No. It is at the offeror's discretion whether or not the Corporate Experience references and Past Performance references are the same.

Please confirm that the evaluation for Volume 1, Mission Support (Management and Corporate Experience) and

Volume 2, Past Performance, is based solely on the prime offeror rather than the offeror plus all participants in the

Contract Participation Matrix/subcontractors. For purposes of the base contract evaluation, demonstrable ability to perform these services should be found with the prime.

Proposal evaluations will be based on the prime's ability to provide and perform required functions (for example, ability to satisfy all 8 task areas), whether through it's own capabilities or through the use of subcontractors.

M.3.2.2 Past performance will be evaluated for the offeror (Prime

Contractor), to include individual members of a Joint Venture (JV), partnership, or proposed major subcontractors. The offeror and its JV, partnership, or major subcontractor’s recent and relevant project/contract references will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in totality to determine the offeror’s Overall Past Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating.

We recommend that subcontracting be acceptable and determined at the Task Order level rather than at the ITES 3S level. While teaming may be developed at the IDIQ level for preparation purposes, restricting teaming following award should be removed. The current subcontracting strategy appears to put significant emphasis on teaming. This puts a significant emphasis on building a team upfront that may not necessarily be able to meet the ever-evolving IT needs for the Army.

Additionally, such an emphasis seems contrary to the Contract Objectives in Draft PWS Section 1.4.1, e.g., “1.4.1.1

Establish and maintain contract methodologies and operations that are flexible, facilitate change, and allow for continuity of user support over the life of the contract” and “1.4.1.3 Increase use of subcontractors and teaming partners to bring expert talent and ingenuity to the varied work under ITES-3S, and effectively utilize small businesses to assure achievement of mandatory subcontracting goals.”

Requirement remains as stated. See response to question #14.

We recommend that the limit in the number of Other than Small Business awardees be made based on the number of quality responses received, rather than a capped ceiling number of awards. An expanded pool of ITES 3S awardees is warranted to reduce risk, increase competition, provide best value to ITES 3S customers, and ensure long-term success of the ITES 3S program. Justification/rationale is identified below:

1. With only 24 total awardees, the Government may not achieve adequate competition, and thus not achieve the cited

Program Goal 1.4.2.6 in the PWS, “Assure affordable, best value, best priced IT solutions.”

2. Historically, multi-award Information Technology (IT) IDIQs with as many as 50 companies have had a limited number of responses (i.e., between 2-3 responses).

3. Allowing offerors with high quality responses a slot on the IDIQ ensures robust competition and high quality, best value service to the Army, other DoD agencies, and all other Federal agencies using ITES 3S at the Task Order level.

4. There is no risk to expanding the total number of awards due to the Off-Ramp Procedures described in the Draft RFP

(H.9).

The recommendation is noted.

We recommend the Army remove the requirement for substantive evidence of having met previous small business goals, as it unfairly biases against Mid-tier companies that may otherwise aid the Army in meeting its stated Program

Goal 1.4.2.6 in the PWS, “Assure affordable, best value, best priced IT solutions.” Our justification and alternate strategies to enable Army evaluation is as follows:

1. To require such historical evidence is unrealistic, unfair, and favors significantly Larger Businesses.

2. If such evidence is required, to remedy this imbalance, historical references of Prime businesses that qualified as

Small Businesses in their provided past performance references should be treated as such evidence in a manner comparable to large businesses citing historical references for small business participation. In this way, CHESS would address Small Business goals in a more inclusive fashion that accounts for the actual parties responsible for helping to achieve Small Business goals.

3. The recommended approach gives ITES 3S acquisition organizations the ability to tap into the significant capability and tremendous cost-efficient value Mid-tier contractors are able to offer. For companies that have exceeded projections and experienced rapid success, this transition to the Unrestricted or Full and Open Market is a natural process that requires a reasonable timeframe to fully meet subcontracting Small Business goals.

4. Otherwise, the Draft RFP as written creates a clear advantage for historically established companies who may have met historical Small Business goals.

