Q&A_Draft_Solicitation.docx

Detroit Arsenal IT Service Requirement: Question and Answer

1. In section “C.1.12 Phase-in Period: Job shadowing – The contractor shall provide personnel for the first 16 positions to job shadow the current contractor, these positions are deemed critical.” What are these 16 positions?

This is an error. There will be no phase-in period for this contract. All language pertaining to phase-in has been removed from the final solicitation.

2. Regarding Appendix F (Enterprise Architecture), I cannot find this Annex C anywhere. Can you please help? This is important since this has “brief summary for technologies or products that the TACOM LCMC CIIB has approved for use by this Command”

Appendix F has been removed from the final solicitation package.

3. Draft RFP states the agreement as a set aside for small business, originally it was set aside for 8(a). Can you please clarify?

This requirement is set aside for 8(a) small businesses only.

4. If this a pre-existing agreement that is up for renewal? If it is a pre-existing, can we please know who the incumbent is?

This answer relates to previous actions rather than the current Draft RFP and an answer will not be provided.

5. The restriction for the past performance, to be “prime” only experience, by the “Offeror/Prime,” is very restrictive, especially for a small firm. Can you please consider “Offeror/Prime’s” relevant sub-contracting experiences also as acceptable past performance?

No. The Government cannot adequately evaluate a sub-contractor’s performance under a prime contract, as all ratings and reviews would reflect on the prime and not the sub.

6. Also for some small business Offerors, past performances can come from SBA approved, mentor-protégé JV’s, where Offeror is managing partner. Would you please consider that also as acceptable past performances?

No, at this time the Government cannot look at another companies past performance based on a managing partnership. The mentor-protégé agreement will be evaluated but not the contracts between the mentor and contractor.

7. Our company holds a DoE Q Clearance. A Q level investigation is the DoE version of an SSBI. Would this fulfil the RFP requirement if we provide verification of our Q clearance status?

No. Clearance requirements have to meet DoD standards.

8. In Section L.2.1 Proposal Content, we are not seeing any reference to “Technical & Management Approach” per section M.1.1.1, Evaluation criteria is based on, a. Past Performance Factor b. Price Factor. Per Section M.1.1, “The Government intends to award a single Labor Hour Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government as described below.” I was wondering how the “best value” can be assessed without knowing the “Technical/Management Approach” from the Offeror? I see a heavy dependence on past performance for assessment of “best value” which might unjustly bias the decision making toward the ‘incumbent’ or a small business JV in which ‘incumbent’ may be part of.

Best value will be determined considering the factors of Past Performance and Price consistent with section M of the RFP.

9. Section L.4.1.1, sub-section (vi) says: “Relevant Past Performance will consider the extent to which the submitted contract efforts are comparable in scope and magnitude of effort and complexity to the following statement of work requirements: I.T. task/services consisting of server support and application/program on-site support for U.S Department of Defense facilities involving management of at least 50 or more full-time personnel (or man-year equivalent) spanning a period of performance of a minimum of 1 year.” The above statement is severely restrictive when it says relevant experience can only be related US Department of Defense (DoD). For example, we have similar experiences at US Govt. civilian agencies. Can you please remove this restriction of past performance on DoD related experience only?

No.

10. One of the features of a mentor-protégé JV is that the JV can use, mentors past performance as a valid and relevant past performance. This is an SBA mandated rule and is part of the mentoring process. The JV itself has won a number of projects as well. Can you please confirm that if we choose to bid for this contract under the mentor-protégé can we use the mentor’s past performance as relevant past performance? We will be using the mentor’s projects where we are sub-contractor to the mentor as well.

No, we cannot adequately judge past performance of a mentored company by looking at the history of the mentoring company. The Government will evaluate the agreement between the protégé and mentor and not the contracts between the mentor and contractor.

11. Is this a follow-on effort? Is there an incumbent contractor and contract number?

This answer relates to previous actions rather than the current Draft RFP and an answer will not be provided.

12. Does this contract support any legacy systems that are being retired as a result of LMP implementation?

There is one legacy system being replaced by LMP which will be covered by a quarter of a contract work year.

13. In section L.4.1.1, “a total of up to two (2) recent and relevant contracts”, can be used as past performances, but, in section L.4.1.2, it says, “up to three recent and relevant contracts submitted under L.4.1.1.” Are two or three relevant contracts required?

