A.07.24-Amendment_0002_dated_17APR2017-W5J9CQ-16-R-0008.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 16

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Apr-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W5J9CQ-16-R-0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Mar-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Apr-2017

CODE

W6RN USA GEOSPATIAL CTR

CONTRACTING DIVISION

7701 TELEGRAPH RD BLDG 2592

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3864

W5J9CQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W5J9CQ-16-R-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

a. The purpose of this amendment is to answer questions from industry that were posed to the Government:

1) Question – The RFP states, "The proposed PMIII shall have experience in contract project management on programs having an average annual aggregate revenue of greater than $40M providing the type of services similar in size and complexity to those detailed in the section C of the solicitation." There are many highly qualified PMIII candidates that will be eliminated from consideration at a $40M average annual management threshold. Would the Government consider lowering the threshold to $10M so these candidates can be considered?

Answer – The PMIII experience will be revised to require experience in contract management on programs having an average annual aggregate revenue of greater than $10M.

2) Question – Reference Solicitation, Page 105 of 112, paragraph 3.1.4, statement “Only the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the SF 33 submitted in Volume VI will be evaluated”. We have assembled a highly qualified team of both large and small business that have exceptional and applicable past performance that will be used on future task orders under this IDIQ. Will the Government reconsider and allow the use of teammate past performance where applicable?

Answer – The Government will only consider the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the SF 33.

3) Question – Reference Solicitation, Page 1 of 112, Section 9, Due date of 2pm 24 April 2017. A change has occurred between the draft solicitation and the final version that has shifted the nature of the response from a “technical response” to one that is “past performance-based”. This change will result in the requirement to engage our past performance referenced clients to respond to requests for information in timeframes that they cannot meet.

The nature and security classification of the work that will be referenced requires a minimum of 30 – 45 days.

Therefore we are requesting an extension of 30 days to 24 May 2017 to accommodate our clients’ schedules and the requirements they have to produce for a response to the technical provisions (TPs) in our requests.

Answer – The proposal submission date shall be extended to May 9, 2017 at 2PM EST.

4) Question – Reference Attachment A, SOO for Sample Task Order (STO). Will the Sample Task Order be awarded as currently written as a task under this IDIQ?

Answer – The Sample Task Order is a hypothetical task consistent with the RFP requirements. The Sample Task Order will not be awarded; however, offerors shall submit their technical and price proposal as if the Sample Task Order would be awarded.

5) Reference Section C - Descriptions and Specifications 1.5.2 and Section F - Deliveries or Performance, F.2, Pages 21 & 45. The RFP requests the offeror to propose both Government and Contractor site labor rates against all labor categories and descriptions specified by the Government in Attachment F. However, the place of performance that should be assumed for the development of the IDIQ labor rates is not specified. Both Section C and Section F just state that "the work shall take place primarily in U.S. Government facilities, or at other locations identified in the individual task order." Can the Government provide the location that should be assumed for labor rate development?

Answer – The location that should be assumed for labor rate development on a Government site is Alexandria, VA.

6) Question – In Section H.5, DFARS clause 252.245-7007 is listed. Was this supposed to be a different DFARS clause as we cannot locate this exact clause in the DFARS?

Answer – This reference will be deleted from Section H.5 of the RFP.

7) Question – Section L, 3.1.3.1 requests PPQs only if PPIRS input is not available. PPIRS data are held at the Contract level. If a Task Order covered by a IDIQ is cited as a project in response to a Technical Provision, is the IDIQ level PPIRS data sufficient for the TO or is a PPQ required?

Answer – Offerors shall submit single task order projects as individual examples to demonstrate experience, not the IDIQ contract. The offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim, annual, or final, found in PPIRS. If a completed contractor performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS, the offeror shall provide a completed NAVFAC/USACE PPQ (Attachment B). If there is no data in PPIRS for a task order, then a PPQ shall be submitted for that task order.

8) Question – For contracts without entries into PPIRS, is an Attachment B PPQ required for each Task Order used as a project in the Tech/PP Volume or would a single PPQ cover all Task Orders/projects performed under an IDIQ?

Answer – If there is no performance evaluation for a task order in PPIRS, a NAVFAC/USACE PPQ (Attachment B) is required for that task order.

9) Question – The Sample Task Order Statement of Objectives mentions deploy (Section 1.0) and testing (Section 3.2). There is no mention of manned or unmanned aircraft modification, integration, or aircraft operations or maintenance in the SOO. Additionally, there are no LCATs to support such efforts. Is it to be assumed that aircraft integration and operations will be supplied as GFE?

Answer – There will be no GFE supplied with regards to specifics for how the STO requirement will be met. The Government’s intent is for offerors to propose their unique solution to the Government’s objectives. Offerors solutions should include whatever strategies, operations and additional LCATs necessary to meet the requirements provided in an offeror’s PWS.