The Govt disagrees that requring this info favors large businesses. If an offeror does not have history, they shall so state. In instances where an offeror does not have history, that offeror's SB proposal will be evaluated without consideration of historical performance. Section M will be revised to clarify.

214 Attachment 0002, Performance Requirements Standards (PRS) #4 identifies a marketing visit standard and performance threshold requirement that is part of an annual IPR. Does the Government have a specific report format to be used for documenting visits and for the Marketing Plan to be published semi-annually?

No, the Government does not have a standard report fomat for Marketing

Plan nor a standard report format of visit to MACOMs or NECs.

RFP Section I-192, Clause 52.219-9 (Dev Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Deviation 2013-00014) subparagraph (c) states “Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a subcontracting plan….Failure to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan shall make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.” However, RFP Section L.9.3.5 specifies, “Note for other than small businesses ONLY. Separate from Small Business Participation, other than small business offerors shall also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as required by FAR 19.7 (FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan).” Request the Government to confirm that Small Businesses are not required to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their proposal submission.

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".

Section L.5.1 specifies that margins (top/bottom/left/right) should be 1.0” but also states that the header and footer should be 1.0” from the Edge. Request the Government to provide clarification regarding the header/footer and margin format requirements. Is it the Government’s intent that headers/footers must be contained within the 1.0” margins? Yes. The Government will revise.

Applicable Question: RFP Section L.5.2.7 specifies “MS Word files and MS Excel files shall be generated with MS Office

2013.” Since MS Office 2013 is not widely used by many companies – especially small businesses – request that the

Government revise this requirement to reflect that MS Word and MS Excel files may be generated with MS Office 2010. The requirement remains as stated.

224 Can the Government confirm/deny that EVMS is applicable only at the TO level on a case by case basis?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

In reference to “30 calendar days after contract start date,”does the Government mean calendar or business days (i.e., M-F)? 30 calendar days. Requirement remains as stated.

Regarding PRS #2, does this mean offerors would need to increase their bid rates by 30% annually or that we need to bid a minimum of 30% of all RFQs each year? Submit bids in response to a minimum of 30% of all RFQs/RFPs each year.

Can large IT IDIQ contracts be used as a Past Performance reference and for Corporate Experience summaries with the scope of services provided covering task orders of $2M or greater total dollar value?

For Corporate Experience summaries, large IT IDIQ contracts can be referenced. For Past Performance, an individual project/contract and/or order value must meet the criteria as stated in M.3.2.4.

Will the Government please explain how “particular interest” affects the evaluation of Relevance and specifically evaluation of scope, magnitude, or complexity? The Government will revise.

It appears that paragraph M.3.1.2.4 is truncated or missing. Will the Government please provide how “Federal

Government Experience” will be assessed in past performance evaluation.

The Government will revise.

236 Can Organizational Change Management (OCM) be added to the BPR definition?

The current sub-task areas provide the necessary flexability to encompass

Organizational Change Management (OCM) in the Business Process

Reengineering task area.

Can the BPR sub-Labor Categories be expanded to include a Business Process Analyst - Senior and a Business Process

Analyst – Intermediate? The role of both of these BPR Labor Categories includes: Mapping the as-is process (i.e., Levels

1, 2 and 3) including work activities, workflows and procedures, roles and mechanisms; identifying relevant process metrics; conducting gap and root cause analysis; identifying and analyzing business process improvement opportunities

(incremental and transformational); developing supporting business cases; developing future state process maps; and incorporating Organizational Change Management (OCM) into future state recommendations. The key distinction between the Senior and Intermediate is the Senior candidate must have substantial experience with cross-enterprise transformative BPR and OCM. The requirement remains as stated.

Section M.2 says that “An award will not be made to any Offeror that receives a deficiency in ANY factor.” Does the

Government mean a deficiency that has not been cleared through the EN process?

In the event that discussions are not deemed necessary in order to make the anticipated number of contract awards based on initial proposal submissions, the statement simply means what it says. In the event that discussions are deemed necessary, then it would mean a deficiency that has not been resolved through the EN process, including any deficiencies that are identified in the Final Revised Proposal.