Two relevant/recent contracts are required when responding to the solicitation. The paragraph has been updated to reflect this change.

14. In section C.1.4.8 security clearance; it states that permanent resident aliens can be granted a waiver by the 7th signal command. What is the process of applying for a waiver? A majority of our IT employees are not U.S. Citizens; they are permanent residents or H1B visa holders. We would like to start the process of applying for the waiver.

No, contractor and contractor employees must be U.S. citizens. The scope has been revised to spell out this requirement.

15. We discussed internally and also with our teaming partners. We don’t think we have ever seen a proposal that only requires past performance and price as the only evaluation factors and also is “best value”. In our humble opinion, this creates a deeply favored situation to a particular 8(a) firm. While the evaluation threshold appears light, we think, it makes it extremely difficult for competition, since measuring past performance is highly subjective, [and very restrictive, also (to DoD alone)], in this case, by the SSB and the only other factor is price thereby limiting a vendor to scoring well on other factors (i.e. technical, management, etc.) to make up the difference in the total evaluation score. (But, ironically, please note that Technical and Management Approach is not even asked in this case!). Can you please comment on how a level playing field is created for all bidders in this case, since this solicitation has so many “restrictive and narrow” conditions, as explained above?”

The RFP is in compliance with law and regulation.

16. Can you please expand the considerations of past performances to include “US Federal Civilian, US state governments and US local governments and foreign” related past experiences as well? (The insistence of US DoD is very restrictive).

Section L.4.1.1(a)(vi) states “a single Government or private industry contract.”

17. Confirm that no Technical Approach for writing is required? Seems as though only Past Performance details are required along with pricing.

No technical approach for writing is required. Only past performance and price will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the RFP.

18. Will work be issued under task orders?

Yes

19. Section G3. Contractor’s Contract Manager Section (See Section C, Key Personnel). This section C does not specify any Key Personnel. Can you elaborate on who you consider Key Personnel other than what was described in Attachment 0003-Definitions & Acronyms?

The key personnel referenced in section C.1.4.4 can only be identified by the contractor. The PWS clearly states that the contractor will identify the key personnel they assign (hired) to be responsible for performing the task order requirements. The positions will only be known when the task orders are created.

20. On Attachment 001 pricing the Information Security Specialist (Intermediate) is listed twice. Should the 2nd one be (Associate)?

Yes, it should be Associate. Attachment 0001 has been updated to show this change.

21. Is there an SCA associated with this work? If so please provide.

It’s unclear what SCA is being referred to and therefore this question cannot be answered at this time.

22. Please confirm location of work by position, for pricing purposes.

See Attachment 0008 in the solicitation.

23. 6.3.4.1 states the contractor’s markup must include cost associated with vacations and holidays. Can you please provide the adjusted start dates of the incumbents so we will know how much vacation to accrue?

The anticipated contract start date will be 29 Sep 2017. Under this contract the contractor cannot bill for hours not worked including vacations and holidays.

24. Can you please provide a cross reference by position identifying security and training certificates required?

There are no security or training certificates required on the base contract. The security/training requirements will be identified in the task orders placed under this base contract. The security/training requirements will vary between task orders as they will be based on the organization’s security/training policy in place at that time. For the clarity of potential contractors, the scope has been revised to include baseline and CE certifications that are required for the various job descriptions

25. Will a DOE Q level facilities clearance fulfil your security requirement?

No. A DoD level facilities clearance is required.

26. Will the AMC please confirm as mentioned in section C.1.4.6.2 facility clearance; you will sponsor the DD254 for non-cleared facilities? The current facility clearance process is between 12-18 months. Could you please clarify what arrangement you will make to help us get our clearance quicker from the Defense Security Service?

Section C 1.4.6.2 will be updated. At this time, there is no sponsoring or assisting non-cleared companies to get a clearance after award. Companies must have a facility clearance before time of award.

27. The table in Section L.2.1.1 lists Quantity 1 for each volume, but Section L.2.2.1 requires "three identical sets of CD-ROMs or DVDs for each volume. Could you please clarify whether you require one CD copy or three copies of each volume?