10) Question – In Tech/Past Performance, would the Government consider two task orders that were awarded separately but logically appear as follow-ons to be counted as base and option years?

Answer – No, each single task order shall be submitted as an individual example.

11) Question – Section L-2.2-a states “1) A cover page that includes the volume number, solicitation number, firm name and address, business size, CAGE code, names and CAGE codes of all key subcontractors and a point of contact for all correspondence related to the proposal (include phone number and email address) “. The term key subcontractor is not defined or used elsewhere in the solicitation. Would the government please define “key subcontractor”?

Answer – The reference to “key subcontractor” will be deleted from the RFP.

12) Question – In Volume IV Factor 4 – Small Business Participation, is the small business percentage calculated on total contract value or only the labor portion of the value?

Answer – For the purposes of developing the Small Business Participation Plan, offerors shall use the total contract value of $200M.

13) Question – The sample task order spans two contract years. How should the differing rates be portrayed on the Attachment H spreadsheet?

Answer – Offerors shall assume that the base period of the Sample Task Order will begin on September 1, 2017 and end on August 31, 2018. Offerors shall assume that the option year for the Sample Task Order will begin on September 1, 2018 and end on August 31, 2019. Offerors shall use their proposed base period labor rates in Attachment G for the base period of the Sample Task Order, and Offerors shall propose option year 1 labor rates in Attachment G for the option year of the Sample Task Order. For the Sample Task Order, offerors may also propose additional labor categories outside of Attachment G if they are necessary for their proposed technical approach. For any additional labor categories used to satisfy the Sample Task Order, offerors shall provide the labor descriptions, experience level, degree level, and any other pertinent information so that the evaluators can determine the proposed labor category and rate fair and reasonable.

14) Question – In Attachment H, what is the definition of a high risk ODC?

Answer – High Risk ODC will be deleted from the RFP.

15) Question – For the Volume V Factor 5 – Cost/Price, in section 7.1 Tab A, the solicitation states that offerors are required to bid “CPFF ceiling unburdened hourly rates” as well as a “Ceiling Indirect Rate” table. It is a standard business practice to calculate indirect rates each year based on actual indirect costs incurred. Would the government consider holding offerors to a CPFF ceiling burdened hourly rate to effectively manage costs?

Answer – The Government will hold any offeror who is awarded a contract under this MATOC to their CPFF ceiling unburdened hourly rate for use on future task orders. Contract holders would be able to propose their most current indirect rates at the time of each task order award.

16) Question – For the Volume V Factor 5 – Cost/Price, in 7.2 TAB B, the solicitation states that offerors must include labor rates for prime and each subcontractor. It is our understanding that we are to submit a prime rate table as well as separate rate table for each subcontractor. Can the submitted subcontractor rates on TOs exceed the prime ceiling rates?

Answer – Offerors shall submit labor rates for the prime contractor only. Labor rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors. The RFP will be amended accordingly. For FFP labor rates, fully loaded labor rates shall be submitted in the format at Attachment G. For CPFF labor rates, offerors shall submit their unloaded labor rates and the applicable indirect rates in accordance with their approved accounting system. Offerors shall submit their CPFF labor rates in the format at Attachment G.

17) Question – RFP Section L.2.4 indicates “Headers and footers may be increased to 14 or reduced to 10 font size.”

Is it permissible to include a corporate logo graphic in headers or footers?

Answer – Offerors shall comply with the proposal submission instructions in Section L of the RFP.

18) Question – In Section L-3.1.3.1 and L-3.1.3.2, the Government requests PPIRS evaluations. Does the Government consider CPARS evaluations equivalent to PPIRS, thus allowing for the submission of CPARS evaluations?

Answer – PPIRS includes CPARS evaluations. The offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim, annual, or final, found in PPIRS. If a completed contractor performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS, the offeror shall provide a completed NAVFAC/USACE PPQ (Attachment B).

19) Question – The Final GRIDS III RFP represents a significant shift from the Draft RFP, both in terms of proposal structure and in terms of Offerors’ response strategy. We built our team to demonstrate overlapping coverage of every TP area, both from a Prime and a Partner perspective. Furthermore, the GRIDS and GRIDS II programs have historically featured an equal mix of prime and subcontractor support, and therefore Offerors for GRIDS III should be evaluated both on their technical capability as well as the strength of the team they have assembled. Given these two factors, will the government consider amending the Technical and Past Performance Volume to allow both Offeror and Partner project citations?

Answer – The Government will only consider the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the SF 33. See RFP Section L 3.2 for Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV).