This is a competitive procurement so it will not be subject to Certified Cost or Pricing Data in accordance with TINA.

Please clarify why these clauses are included in the solicitation.

Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing

Data may be required at the task order level.

The ID/IQ contract issued will be FFP, T&M and Cost Reimbursable. Is this clause required? The Government does not understand the question as stated. FFP, T&M, and

CR contracts will be permitted under the ITES-3S contract.

FAR 52.244-2(d) states, "If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the Contractor nevertheless shall obtain the Contracting Officer's written consent before placing the following subcontracts: -1-". Can the Government please clarify what "1" refers to?

"-1-" is a fill-in. The fill-ins for sections H and I will be filled-in by the

Government prior to release of the final RFP.

Header and footer information is typically permitted within the margins, and usually limited to 0.25" or 0.5" from the edge of the page. Would the Government consider revising the proposal format specifications to be From Edge:

Header, Footer: 0.25"? The requirement remains as stated.

258 What is the relative importance of Past Performance in relation to Small Business Participation? Refer to paragraph M.2.5.1

How does the government plan to use all the different PSC codes in the PWS section where the ITES-3S appropriate

DoD Services Taxonomy are grouped into several different subsections? Will there be shall statements to address the different codes?

Product Service Codes are used by the government to facilitate collaboration within the acquisition workforce and with customer organizations. Analysis based on the taxonomy provides insight into the marketplace and organizational buying behaviors. No additional statements will be provided to address the different codes.

Will ITES-3 contractor officer accept proposals from companies forming a contractor teaming agreement (CTA)? If CTA allowed, then include language to contractors to form CTAs and submit proposals in the next RFP.

No. CTAs will not be allowed.

L.9.5.1: This section had a list of documents including "ASSIST cover letter". For further clarification in section L.2.3.1 states, "...The required information regarding these two (2) individuals must be submitted with the Offerors proposal and included in the cover letter." Is there an ASSIST cover letter that is generated from ASSIST or the contractor will provide the two individuals as stated in section L.2.3.1 as the "ASSIST Cover letter" requirements stated in L.9.5.1?

The ASSIST cover letter is generated by the contractor and is to include information stated in L.2.3.1.

PWS- 1.6.7.1: For this section it states, "...minimum a favorable National Agency Check (NAC)." What level of NAC is required? NACLC or NACI or both? Both NACLC and NACI.

Section A -"8. In accordance with FAR 19.502-2, all task orders valued between $3,000.00 and $150,000.00 shall be set-aside for small business contract holders. **For all task orders over $150,000.00, the ordering contracting officers shall first send a Request for Information to each of the small business awardees to determine if there are at least two small business awardees that can perform the task order and comply with the limitations on subcontracting." Will the government consider revising this section to allow ordering contracting officers to issue a RFP as a Small Business set aside without first issuing an RFI, requiring an RFI be issued to Small Business awardees only prior to issuing a Full and

Open RFP?

The Government will revise. For all task orders over $150,000.00, the ordering contracting officers shall first conduct market research to determine if there are at least two responsible awardees that can perform the task order and comply with the limitations on subcontracting. If market research reveals there are two or more small business contract holders capable and willing to compete, the task order will be restricted to small businesses.

I-183 252.234-7002 EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - (h) "When indicated by contract performance, the

Contractor shall submit a request for approval to initiate an over-target baseline or over-target schedule to the

Contracting Officer." Will the government clarify that this only applies when task order(s) are awarded, as there is nothing to measure at the IDIQ level without awarded task order(s)?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

L-10 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST

Request that the government provide guidelines regarding task order protest process/limitations (i.e. only protestable if task order value exceeds $10 Million as on other CHESS IDIQs). Reference FAR 16.505(a)(10).

L-16 52.233-4503 AMC-LEVEL PROTEST PROGRAM

Request that the government revise this section to also address task order protests. Task Order protests are addressed by FAR 16.505.

Will the Government also provide the direct labor rate ranges for each labor category? This will greatly assist the evaluators in determining rates to be fair and reasonable and allow for ceiling rates that will ensure awardees can bring the most qualified and appropriate candidates to each task order. No. The requirement remains as stated.