The Government only requires one CD copy of the volumes. Both Section L.2.1.1 and L.2.2.1 have been updated to provide the same information.

28. Should subsection “C.4.2 IT Consulting” and the subsequent tasks after that be numbered C.5 through C.8 rather than C.4.2 - C.4.5? It looks as though these are separate services from Contingency Planning (C.4), and most have additional sub-services listed under them.

Yes, the sections have been re-numbered.

29. Section L.2.2.1.1 states that: "The table of contents shall include the following information for each Factor, attachment, and for all substantiating data listed:

(a) Cross-reference to related section L paragraph number

(b) Page number

(c) CD-ROM or DVD Volume and number

(d) File name"

Is this Table of Contents to be an external table of contents on one of the CDs/DVDs, in addition to the ones inside each of the volumes?

A master Table of Contents is requested for each Volume CD/DVD.

30. Do you require a completed Section K Representations and Certifications for those companies registered in SAM, or may contractors with a current SAM registration fill out only section (b) as stated in the Representations and Certifications section itself?

If the contractor is current in SAM, only Section B of the Section K Reps and Certs may be completed as long as all information is accurate and up-to-date.

31. The Government has indicated that Contractors are required to have valid security clearances on Day 1. Then it is restated that if it is not possible to obtain the required security clearances prior to the beginning of the Base Contract Period, interim clearances may be issued. Please change the wording to indicate that Interim Clearances are suitable on Day 1 of the contract while required clearances are being processed. There is quite a time-lapse between requesting security clearances and actually receiving them and that is not under the control of contractors.

The comment has been noted.

32. CLIN 1002, Year 1-IT Services has ESTIMATED QUANTITY 1 and UNIT Job. However, the CLIN type is LH (Labor Hour). If this is to be a Labor Hour contract in which the Government only pays for the number of hours worked, will this CLIN be issued as a Not to Exceed for hours, dollars, or both? This same question will apply to each of the 5 years CLINS x002.

The base contract will have a maximum dollar value and each Task Order will have a breakdown of the maximum hours and labor categories necessary for the ordering year. Each individual CLIN will list a labor category and the hours associated with the position.

33. CLINS x002-Year x IT Services all refer to contract Performance Work Statement and the Task Order specific Performance Work Statements, however the Draft RFP has a Scope of Work (SOW) in Section C, starting on page 14 of 125, not a Performance Work Statement (PWS). Will the Government be providing a draft PWS at the contract level?

No, this contract will only utilize a Scope of Work. The extended description within the CLINs has been updated.

34. CLIN 1003, Year 1-Travel is listed as COST type and the Attachment 0001 - Pricing file has a TRAVEL tab with a plug value of $25,000.00 as the Estimate for all 5 years. Will this be split among CLINS as $5,000.00 per year?

The $25,000 is merely an estimate for the entire five year period to obtain a total price for evaluation purposes. The requirement may require $5K of travel per year, but it’s not a certainty. All travel will be performed on an as-needed basis. The funding and specifications of the trip will be provided at that time.

35. Year 4-Travel is listed as FFP, but the narrative says COST reimbursable.

All travel will be completed on COST CLINs. Any reference to FFP has been removed from the solicitation.

36. Section B 6.3 addresses overtime as it relates to SCA positions. However, the Government has not provided the relevant Wage Determination (WD) which will dictate how overtime must be paid. Please provide the relevant WD or amend the language in B6.3 to require the contractor to pay authorized overtime IAW the relevant WD.

SCA positions and Overtime are exempt from Wage Determination requirements.

37. Paragraph numbering skips from C.1.4.5.1 to C.1.4.8. Should there be paragraphs C1.4.6 and C.1.4.7?

Yes, the final solicitation has been corrected.

38. Paragraph C.3.2 is labeled DATA BASE ADMINISTRATION (DBA) and paragraph C3.4 is labeled SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION (SA) SUPPORT. However, C3.3 has no label and merely states "The Contractor shall conduct technical evaluations of applications and report findings." Does the Government foresee the requirements under C.3.3 being done by the DBA or some other labor category? There are a myriad of requirements in C.3.3 that could require multiple labor categories. This section might be more applicable in C.3.5 APPLICATIONS SUPPORT.