20) Question – Volume I, Page 94, Section 3.3 Key Personnel and Other Corporate Entities states “Company efforts/past performance information demonstrated by another corporate entity other than the offering entity signed on the SF 33 will not be considered in the evaluation. Under this factor, key personnel and other corporate past performance is prohibited.” This language appears to be in conflict with Section 3.2.2 which states: “The JV offeror must first satisfy the requirement by providing those “recent”, “relevant” projects that it has performed as the JV.

When the offeror cannot provide a “recent”, “relevant” project performed as the JV, then one member of the JV must provide a “recent”, “relevant” project performed by the JV member in its individual capacity that reflects its ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by paragraph 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.” Will the Government please confirm that offerors, including JVs, are permitted to include the past performance of JV member companies as well as subcontractors/teammates?

Answer – Only the past performance information of the prime contractor named on the SF 33 submitted in Volume VI, will be evaluated.

For offerors submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture (JV), the JV shall obtain a DUNS number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Under Factor 1, the JV offeror must first satisfy the requirement by providing those “recent”, “relevant” projects that it has performed as the proposing Joint Venture. When the offeror cannot provide a “recent”, “relevant” project performed as the JV, then one member of the JV must provide a “recent”, “relevant” project performed by the JV member in its individual capacity that reflects its ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by paragraph 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of Section L.

Past performance experience of subcontractors or teammates is not required and will not be evaluated.

21) Question – Section L 4.0, Volume II, Factor 2, Page 94, The first sentence states that “The Offer is to provide a Performance Work Statement which describes its technical approach in response to the CPFF Sample Task Order requirements as described in Attachment A.” Is the PWS a separate section of Volume II, different from the content requested in 4.1 Tab A and 4.2 Tab B? Alternatively, is the PWS in Volume II only comprised of the proposal responses to 4.1 Tab A and 4.2 Tab B?

Answer – The PWS shall be submitted as a part of Tab A. Offerors shall address all information described in Tab A.

22) Question – Volume III, Organization/Management, Section C – 1.7.3 Quality Assurance states: “The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance under this contract in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The QASP is the method the Government will use to measure Contractor performance in accordance with the performance standards. It defines how the performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the minimum acceptable defect rate(s).” Are offerors to assume that the QASP provided in the Draft RFP as Exhibit 1 is still valid? If not, will an updated QASP be provided with Amendment 1?

Answer – The QASP provided in the Draft RFP as Exhibit 1 is not valid. The approved QASP will be provided to offerors that receive a contract award.

23) Question – Volume V, Section B, CLINS 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, The CPFF CLINs in Section B state “In accordance with FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(C), the fixed fee shall not exceed 10%.” However, FAR 15.404- 4(c)(4)(i)(a) prescribes that the fee limitation for R&D contracts shall not exceed 15%. Will the Government please consider modifying these statements in Section B of the RFP to be consistent with the maximum fee permissible for R&D contracts? FAR 15.404-4 Profit-(4)(i) The contracting officer shall not negotiate a price or fee that exceeds the following statutory limitations, imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2306(d) and 41 U.S.C. 3905: (A) For experimental, developmental, or research work performed under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, the fee shall not exceed 15 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee. (C) For other cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

Answer – Section B will be amended.

24) Question – Concerning the GRIDS III Final RFP W5J9CQ-16-R-0008, would the Government please confirm that in accordance with FAR 5.203(e), this solicitation is categorized as research and development (R&D) and is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold?

Answer – This solicitation is categorized as R&D and is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

The proposal submission date shall be extended to May 9, 2017 at 2PM EST.

25) Question – Attachment A; SOO for Sample Task, Is it the intent of the Government to award the sample task order at the same time as the GRIDS III IDIQ?

Answer – The Sample Task Order is a hypothetical task consistent with the RFP requirements. The Sample Task Order will not be awarded; however, Offerors shall submit their technical and price proposal as if the Sample Task Order would be awarded.

26) Question – Attachment A; SOO for Sample Task, Does the sample task require a deliverable of a sensor (either new or modification of an existing sensor that meets stated mission parameters)? Would the Government please clarify if the sensor in the Sample Task Order is existing, or whether the Offeror is to select a sensor for use in its solution?

Answer – The Government’s intent is for offerors to propose their unique solution to the Government’s objectives.

Offerors solutions should include whatever strategies, operations and additional LCATs necessary to meet the requirements provided in an offeror’s PWS.

27) Question – Attachment A; SOO for Sample Task, Is there an established funding ceiling for the sample task order? If, so will the Government state the funding amount to assist in developing a response?

Answer – There is no established funding ceiling for the Sample Task Order.

28) Question – RFP Section M, paragraph 3.1, Can the Government provide clarification regarding the criteria the Source Selection Board will use to determine down-select of the gate-keeper Volume I? We understand the three step processes for evaluation but it is unclear the exact method that will be used for determining how many companies will be selected and how this determination will be made.