The term “recent and relevant contracts” is used frequently in the requirements spelled out in L.9.3.4. Offeror assumes that “recent and relevant contracts” refers to the “recent and relevant contracts” proposed in the Corporate

Experience and Past Performance Factors and does not refer to all “recent and relevant contracts” awarded to an offeror within three years of RFP release. Is offeror’s assumption correct? L.9.3.4 will be revised.

M.3.3.5.1.1, M.3.3.5.1.2, and M.3.3.5.1.3 state, respectively, “(when required on recent and relevant contracts), (when required on the recent and relevant contracts), and …approved subcontracting plan for each recent and relevant contract that included a subcontracting plan…” Offeror assumes that the use of “recent and relevant contracts” in these evaluation criteria are referring to the “recent and relevant contracts” proposed in the Corporate Experience

Factor. Is offeror’s assumption correct? The language will be clarified in Small Business portion of L and M.

Clause H-9, page 14: Would the Government please clarify how the 5% deviation from participation commitments will be calculated? This section will be revised.

300 L.5.2.1, "Paragraphs will be separated by at least one blank line." Please confirm the Government defines a series of bullets at the end of a paragraph as belonging to the preceding paragraph with respect to the blank line separation.

The Government defines a series of bullets at the end of a paragraph as belonging to the preceding paragraph with respect to the blank line separation.

301 L.5.2.1, "Paragraphs will be separated by at least one blank line." Please confirm the Government defines a figure or table caption as belonging to the respective figure or caption with respect to the blank line separation.

The Government defines a figure or table caption as belonging to the respective figure or caption with respect to the blank line separation.

L.5.2.1, "Paragraphs will be separated by at least one blank line." Please confirm the Paragraphs referenced by this requirement only pertain to body paragraphs and not tables, text boxes, or graphics.

The paragraphs referenced by this requirement only pertain to body paragraphs and not tables, text boxes, or graphics.

L.5.1 and L.5.2.7: “IF ANY VOLUME EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PAGE LIMITATION, THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE

EVALUATED AND WILL NOT BE FURTHER CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.” “MS Word files and MS Excel files shall be generated with MS Office 2013.” Would the Government allow PDF files to be submitted for non-price volumes for offerors to demonstrate compliance with page count, in case pages roll on Government systems? No. PDF files will not be allowed.

305 Section L 9.1.2.2 reference, “Offeror shall submit a minimum of three references of demonstrated work which was performed within three years of the release of this RFP.” Recommend the Government expand the time frame for corporate experience to five years. A five-year timeframe will allow the Government to evaluate each offeror’s depth of continued experience and excellence in supporting the Army Information Technology requirements. The requirement remains as stated.

Is it the Government’s intent to require EVM on all task orders regardless of contract type?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

Is it the Government’s intent to require EVM on all task orders regardless of effort being performed?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

Please confirm that EVM will be performed only at the TO level and not at the overall IDIQ contract level

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

311 Does the Government anticipate that the cost of the Contractor’s EVM System will be built into the rates or bid as an acceptable ODC?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

312 Does the Government anticipate that the labor cost of running an EVM System will be built into the rates or bid as direct labor?

The Ordering Contracting Officer will be responsible for identifying when

EVMS is applicable at the task order level in accordance with DFARS 252.234-

7002.

PRS #3: Is the Government’s intent for this performance objective to track small business led pass through work by large business primes?

No, the objective is to track how all prime contractors are utilizing small businesses in performance.

PRS #3: How is bid rate calculated? Total task orders released, task orders bid by the prime, or something else?

The bid rate will be calculated by task orders awarded to the prime contractor/led by small business subcontractors..

PRS #3: Prime contractors often have tasks orders performed as 100% pass through, but the prime remains accountable for schedule, deliverables, staffing, monthly reports and meetings, client satisfaction, WAWF invoicing, etc.

Under such contracts the small business partner is the primary performer, but does not lead the task as the prime always must maintain active management oversight. Will the Government define what a small business-led tasks equates to? Does a task on which the subcontractor performs at least 50% of the work qualify? PRS #3 will be revised.