The information included from Section 3.3 through 3.3.5 has been moved to Section 3.4 Application Support. The RFP has been renumbered to accommodate this change.

39. Paragraphs C.3.3.5, C.3.4.12, and C.3.5.8 mention a “Service Provider.” Please clarify who the "Service Provider" is. Should this say contractor rather than service provider?

The solicitation has been updated to change the term Service Provider to Contractor.

40. Paragraph C.4.2.2 lists the type of experience the Senior IT Consultant shall have. However, the Attachment 0001 does not list Sr. IT Consultant as a labor category and there is no Sr. IT Consultant listed in Attachment 004 IT Labor Category Descriptions. Does the Government intend the Principal Industry/Functional Area Expert to be used for the Senior IT Consulting requirement?

Section C 4.2.2 has been updated to ‘IT Consulting’ so it doesn’t relate to a specific job category.

41. This section discusses requirements to develop and maintain technical documentation as well as conduct editorial reviews. The Attachment 0001 and 0004 describe a labor category Technical Editor. Is it the Government's intent that the Technical Editor be the Technical Writer referenced in C.4.3?

Yes, this is correct.

42. Paragraph G7 states "The Task Order process is described in detail in Section H." However, Section H only lists special contract requirements such as QCP and Security. There is nothing about the TO Process.

That is correct, the language has been added to Section H of the RFP.

43. L2.1.1 indicates there will be three volumes: Volume 1-Past Performance, Volume 2-Price, and Volume 3-Proposal Terms and Conditions. Does that mean the Government will not be requesting Technical, Management, or Staffing Volumes?

Yes, that is correct.

44. What is the process for submitting potential OCI to the Government prior to the proposal submission? Will there be a required format for submission of potential OCI?

Please refer to Section L.2.5 for details pertaining to Organizational Conflict of Interest.

45. Does the Government anticipate providing page limitations for each past performance contract reference?

There will be no page limitations.

46. This section references the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) as Attachment 0005 but the PPQ itself shows it as being Attachment 0006. Can the Government please clarify which is the correct number?

The Past Performance Questionnaire is Attachment 0005.

47. M.1.1.1 indicates there will be only two evaluation factors: Past Performance and Price. Since the Government is not requiring a Technical, Management, or Staffing Volume, how will the Government determine an offeror's ability to meet all the requirements of the SOW?

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to meet the SOW requirements based on their past performance with recent and relevant DoD contracts.

48. M.2.1 lists several examples for rejection of a proposal. M.2.1.b and M.2.1.c do not seem relevant to the Draft RFP which requires only a Past Performance Factor and Price Factor. Will this be modified to include specific examples of rejection relating to Past Performance versus a Technical volume?

The list provided in Section M.2.1. is merely an example of rejections. The list has been modified to relate more closely to this solicitation.

49. M.4 states "The relative order of importance of these two factors is as follows: Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price Factor." Since there is only one other evaluation criteria (Past Performance), how will the Government combine non-Price factors?

Past Performance is the only non-price factor. This language is required by statute.

50. The Government has indicated this will be a Labor Hour contract for IT Services under CLIN x002 in each year of performance and states "The applicable labor rates specified in Attachment 1 labor rates shall be used to price individual Task Orders. Each Task Order will specify the labor category(s), service location and the Period of Performance." However, Attachment 0001 - Pricing Tabs for Ordering Period x (1-5) indicate a fixed number of labor categories and FTEs (totaling 113) for each year of the contract. Are the quantities of FTEs for each labor categories to be considered as Not to Exceed limits? Are the labor categories themselves to be considered as exhaustive with no option to add additional labor categories for other future task orders?

The labor categories and corresponding hours provided in Attachment 0001 are based on the Government’s estimates over the next five years. This labor mix is for proposal purposes only. Actual required labor categories and hours could vary as mission requirements change. The labor categories are exhaustive.

51. Is the total value of the contract given in the Past Performance Contract Information required to be of a similar value or magnitude to the Vendor bid in the Pricing Volume?

The total value of the contractor’s proposal needs to be consistent with the pricing volume included with the proposal. The contract(s) used for Past Performance evaluation are not required to be of equal dollar value to this requirement but must be similar in scope and complexity.

52. Will the Government please specify a ROM Budget value of the Contract so that Vendors can select the most suitable Past Performance?