Answer – See Section M of the RFP. Factor 1 – Technical Experience/Past Performance of the Prime Contractor will serve as a “Gatekeeper” for the purpose of providing an initial down-selection of offerors. Only proposals most highly rated in Factor 1 will be reviewed under the remaining technical factors and be included in the technical-cost/price trade-off analysis for award. Offerors whose proposals will not receive further consideration will be notified as soon as practicable after evaluation of Factor 1.

29) Question – Section L; paragraph 2.3, Page Limitation (proposal elements excluded from page count), Request the Government add Executive Summary to the list of proposal elements that is excluded from the page count for Volume I.

Answer – The Executive Summary is included in the page count for Volume I.

30) Question – RFP Section M, paragraph 3.1, Will all gate-keeper Volume I compliant companies be included in the down-select?

Answer – Only proposals most highly rated in Factor 1 will be reviewed under the remaining technical factors and be included in the technical-cost/price trade-off analysis for award.

31) Question – A.07-23-Attachment_A_SOO_for_CPFF_STO-W5J9CQ-16-R-0008, Section 5.1.1, STO 5.1.1 - What are the required Hardware/Software deliverables from the performance objectives. E.g. Lidar Sensor, Processing software (number of licenses). What are the required data products to be delivered in response to the performance objectives in the sample task order? E.g. LAS 2.0 point clouds for the LIDAR data.

Answer – The Government’s intent is for offerors to propose their unique solutions to the Government’s objectives.

Offerors solution should include whatever strategies, solutions, and required deliverables to meet the requirements provided in an offeror’s PWS.

32) Question – RFP, Section M.3.4, paragraph states "The Government will not evaluate corporate experience of any corporate entity by reference to the experience of its … various divisions." A corporate division is variably defined as a portion of a corporation organized along a product line, a portion of a corporation organized with respect to financial aggregation and reporting, or a portion of a corporation set up prior to the legal formation of subsidiaries. Please describe the Government's intent.

Answer – Only the past performance information of the prime contractor, as named on the SF 33, identified by the nine-digit DUNS number, and registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), will be evaluated.

33) Question – RFP, Section L 2.3 Page Limitation (Volume IV) - This section limits the page count for Volume IV to 10 pages. Our CACO approved (and required) Master Small Business Subcontracting Plan already exceeds the page count without taking into consideration the associated Individual Subcontracting Plan. We are requesting the page count be removed from Volume IV or that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required in 6.3 Tab C, be added to the list of items that are exempt from the page count.

Answer – The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is excluded from the page count of Volume IV.

34) Question – RFP, Section L 6.3 Tab C Small Business Subcontracting Plan – Instruction states that "Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent (in terms of dollar value) with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan" Section M par 3.4 (e) establishes SB Goals as 23% of total Contract Value which would require our Subcontracting Plan Goals to be significantly and unrealistically higher than the FAR Requires for Total Subcontracted Dollars in order to reflect and be consistent with the participation plan in terms of dollars.

This requirement may lead to task orders that are primarily subcontractor efforts with excessive pass through.

Suggest that the goal should be 13% of total contracted value or 23% of total subcontracted value.

Answer – This will be revised to state that “Goals for this procurement are – Small Businesses: {20%} of the total contract value.

35) Question – RFP, Section L 7.1 TAB A – Labor Rate Schedules and Attachment G – Page 97 of 112: “FFP Ceiling Burdened Hourly Rates” tables - For FFP efforts, offerors shall propose fully burdened (including profit) labor rates using the format provided in Attachment G. The format provided in Attachment G for the FFP rates does not include a column for profit, confirm adding this column is acceptable?

Answer – Attachment G will be revised. Offerors shall only propose their fully burdened labor rates for the FFP labor rate tables.

36) Question – RFP, Section L 7.1 TAB A – Labor Rate Schedules and Attachment G – Page 98 of 112: “Ceiling Indirect Rate” Tables. The offeror shall include their indirect rates as required under Attachment G. Additionally, the offeror should provide a brief narrative describing the composition of its indirect rates and how and when the rates are applied. Are the “Ceiling Indirect Rate” Tables separate from the FFP and CPFF rate buildup tabs? If so, should the “Ceiling Indirect Rate” Tables be added to workbook in contractor format? If not, will the Government provide the format required for this table?

Answer –Offerors shall provide their indirect rates in the tables provided in Attachment G for the buildup of the CPFF labor rates. Offerors shall also provide additional documentation as discussed in Section L of the RFP to support their proposed indirect rates.

37) Question – RFP, Section L 7.1 TAB A – Labor Rate Schedules and Attachment G – Based on the format of the Attachment G, it appears the CPFF and FFP ceiling rate buildups are based on Prime rate buildups only and do not include subcontractors in the buildup. Can the government confirm ceiling rate buildups do not include subcontractors? Can the government confirm if CPFF and FFP ceiling labor rates are to be used for both Prime and Subcontractors for task orders?

