A01_Attachment_12_BMO_Questions_and_Responses_Revised_with_Headings_FPB_07-31-18_v1_la....docx

WORKLOAD

1. Can the Government provide the historical workload/level of work estimate on the current contract?

GOV RESPONSE: WRAIR’s acquisition historical workload is provided in the PWS section 2 Purpose and Background, “WRAIR has historically processed approximately 300 contract and assistance actions per year, with a total annual average value of approximately $140 Million”. An estimated level of effort (LOE) table is provided at Attachment 10 of the solicitation.

1. Can you disclose the current level of effort?

GOV RESPONSE: This is proprietary information, however the newly included estimated LOE table may assist your proposal efforts. The LOE table is listed as attachment 10 of the solicitation.

1. The PWS does not provide specific workload data for the PWS Performance Requirements. Does the Government have a recommended level of effort and labor mix?(PWS 6 pg6-15)

GOV RESPONSE: Please see questions number 1 & 2.

1. Will you provide us with a spreadsheet with the specific level of effort/hours by labor category, so we can accurately price our response?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 1.

1. Does the government intend on providing labor categories and descriptions for non-key personnel?

GOV RESPONSE: See revised PWS paragraph 10 highlighted information.

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

1. Would the Government please clarify if OCONUS Travel has historically been required?

GOV RESPONSE: OCONUS travel was previously considered but not used.

1. Besides potential travel, are there any other direct costs associated with the Contract? We recommend that the Government consider providing a fixed ODC amount so that there is consistency with the proposals being submitted (Solicitation – Instructions to Offerors – Page 21 of 58)

GOV RESPONSE: Please see revised 52.212-1. The Govt provides an ODC plug number and table.

1. Would the Government please provide Not-To-Exceed (NTE) Travel/ODC amounts for CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002?

GOV RESPONSE: See 52.212-1 for revised information.

1. Can the Government please specify the level of travel required for this effort and the estimated Travel and ODC limits?

GOV RESPONSE: See 52.212-1 for revised information.

1. Regarding CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002 and 4002, Travel and Other Direct Costs, is this a figure the government will provide to be plugged in or does the offeror need to complete?

GOV RESPONSE: See 52.212-1 for revised information.

1. To ensure realistic quotes, please provide more specifics of the contractor travel requirements (PWS Section 11).

GOV RESPONSE: Please see 52.212-1 for revised information.

1. Is travel to Ft. Detrick in Frederick, Maryland during performance of this award considered local travel? If not please provide the frequency (PWS Section 11).

GOV RESPONSE: There’s a reasonable expectation of travel to Ft. Detrick several times a year. See PWS paragraph 11.

PERSONNEL KEY AND NON-KEY

1. Will the Government provide a mapping of the PWS tasks to the key and non-key personnel?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see response to question number 2

1. There are no qualifications cited for any proposed non-key personnel. Will the Government provide qualification requirements for non-key personnel?

GOV RESPONSE: See response to question 5.

1. For non-key personnel, there are no cited qualifications and is therefore difficult to understand the level of effort and skill sets required/expected. Can the Government please provide expected qualifications for non-key personnel?

GOV RESPONSE: See response to question 5

1. RFP C. Evaluation Approach, Factor 2 Experience, Key Personnel Position, SharePoint Developer, Page 23 Issue: The document thoroughly describes the details of the experience necessary to fill the SharePoint Developer’s position, but does not state whether a grace period could be granted for a contractor to complete the CompTIA Security+ Certification.

Question: If an otherwise fully qualified SharePoint Developer submitted a resume to fill the Key Personnel billet, but did not have a CompTIA Sec+ certification, would the Government grant 30 days for the contractor to complete this requirement should that company be awarded the contract?

GOV RESPONSE: No, the Govt is unable to grant a 30 day grace period for the contractor to attain Sec+ certification.

1. The personnel required (key and non-key) do not map back to the PWS tasks which will impact the offers ability to provide the appropriate staffing and pricing necessary to accomplish the tasks. Can the Government please align the appropriate personnel requirements to the tasks?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 14

INCUMBENT

1. Can the Government confirm the incumbent? We believe the incumbent on this work is Capitol Bridge, please confirm?

GOV RESPONSE: Yes, the incumbent is Capitol Bridge, contract number W81XWH-16- C-0208.