The Government will not provide the budget value of the contract.

53. Section L.4.1.2 refers to “scope of work activity listed in L.4.1.1 (a) above,” but there is no section L.4.1.1 (a), given. Is the Draft RFP numbered incorrectly, or has some information been left out, inadvertently, of Section L.4.1.2?

Section L.4.1.2. states “for each of the up to two recent and relevant contracts submitted under L.4.1.1 above.” This is referring to sections i-vi that fall underneath L.4.1.1.

54. Is the Prime Vendor meant/required to address all 13 IT services given in the Sources Sought IT Services file/document within their past performance contracts (either 2 or 3)?

The contractor will only need to provide answers to the information required in the RFP.

55. Is the vendor meant/required to include technical information and/or project management information somewhere in Volume II? Or are these narratives/information not required from the vendor?

The Government will be evaluating Past Performance and Price only.

56. Page 116, Section L.6.1.4 Facility Clearance states Secret FCL. Is Secret the highest level of security anticipated for this effort? Will there be any requirement to hold or store classified information at contractor facility?

Secret is the highest level of security for this effort. At this time, there is no requirement to hold or store classified information at a contractor facility, however the contractor may generate classified information or have access to it. This form provides security information to the contractor so it’s clear how to proceed and protect any information used or developed during contract performance.

57. Please clarify whether the comparison is to the Government-Furnished scope or the work requirements list posed in the last paragraph of L.4.1.1. If the latter, is there a requirement for individual scope line item responses?

The comparison needs to be with the work requirements listed in Section L.4.1.1. There is no requirement for individual line items, however it’s not discouraged.

58. Please describe what might constitute substantiating data, e.g. Contract Monthly Reports, Manning Reports.

Please see Section M.4.2.1.2.

59. Please confirm that the presentation of capability, technical competence and Comprehension of the complexity of the work must be presented in the Submitted Past Performance. Would the Government consider a template to that effect?

The Government is not providing a template.

60. In accordance with DSS, the DD254 must reflect the highest level of facility clearance required for the contractor to perform on the contract. According to Section A, Executive Summary 5, some positions may require TOP SECRET. Should the DD254 reflect top secret?

The highest level required for the DD254 Security Clearance is Secret.

61. Section A.9 Notice indicates that technical is required, however in section L & M there is no requirement for technical. Was the technical requirement accidently omitted from sections L & M?

Technical is not one of the evaluation factors. Any reference to technical has been removed from Section A.9.

62. Please clarify what needs to be submitted for Section L.6.1.5.

This section has been removed from the solicitation.

63. Can the Government please provide a historical breakdown of travel for the last year?

The Government will not provide a historical breakdown of travel for the last year. Please refer to the plug number supplied in Attachment 0001 – Pricing Worksheet for evaluation purposes.

64. In order to accurately provide pricing for both Off-hour Support and Critical System Support, contracts will need additional information. Can the Government please identify critical systems, system location, and historical off-hour support requirements?

Whether a system is critical or not it still requires support if required in a task order. The possible locations are already mentioned in the RFP. Historical off hour support is minimal so an estimated plug number will be provided in the RFP.

65. Section C Appendix F references the IT Portfolio, however, there are not quantitative descriptions of the enterprise provided. Could the Government please provide a detailed enterprise architecture description and system characterization (i.e. Comms Plan, Network Architecture, etc.)

This information will not be included in the RFP, it will be further detailed in the individual task orders.

66. What GFE is expected to be associated with this effort?

The Government will be supplying all hardware and software necessary to complete the mission. Please see GFE listed in Attachment 0007.

67. Can we assume that all Contractor employees will be on-site for this effort?

Correct, all locations are specified in Attachment 0008.

68. If a company is 8(a) and also one or more additional qualifiers (HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Women Owned, etc.), are they disqualified from submitting a response to this effort?

No, if the company is an approved 8(a), it will not be disqualified if it also qualifies as a HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Woman Owned, etc.

69. Are the FTE numbers listed for each labor category accurate as to what is currently on contract or are they the desired counts for the forthcoming solicitation?

The numbers listed are an estimate of the most likely quantity of FTEs and is for proposal purposes only. The actual labor mix could vary.