Answer – Offerors shall submit labor rates for the prime contractor only. Labor rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

38) Question – RFP, 7.2 TAB B – CPFF Sample Task Order Pricing – Attachment H – Is it acceptable to insert rows and columns in Attachment H to be accordance with our approved accounting system and PWS structure?

Answer – Yes

39) Question – RFP, 7.2 TAB B – CPFF Sample Task Order Pricing – Attachment H _ Tab Breakout – CPFF STO – Is it acceptable to remove the repeating Labor Categories (Site) column from Attachment H tab: Breakout-CPFF STO and just have the Labor Categories (Site) in Column A?

Answer – Yes

40) Question – RFP, 7.2 TAB B – CPFF Sample Task Order Pricing – Attachment H _ Tab Breakout – CPFF STO – Should this tab cover the entire period of performance?

Answer – Yes

41) Question – RFP, page 92, Section L, Volume VI – Cost/Price/Section 1, Section I, Tab 1 – RFP States in part:

"Proposed overhead rates…subcontract handling rates….and MSE rates will be a binding cost element that will become the maximum allowable rate for CPFF task orders issued during the ordering period of any basic IDIQ contract awarded as a result of this solicitation" and "Proposed G&A rates will be a binding cost element that will become the maximum allowable rate for task orders issued during the base period of any basic IDIQ contract awarded as a result of this solicitation". Question: FAR 42.707 - "Cost-Sharing Rates and Limitations on Indirect Cost Rates": States in part that in certain situations it may be prudent to apply final indirect cost rate ceiling in a contract. Examples include "new or recently reorganized company", "no past or recent record of incurred indirect cost", "recent record of a rapidly increasing indirect cost rate" or when the Contractor seeks to enhance its competitive position to propose indirect rate ceiling lower than those that may reasonably be expected . . ."Inasmuch as this is a competitive procurement (and not a cost sharing arrangement which would involve obtaining internal agency authorization to impose these type of rate caps) and based on the FAR citation it is not clear why the Government is requiring ceilings on indirect rates when the Offeror responding does not meet the examples stated in the FAR (nor does the Government indicate that this is expected to be a cost sharing arrangement in accordance with existing agency authorization policy). Based on the FAR citation's last example any decision by a Contractor to enhance its competitive position should be up solely to the Offeror to determine if ceilings make sense to propose from a competitive standpoint and to subsequently be responsible to properly account for any overruns as unallowable costs as required under CAS, which would account for both overruns and underruns as offsetting costs.

Otherwise the Government is requiring the Contractor to agree to capped rates and to then, apparently, account for any overruns (there are no underruns per the stated requirement) as if unallowable costs despite such costs being allowable under CAS. This is a violation of CAS (See FAR 31.201-2) since it will require the Contractor to create a separate set of rates that are not CAS-compliant. It is recommended that the indirect rate ceiling language be removed. The Contractor has to be free to determine the indirect rate ceiling applicability in a competitive environment and in accordance with CAS. Finally, we also note that since we have a DCMA-approved accounting system, our indirect rates are set by the DCMA. Therefore, since the DCMA sets our indirect rates we should be entitled under CAS to invoice those same rates. Based on the discussion above, we recommend and request that the Government remove the indirect rate ceilings.

Answer – The references to indirect rate ceilings will be removed from the RFP.

42) Question – Volume I, Technical Experience/Past Performance of the Prime Contractor, Section L.3.1.3.3, Page 94 – Regarding Section L.3.1.3.3, will the Government please clarify if offerors are permitted to use past performance questionnaires (PPQs) that were submitted in response to previous solicitations from agencies other than USACE?

Answer – Offerors shall use the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ at Attachment B. A NAVFAC/USACE PPQ prepared by the customer for a project to be submitted in response to this RFP, which was previously submitted in response to another solicitation, may be utilized.

43) Question – Volume IV Small Business Participation; Section L.6.1, Page 96 – Section L.6.1 states that “Offerors shall propose anticipated Small Business Participation through the completion of the worksheet provided at Attachment E of the solicitation. Is the Attachment E excluded from the page count?

Answer – No

44) Question – Volume IV Small Business Participation; Section L.6.3, Page 97 – Section L.6.3 states that “…shall provide the information identified in Attachment I that details their subcontracting goals as reported in eSRS…” Is the Attachment I excluded from the page count?

Answer – No

45) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Section B, Page 9 – Section B contains several CLINs for Contractor Manpower Reporting. These line items are identified as FFP, however, the CLIN structure refers to Max Cost, Fixed Fee, and Total Max Cost+Fee. Should these CLINs refer to a Max/NET AMT? Example:

1003 OPTION Contractor Manpower Reporting

FFP

This CLIN is used for the pricing of the collection and reporting of Contractor Manpower Reporting data as described in Section C. Reporting period will be the period of performance not to exceed twelve months ending 30 September of each Government Fiscal Year and must be reported by 31 October of each calendar.

