W5J9CQ-17-R-0004-A0001_Questions_and_Responses_(11may2017).pdf

W5J9CQ-17-R-0004-A0001, IM/IT SETA, Questions and Responses 11 May 2017

1. With a prime contractor / subcontractor team, can the qualifying past performance come from the subcontractor on the team if the prime does not have relevant past performance, but the prime does have TS/SCI facility clearance?

Response: All past performance information submitted will be evaluated and rated according to the criteria delineated within the RFP, as amended.

2. But we don’t have Top Secret Facility Clearance (TSFCL). However our Teaming partners will have TOP SECRET FACILITY CLEARANCE. Will this suffice to bid for this Opportunity? Please advise.

Response: The prime offeror cage code must have a DoD TS/SCI Facility Clearance at the time that proposals are due, currently 31 May 2017.

3. On page 19, subsection (i), the solicitation states: “Submit Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor …” Considering that this is an 8(a) set aside procurement, we would request that the government permit past performance citations from subcontractors to also be submitted.

4. On page 19, subsection (i), the solicitation states: “Relevant projects are DoD IT projects requiring personnel with TS/SCI clearances.” Stipulating only DoD past performance and mandating SCI may severely limit competition, as defined in FAR 15.305 (a)2(ii), which states “The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement” We request that the government consider permitting bidders to submit comparable non-DoD past performances.

5. Please consider changing the evaluation criteria which makes Past Performance the Gatekeeper and eliminating those proposals that have no past performance.

The General Accountability Office (GAO) has consistently ruled that under FAR § 15.305(a)(2)(iv) a "neutral" or "unknown" rating cannot be used to eliminate a proposal from the competitive range.

References:

GAO File: B-411168, Ryan P. Slaughter; June 4, 2015

GAO File: B-413711, Xtreme Concepts Inc; December 19, 2016

6. How many FTEs are employed on the current contract?

Response: The requirement solicited under this RFP is different from the requirement currently under contract W5J9CQ-15-D-0005. Offerors are expected to propose their own FTE solutions, and other proposal aspects, as delineated within the RFP.

7. Please provide a Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires in accordance with FAR 52.222-42.

Response: This requirement is exempt from the Service Contract Act, under the “Executive, Administrative, Professional and Computer Employee Exemption”. See 52.222-53, contained within 52.212-5.

8. Please identify the IAT Certification Levels required in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M.

Response: Offerrors are required to identify the certification levels of proposed labor categories in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M. see http://iase.disa.mil/eta/

9. We’ve been asked to team with an 8(a) business on this effort. However, our read of the PWS and Task Order leads us to believe this is SETA work. Is that the case? Does the Government consider this a SETA ID/IQ contract?

Response: The Government intends to award a single SETA IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation.

10. Is there an incumbent contractor for this solicitation? If so:

a. Who is the incumbent contract holder?

Response: Chenega Technical Innovations, LLC http://iase.disa.mil/eta/

b. What was the contract award number?

Response: W5J9CQ-15-D-0005

c. Was the prior competition an 8a set-aside?

Response: Yes

d. Do you anticipate sufficient responses to justify retaining this solicitation as an 8a set aside?

Response: Yes

11. Volume 1 is listed as a ‘gatekeeping’ exercise to eliminate potential bidders. Would you consider the past performance of a bidder to be relevant if:

a. The potential bidder has delivered services to DoD customers that are substantially similar in scope, size, and duration that required Secret/SSBI clearances

– AND-

b. Has other past performance providing personnel for TS/SCI required positions less directly relatable to the scope of this project?

12. On page 19 of the solicitation, you state ‘Volume III, Element 1 Tab 1 shall contain a Staffing Plan Matrix to include labor categories and hours to support TO 0001.

a. Exhibit A identifies the existing user account number at 550, but does not speak to the number of average concurrent logins or the average frequency of access to the system. Will you provide this additional historical data to assist bidders in refining projected Level of Effort?

Response: AGC does not track concurrent logins or access frequency.

b. Has the scope or reach of the program significantly changed since prior award in ways that would require additional skillsets or that have made any of the historical labor categories obsolete?