1. Who is the incumbent contractor?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 18.

1. If there is an incumbent contractor, what is the contract number?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 18.

1. If there is an incumbent contractor, is the scope of this solicitation similar to the incumbent contract scope?

GOV RESPONSE: Capitol Bridge is the incumbent contractor, however the PWS has been revised to reflect the current requirement.

1. Can you please confirm that this is the competitive recompete of W81XWH-16-C-0208, an 8(a) sole source award?

GOV RESPONSE: Yes.

1. Would the Government please clarify if the incumbent(s) are eligible to bid on this effort?

GOV RESPONSE: The solicitation is restricted to all 8(a) small businesses.

1. Is the incumbent contractor eligible to Prime this effort?

GOV RESPONSE: See question 23.

1. Can the Government please tell us if this is a recompete of contract W81XWH-16-C-0208, that is listed as an 8(a) sole source award to Capital Bridge LLC, and if so, is the incumbent eligible to bid on this effort?

GOV RESPONSE: See questions 23 and 24.

1. Is there an incumbent contractor?

GOV RESPONSE: See question 18.

1. Is there an incumbent contractor providing the support in the PWS? If yes, how many positions/employees are currently supporting the PWS? Will the government provide a list of incumbents and skill type?

GOV RESPONSE: See questions 1, 5, and 18.

CONTRACT ACTION

1. Assuming this is in fact a follow-on to W81XWH-16-C-0208, has the scope changed from the original award? Is so, what are the scope changes from the original award to this solicitation?

GOV RESPONSE: Please review the solicitation and attachments for the current requirement.

1. If this is a recompete for W81XWH-16-C-0208, based on the financial expenditures available to the public, it appears that the scope of work has changed. Can the Government please confirm if and how the scope of work has changed from the original award to this solicitation? Has there been a consolidation of other work under this effort?

GOV RESPONSE: The PWS has been revised to reflect the current requirement (See Question 21. There has been no consolidation of other work under this effort.

PWS QUESTIONS

1. Could the Government please provide a list of the tools used (i.e. dashboard, tracking, etc.) in the performance of the tasks?

GOV RESPONSE: See revised PWS paragraph 6.2.1.1.

1. On the SF 1449, the time due for offers is 10:00 p.m. On page 21, the time due for offers is 10:00 a.m. SF 1449 (pg 1) and Instructions to Offerors (pg 21) GOV RESPONSE: See revised SF1449. Proposal Due time is 10:00 am.

1. “Any offsite employees must be available for routine and ad hoc meetings within 30 minutes as requested by the Government during WRAIR official duty hours” GOV RESPONSE: There was no question here. The Govt assumes the questioner wants to know if personnel must be on site for meetings. If so, see revised PWS paragraph 5.

33. Per section 6.2.8 note, page 14 - Will the contractor have to provide a Sharepoint environment if the government is unable to provide access to a stable Sharepoint development and production environment.

GOV RESPONSE: No, however the Contractor must meet the requirements of the PWS in any manner the Contractor determines feasible.

34. Per section 2, page 3 - It states that the government is looking for ways to reduce the overall number of CORs/GORs assigned to the unit. Is the intent of this solicitation to augment the COR staff with contractors as FTEs?

GOV RESPONSE: No.

35. Per section 2, page 3 - It states that it is anticipated the contractor will provide Headquarters (HQ) and portfolio level support and will offer expert level Research and Development industry experience. Is the contractor required to have specific R&D acquisition past performance or is non-R&D acquisition past performance sufficient?

GOV RESPONSE: See revised Evaluation factor 2, Experience language in both 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 in the Solicitation.

36. Per section 5, page 4 - Are the 8 full time desks designated for contractor use only?

GOV RESPONSE: See revised paragraph 5 in the PWS for clarification.

37. Per section 5, page 4 - Are offsite employees who are required to attend ad hoc meetings expected to attend in person or virtually?

GOV RESPONSE: See question 32.