FOB: Destination

MAX COST FIXED FEE

TOTAL MAX COST + FEE

Answer – No

46) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Attachment G; Summary – CPFF STO, Row 27 – “Offerors may use additional labor categories outside of those provided in Attachment G when proposing against the Sample Task Order. Any additional labor rates must be accompanied by the labor descriptions and qualifications (years of experience, degree level, Government/Contractor site, etc.), so that the evaluators can evaluate the labor rates to determine if they are fair and reasonable.” This bidder assumes this means that if additional labor categories over and above those in Attachment G are required for performance in the task order, that the bidder is allowed to provide a rate for these categories, but must submit supporting data for the category in terms of labor descriptions and qualifications.

1) Should the data needed to support these categories be included in Volume V Cost/Price?

2) How does the introduction of new categories in this task order response affect the IDIQ rates established in Attachment G?

Answer – 1) Yes, the data needed to support any additional labor categories and labor rates shall be included in Volume V. 2) Additional categories proposed for the Sample Task Order shall not be incorporated into Attachment G.

47) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Section L 7.0, Last Sentence, 2nd Paragraph – Section L.7.0 states that “the offeror may not alter a cost requirement, . . . within the worksheets as it may prevent the cost teams ability to evaluate the cost proposal effectively.” Please elaborate on what exactly the offeror cannot alter. The offeror will adjust the worksheets to reflect our estimating and accounting process, and we will need to add columns for the PWS, etc.

Answer – This sentence will be removed from the RFP.

48) Question – Volume V Cost/Price, Section L 7.0; 7.1 Tab A – Labor Rate Schedule; Attachment G – This Section L.7.1 references “CPFF Ceiling Unburdened Hourly Rates” and “FFP Ceiling Burdened Hourly Rates” apparently as tabs within Attachment G.

Please note that the tabs in Attachment G are not called the same as in the above referenced section. Please clarify.

Answer – The titles in Attachment G will be revised to “CPFF Ceiling Unburdened Hourly Rates” and “FFP Ceiling Burdened Hourly Rates”.

49) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Section L 7.0; 7.1 Tab A Labor Rate Schedule – This Section L.7.1 references “Ceiling Indirect Rate” Tables. Is the Government referring to a specific table or tab that exists in Attachment G? If so, can the Government tell us where that table is located? Or does the Government mean to let the offeror develop that table?

Answer – Offerors shall provide their indirect rates in the tables provided in Attachment G for the buildup of the CPFF labor rates. Offerors shall also provide additional documentation as discussed in Section L of the RFP for proposed indirect rates.

50) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Attachment H; CPFF Breakout STO – This tab does not seem to allow for FEE on Materials, i.e., Sensors. Please confirm that the bidder is allowed to apply fee on those material items and other ODCs with the exception of travel.

Answer – ODCs and travel shall be non-fee bearing. Fee is allowable on materials. Attachment H will be revised.

51) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Attachment G – These tabs for both FFP and for CPFF do not allow for an application of fee. This bidder assumes we can add a fee column on all these tabs. Please confirm.

Answer – A fee column will be added in Attachment G for the tabs pertaining to the CPFF labor rates. In the tabs pertaining to the FFP labor rates, Attachment G will be revised to only have offerors propose their fully loaded FFP labor rates.

52) Question – Volume V Cost/Price; Attachment G – Would the Government please clarify the intent of Attachment G, IDIQ rate development for FFP and CPFF in terms of how these rates apply to a task order and what these rates should represent?

Are the rates set forth in the prime contractor’s Attachment G response considered to be “Team” rates representing one rate for each category (a team composite?), or are the rates that prime contractor and subcontractors submit considered to be standalone rates to be used on any task order response? Please Clarify.

Answer – Rates submitted on Attachment G are for the prime contractor only. The FFP labor rates submitted in Attachment G shall be fully burdened. The CPFF labor rates submitted in Attachment G shall be the unburdened labor rates with a build up of the appropriate indirect rates proposed in accordance with an offeror’s approved accounting system. The fully burdened FFP labor rates and the unburdened CPFF labor rates will be the maximum allowable rates for task orders issued during the ordering period.

53) Question – Volume VI Administrative Requirements; Section I – Given that EO 13673 was revoked on March 27, 2017, will the Government please remove the following clauses from the RFP?

52.222-57 Representation Regarding Compliance With Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) DEC 2016 52.222-59 Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) DEC 2016 52.222-60 Paycheck Transparency (Executive Order 13673) OCT 2016

52.222-61 Arbitration of Contractor Employee Claims (Executive Order 13673) DEC 2016

Answer – No, please reference FAR 1.201-1.