Response: The requirement solicited under this RFP is different from the requirement currently under contract W5J9CQ-15-D-0005. Offerors are expected to propose their own FTE solutions, and other proposal aspects, as delineated within the RFP.

13. This solicitation requires both a phase-in and phase-out plan. Is there a phase-out plan in place for transition from the incumbent to the awardee? If so, can any details of that document be made available so that phase-in plans can be developed to provide minimal disruption and best value to the Army?

Response: The incumbent contractor is responsible for full performance thru 09 September 2017, and obligated to comply with the requirements at 52.237-3, Continuity of Services. No phase-out plan will be made available to potential offerors.

14. We are interested in bidding this solicitation, but we do not have a facility clearance.

Can we partner with a non-8(a) firm that has a facility clearance?

Response: The Prime Offeror cage code must have a DoD TS/SCI Facility Clearance at the time of RFP closing and proposal submittal, currently 31 May 2017.

15. Whether the small business prime can show the secret facility clearance of the subcontractor to satisfy the TS facility clearance requirement.

Response: The Prime Offeror cage code must have a DoD TS/SCI Facility Clearance at the time of RFP closing and proposal submittal, currently 31 May 2017.

16. Whether the small business prime can show the experience of the subcontractor to satisfy the past performance requirements.

17. Is this a new requirement? If not, can you provide the name of the incumbent, the number of vendors previously awarded by category and current rates?

under contract. Chenega Technical Innovations, LLC. Current rates will not be released.

18. Could you provide the current contract number and the award amount?

Response: The current IDIQ is W5J9CQ-15-D-0005, with a ceiling amount of $9,999,999.00.

19. How many FTE’s are currently working with the incumbent?

under contract W5J9CQ-15-D-0005. Offerors are expected to propose their own FTE solutions, and other proposal aspects, as delineated within the RFP.

20. What was the spending last year?

Response: This information will not be released.

21. What is the annual budget for this RFP?

Response: This information will not be released.

22. Can you share the budget approved for the work to be done as part of this proposal?

Response: No.

23. Can you provide an estimated scale of work for each labor category in number of hours or other metric?

Response: Offerors are expected to propose their own labor categories, labor category descriptions, FTE solutions, and other proposal aspects, as delineated within the RFP.

24. In relation to the subject solicitation, I’m hoping to gain your immediate attention to an urgent issue. The PWS for the IDIQ and Task Order 0001 use the key phrase “Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA)” in their titles. Many companies have policies not to bid SETA work with particular customers as SETA contracts may require contractors to support requirements development or Scope of Work (SOW) development, which would preclude them from bidding future work within the organization. In this case, while the SETA description is used, the work does not appear to have a SETA component. The work appears to be, as it’s also named, Information Technology and Information Management Operations Support.

If the work described in the IDIQ and Task Order 0001 PWS is truly not SETA-related; we urge you to release an immediate communication to the potential offerors that contractors will not be asked to develop future requirements or scope of work from which they would be precluded from bidding.

Response: Neither the PWS for the Base IDIQ nor the PWS for Task Order 0001 require the offeror to support development of future requirements or scope of work development.

25. We are currently working with several 8(a)’s that would be interested in pursuing this project but have an issue that the offeror must have DOD TS/SCI facility clearance at the time of proposal submittal. Is there any consideration to waive this requirement on page 15 to be able to obtain clearance once procured?

Response: No. The Prime Offeror cage code must have a DoD TS/SCI Facility Clearance at the time of RFP closing and proposal submittal, currently 31 May 2017.

26. In regards to the subject solicitation we have a question on the DD Form 254 requirement for a Top Secret facility security clearance requirement. Can one of our subcontractors hold the Top Secret facility security clearance versus our firm as the prime bidder?

Response: No. The Prime Offeror cage code must have a DoD TS/SCI Facility Clearance at the time of RFP closing and proposal submittal, currently 31 May 2017.

27. Can you tell me the name of the company that was doing this contract before or the company that last had it.

Response: Chenega Technical Innovations, LLC