How are IP rights considered?

Intellectual Property rights will be addressed at the Task Order level, as applicable.

L.9.4.2.2.1 Labor Rates.

For government site estimating purposes – which geographic location should be assumed?

Offerors should use their best judgement in developing ceiling rates to be applicable across the entire PoP for any resultant contract.

L.5.1 Format: Will the government allow 8.5x11 pages to be included (counting as two pages) for oversized tables such as staffing and management explanations? The recommendation is noted. The Government will consider revising.

M.3.1 Mission Support: The government appears to be trying to identify companies which can perform well managing

IDIQ’s with a focus on the Army’s specific IT mission. However, the evaluation factors as written will likely result in an award to the ten largest bidders, while many mid-tier offerors might offer better services and competition to the Army.

Can the government please provide guidance on how it intends to award to other than the ten largest bidders?

All offerors will be evaluated IAW the criteria/process delineated in Sections L

& M.

M.3.1.1.3 Quality Processes: The government has identified ISO 27001 as a preferred certification for this procurement.

ISO 20000, IT Management, is also a valuable certification for the scope of work covered by ITES-3S, but in different

PWS areas. Will the government amend to indicate that EITHER/OR ISO 27001 or ISO 20000 will be evaluated preferably? See response to questions #48 and #304

339 Will the government consider adding a Word document for the pricing volume? This would preclude embedding narratives in the Excel spreadsheet and will reduce file size.

It is at the offeror's discretion to include a basis of estimate with their proposal, however no constraints or assumptions that take exception to the

Final RFP will be accepted.

L.9.4.2.2.1 Labor Rates: Requires Offerors to provide Labor Rates: One for the Government site and one for the

Contractor site rates. Is this a single Team Composite Ceiling rate that applies to the Prime and all of their subcontractors? If so, is this Ceiling Rate applicable to T&M and FFP Task Orders only? Yes to both questions.

343 PWS Para 1.6.5: States individual task orders allowed under this agreement are Fixed Price (FP), Time and Materials

(T&M), and Cost Reimbursement(CR). Can the Government provide a percentage of Task Orders that will be FP, T&M, or CR?

Ordering is decentralized and the scope of the ITES-3S is broad in order to provide customers with a large variance in types of orders that may be acquired under the contract. Therefore, the Government cannot provide the percentage of task orders that will be FP, T&M, or CR.

The labor category descriptions in Appendix 2 include Senior, Intermediate, and Associate levels based on years of experience, education, and duties/responsibilities. FAR SubPart 39.104, Information Technology Services, states "When acquiring information technology services, solicitations must not describe any minimum experience or education requirements for proposed contractor personnel unless the contracting officer determines that the needs of the agency

(a) Cannot be met without that requirement; or (b) Require the use of other than perfomance-based acquisition (see

Subpart 37.60)". Accordingly, recommend labor category descriptions that only describe the functional duties/responsibilities of each labor category.

The ITES-3S is a contract vehicle that will facilitate solicitation of service contracts. The defined experience levels are required to provide the users the contract the necessary flexibility to apply they specific service to requirements to the contract.

Reference I-186 Required Insurance: As a small business pursuing this opportunity, the Aircraft and Vessel insurance required on page 37 is not insurance that we would typically have and is quite burdensome. Is it a requirement to have, in place, the insurance requirements cited on page 37 at contract award or are they only needed at the time that there is actual tasking that requires this type of insurance?

Per the referenced clause, "coverage required when contract performance involves use of aircraft." Also reference FAR Clause 52.228-5. The requirement would be applicable prior to award of a Task Order when performance involves use of aircraft (not at basic contract award).

PWS - 1.6.7: Paragraph states that the appropriate security clearance will be specified in each individual task order.

Can the Government provide the most common and highest level of clearances that will be required under ITES-3S?

Will a SCIF be required for work performed under any task order?