54) Question – Volume VI Administrative Requirements; Section I – Regarding FAR clause 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages--Supplies, Services, or Research and Development SEP 2000, does the Government have a dollar value that they intend to use across all task orders, and if so, would the Government please specify?

Answer – No, the Government will identify the Liquidated Damages amount at the task order level.

55) Question – General – The FAR 5.203(e) provides that Agencies allow at least a 45-day response time for receipt of bids or proposals from the date of publication of the notice required in 5.201 for proposed contract actions categorized as research and development (R&D) if the proposed contract action is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. For proposal delivery purposes, does the Government plan to extend the current proposal response time to be consistent with the FAR-required 45 days?

Answer – This solicitation is categorized as R&D and is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

The proposal submission date is extended to May 9, 2017 at 2PM EST.

56) Question – L.2.3 Page Limitation (page 90 of 112) limits Volume IV, Small Business Participation Plan to ten pages. Then under the instructions for the Small Business Participation Plan, in paragraph L 6.3 Tab C – Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Offerors are asked to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For a large contractor with extensive subcontracting, a compliant SB Subcontracting Plan would include its Master Subcontracting Plan (MSP) with the Individual Subcontracting Plan for the proposed contract. These are lengthy documents that alone would take more than the entire page count allocated to Volume IV. We request that the requirement of Tab C be revised to exclude it from page count for the Volume.

Answer – The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is excluded from the page count of Volume IV.

57) Question – L.6.2 Past Compliance with Subcontracting Goals (page 97 of 112) – The Government has asked that "Offerors ... shall provide the information identified in Attachment I that details their subcontracting goals as reported in eSRS for the ten (10) most recent completed Federal contracts for which the offeror served as the prime contractor." Please define ""contract" for the above purpose. Specifically, does "most recent completed Federal contract" include only the most recent completed contracts for which an ISR was filed? Often a contract will end but a final ISR is not filed for 2-3 years until all tasks under its task orders are completed. We recommend that the wording be changed as follows: "Offerors ... shall provide the information identified in Attachment I that details their subcontracting goals, as reported in eSRS, for the ten (10) most recently completed Federal contracts for which Final ISRs were filed, and for which the offeror served as the prime contractor."

Answer – Offerors shall provide the information identified in Attachment I that details their subcontracting goals, as reported in eSRS, for the ten (10) most recently completed Federal contracts for which Final ISRs were filed, and for which the offeror served as the prime contractor.

58) Question – L.6.2 Past Compliance with Subcontracting Goals (page 97 of 112) – The Government has asked that "[Offerors] ... shall submit the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) as submitted in eSRS for the contracts identified in Attachment I.” The SSR is not the applicable document for the submission of performance against goals for each contract. We recommend that the wording be changed as follows: "[Offerors] ... shall submit the Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) for the contracts identified in Attachment I."

Answer – Offerors shall provide the information identified in Attachment I that details their subcontracting goals, as reported in eSRS, for the ten (10) most recently completed Federal contracts for which Final ISRs were filed, and for which the offeror served as the prime contractor, unless an SSR is applicable.

59) Question – L.6.2 Past Compliance with Subcontracting Goals (page 97 of 112) – Assuming the Government decides to ask for the ISRs for the ten contracts cited in Attachment I, those documents are several pages each, and ten of them would consume more than the page count allocated for Volume IV. We recommend that the Government revise the section to place the supporting ISRs for the ten cited contracts in an appendix to Volume IV, specifically excluded from page count.

Answer – The supporting ISRs for the ten cited contracts are excluded from the page count.

60) Question – L 6.0 Volume IV Small Business Participation Plan (page 96 of 112) – The Government has provided two attachments, Attachment E (which is mislabeled as Attachment "F" in the attachment itself) and Attachment I, both of which are to be completed and submitted with the SBPP. However, no specific instruction was provided for their incorporation. Please revise the introduction to L.6.0 to explain how the Government intended for Offerors to submit these attachments, e.g., "Offerors shall incorporate the content of Attachments E and I in this Volume into the text of Tab A and B of the Volume, respectively, as figures or tables."

Answer – Information that is requested in Attachment E shall be completed as per document instruction and incorporated into Volume IV. Attachment I should be completed and provided as a figure in Volume IV.

61) Question – Attachment I, The spreadsheet that comprises Attachment I uses the column headings "Achieved Goal" and "Goal." Please state explicitly what those columns should contain. Without explanation, "Achieved Goal" could be the percentage or dollars paid to subs in that category, or it could be "Yes" or "No." The column titled "Goal" could be dollars or it could be percentage. We believe that the Government intended to have Offerors provide percentages in both columns. Please confirm that the two columns are to contain percentages reflecting the prime's performance of Total Subcontracted Dollars.