The services acquired on this contract apply to the full range of security domains, from Unclassified through Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented

Information (SCI). Ordering is decentralized and the scope of the ITES-3S is broad in order to provide customers with a large variance in types of orders that may be acquired under the contract. Therefore, the Government cannot provide the most common clearance that will be required. In addition, any requirement for a SCIF will be determined at the task order level.

L.9.1.1.2 “…includes any subcontractor that is considered integral and/or critical . . .” While we are capable of assigning an “integral” designation to a teammate, would the Government confirm it is looking for sufficient details of team construct, with all participants described and defined by business types?

Correct. Offerors should provide sufficient details of team construct (ref.

Section L)

I-168: States: “In no event shall the fee be greater than -3- percent or less than -4- percent of the target cost.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify this statement as it appears to be logically impossible. May we assume that the intent is for this statement to read, “In no event shall the fee be less than 3-percent or greater than 4-percent of the target cost.”?

Incorrect. In the DRFP, those numbers merely represent sequential fill-ins.

The fill-ins for sections H and I will be completed by the Government prior to release of the final RFP.

I-169: States: “The supplies or services identified in the Schedule as Items -1- are subject to price revision in accordance with this clause; provided, that in no event shall the total final price of these items exceed the ceiling price of -2- dollars

($-3-).”

Question: Can the Government please clarify whether the specified ceiling price is two dollars ($2) or three dollars

($3)? Incorrect. The fill-ins for sections H and I will be completed by the

Government prior to release of the final RFP.

I-176(b)(6): States: “To the extent able, . . .”

Question: Can the Government please clarify what is meant here? May we assume the intent is for this statement to read, “To the extent practicable, . . .”?

This language is pulled verbatim from the FAR. The assumption noted is a reasonable interpretation.

L-4.5: States: “Consecutive page numbering within each volume is required.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify if this statement calls for the page numbering in Volume II, for example, must start one number after the last page number in Volume I? Or, alternatively, does this statement require that each individual volume’s page numbering start with page “1” and paginate sequentially thereafter until its end? Each individual volume's page numbering shall start with page "1".

L-4.5: States: “Paragraphs shall be numbered and titled.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify whether this statement calls for every single individual paragraph in the proposal must be numbered and titled? Major sections shall be titled. Multiple paragraphs under one title is acceptable. All paragraphs shall be numbered.

L-5.1: States: “The submission shall be clearly indexed”

Question: Can the Government please clarify what is meant in this statement by “indexed”? Also, please clarify what is meant here by “clearly.” Major sections shall be titled. Titled sections shall be referenced in the table of contents.

L.5.2.5: States: “Tables and illustrations shall be labeled or titled, and referenced.”

Question: Can the Government please verify what is meant by “referenced” in this statement? The offeror should ensure that all references to tables in the narrative are accurate.

L-11(b): States: “The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in attachment -1-, Mission Essential Contractor Services, dated -2-, during periods of crisis.”

Question: Can the Government please provide instructions as to where in the proposal this plan is to be included? The fill-ins for sections H and I will be filled-in by the Government prior to release of the final RFP.

Section L.9.1.2

a. What is the minimum number of PWS task areas that need to be covered by the corporate experience?

b. If there is a minimum number, will there be a weighting factor for each PWS task area?c. How do the Services

Portfolio Groups (SPGs) listed in Section 2.2 of the PWS relate to the corporate experience?

d. Do these corporate experiences have to match the Past Performance experiences from Section L.9.2?

e. Will DoD corporate experiences receive preferential scoring?

a. There is no minimum, however diversity is favorable.

C. The Offeror shall describe its company's ability and experience in performing the task areas identified in Section 2.2 of the

ITES-3S PWS. Task areas and portfolio groups are synonymous.

D. See the response to question #59

E. As stated in section M.3.1.2.4, Federal Government Experience will be evaluated as a part of corporate experience. Scoring (i.e. evaluations) will be

IAW Sections L&M, based upon relevancy to the ITES-3S requirement.

Section M.3.1.2.2 – “Offerors that are able to demonstrate a diversity of experience, including all task areas, may be viewed more favorably.” Please provide a weighting factor for the task areas to remove any perceived ambiguity in the above statement in quotes.