Answer – Achieved Goal is only on the prime contractor’s performance of the total subcontracted dollars and are to be listed as a percentage vice a “yes” or “no” response.

62) Question – Attachment I, In Attachment I, assuming that the Government is looking for percentages in the "Achieved Goals" and the "Goal" columns, it is not stated as to whether the percentages are of Total Subcontracted Dollars (the usual form in an SB Subcontracting Plan) or of Total Contract Value (the usual form in a SB Participation Plan). Total Contract Value is cited in column C, but because ISPs use Total Contract Value, the question requires clarification. Please revise Section L to state explicitly whether percentages in Attachment I are of total subcontracted dollars or total contract value.

Answer – All goals are based on subcontracted amounts. Columns entitled “Achieved Goals” should list percentages for the prime contractor’s total subcontracted dollars. Columns entitled “goal” should be listed as the percentage goal that was approved and accepted on the subcontracting plan.

63) Question – L 3.1.3.3 (page 94) – Please clarify the language in L 3.1.3.3 that states, "Completed PPQs (Attachment B) that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be used in this source selection.

However, offerors shall not incorporate PPQs by reference that were previously submitted for other RFPs." Seems to be conflicting statements as an RFP is a solicitation. Please clarify.

Answer – A NAVFAC/USACE PPQ (Attachment B) that was utilized to accompany the project effort in a previous proposal may be used in a proposal submitted in response to this RFP. However, any previously utilized PPQ must be physically included with its project effort in response to this RFP; it is unacceptable to incorporate the PPQ in a proposal merely by reference.

64) Question – C 1.3 (page 20) – Section C1.3 states, "This contract will result in a MATOC of prime contractors with the capability to manage multiple task orders simultaneously at multiple locations." We understand the Task Order capability requirement but do not see a section L instruction where to address this experience/capability to manage multiple task orders.

Answer – The technical factors provide an offeror the opportunity to demonstrate its ability to execute and manage multiple task orders.

65) Question – Section A and Section I (pages 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 50 of 112) – 52.204-15 Service Contract Reporting (Section I, page 50) & the Contractor Manpower Reporting (Section A, pages 6/9/12/15/18) requirements are both included. These are redundant requirements and one should be removed. Since a DoD funded effort, we believe the government wants to keep Manpower and remove 52.204-15. Per FAR 4.1705(b), not required for DoD funded efforts.

Answer – It is anticipated that task orders issued under this IDIQ MATOC contract will vary in value and funding source; therefore, the Service Contract Reporting clause and the Contract Manpower Reporting clause is included in the base IDIQ MATOC contract.

66) Question – PWS, Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, PWS - Section C, 1.7.2 (page 22) – The text in this section specifies that The Contractor shall develop and maintain an effective Quality Control Plan (QCP) and that Each Contractor will be required to submit a QCP with its proposal that address the areas identified in Specific Tasks Section 5, Technical Exhibit 1, “Performance Requirements Summary” Please clarify the desired content of this QCP.

Answer – As stated, the Government is requiring that the offeror address the areas identified in Performance Requirements Summary and any other pertinent information the offeror deems necessary for their intended solution and Quality Control Plan.

67) Question – PWS, Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, PWS - Section C, 1.7.7.2 (page 23) – Will the Government confirm that the sentence "The Contractor shall have a TOP SECRET facility clearance with SECRET safeguarding capabilities." only applies to the prime contractor and that subcontractor teammate companies do not require a Top Secret Facility Security Clearance?

Answer – Correct, only the Prime contractor needs to hold a TOP SECRET facility clearance.

68) Question – PWS, Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, 1.7.7.5 (page 23) – The text in this section reads:

The Contractor shall also be required to access the JWICS/SIPRNET/NIPRNET Systems. Does/will the AGC require contractors to access these systems from contractor locations?

Answer – The Government will stipulate access for these systems based upon the requirements provided in each individual task order. In most cases, access to these systems will be from a Government location.

69) Question – PWS, Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, 5.8 (page 35) – The text in this section reads: or other DoD Geospatial Certification Programs for geospatial foundation data production. Please clarify by name which DoD Certification Programs.

Answer – This requirement is primarily for the AGC geospatial certification program, but the Government wanted to allow offerors who had experience in other Certification programs. This is only intended to allow for more opportunity for the offerors to show their experience in similar work other than the AGC geospatial Certification program.

70) Question – PWS, Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, 5.15 (page 36) – The text in this section reads:

The Contractor shall have the ability to acquire, fuse, and disseminate various sources of information. Please clarify. (e.g., Is it the expectation of the AGC that this work will be performed at contractor locations utilizing contractor owned assets?)

Answer – This requirement will be more defined in subsequent awarded task orders based upon the needs of the Government for that specific mission.