38. What are the PWS reference numbers for items 10 and 11 in this table? (Performance Requirements Summary Matrix Section 8)

GOV RESPONSE: Refer to revised Section 8, PWS.

39. The performance tasks discuss dashboards and tools, can the Government be more specific about the tools and dashboards currently being used at WRAIR?

GOV RESPONSE: See question 30.

40. Which PWS tasks are considered IA/IT type functions and at what level, i.e. I, II or III? (PWS 15.11.8 and 15.11.9 pg 13).

GOV RESPONSE: Refer to PWS paragraph 6.2.8.

41. Will you allow the reps and certs requirement in Volume I to be added as an attachment and not count against the 5-page count limit for the volume?

GOV RESPONSE: Yes. See revised 52.212-1 language.

42. What specific tools do you currently use for your acquisition support activities?

GOV RESPONSE: See question 30.

43. RFP page 18: Offerors are required to include Representations and Certifications at FAR 52.212-3 as part of the Business Volume submission. However, there is a 5-page limit for this volume. Will Reps/Certs responses be excluded from the page limitations?

GOV RESPONSE: See question 41.

QUALITY CONTROL QUESTIONS

44. The RFP requires the submission of the Quality Control Plan (QCP) as factor 3 of the Technical Proposal, however, the PWS page 14 states that the QCP (Deliverable 8) is due 15 days after contract award (DACA). The Deliverables Table on page 16 of the PWS also states that the QCP is due 15 DACA. Will the Government please clarify this discrepancy? Also, if the QCP is in fact required as part of the proposal, will the Government allow offerors to submit it as an attachment to the Technical Proposal that is not within the 30 page limit?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see revised PWS deliverables table, as well as revised 52.212-1 language; QCP now has its own page limit.

45. The RFP requires the Quality Control Plan (QCP) to be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal, but in the PWS (page 14, Deliverable 8) and (page 16, table of Deliverables) states that the QCP is due 15 days after contract award. Can the Government please clarify if the QCP is due as part of the proposal, or 15 after award of the contract?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see Question 44.

46. If the QCP is required to be submitted as part of the proposal can the Government either allow additional page limits or allow offerors to submit it as an attachment to the Technical Proposal not within the 30-page limit?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see questions 44.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONS

47. Can the Government confirm which WRAIR Category this work fall under?

GOV RESPONSE: Refer to paragraph 15.5.

48. With the upcoming changes/consolidation in DHA contracting activities and the scope of the functions under this contract, to what extent would the awardee of this contract face future OCI issues within DHA? Would the awardee be prohibited from future work only on opportunities that fall directly under WRAIR or would the prohibition be extend across DHA as a whole? Can the Government please provide details?

GOV RESPONSE: The Government is unable to answer this question. Each requirement will be evaluated individually.

49. As this this requirement has been categorized as Global Support, and the services would have access to Command Wide procurement sensitive information, which agencies and/or organizations and/or divisions would the awardee be prohibited from supporting on future requirements – those specific to WRAIR, or more broad DoD and/or U.S. Army agencies, such as the Defense Health Agency (DHA), U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), etc.? Please specify / clarify.

GOV RESPONSE: See question 48.

50. RFP Attachment 4. Organizational OCI Please clarify what is the purpose of Attachment 4, Organizational OCI, in this solicitation.

GOV RESPONSE: Attachment 4 is the Offeror’s declaration of its OCI status, once signed and submitted with proposal.

PRICING

51. Given that this is a FFP type solicitation, would the Government please clarify why a build-up to the billing rate is required? (RFP, Page 21) GOV RESPONSE: This is necessary information in order for the Government to evaluate fair and reasonable pricing.

52. There is no specification for the price in the Business Volume pg 21

GOV RESPONSE: Please see revised 52.212-1 language.

53. If a build up to the FFP billing rate is required, would you Government please delineate the level of detail required in the build up? (RFP, Page 21) GOV RESPONSE: Please see revised 52.212-1 Factor 5 Pricing language, subparagraph a).

54. It is unclear where the government wants our response for Factor 5, Price, included in the proposal. Will there be page limitation? Will the government please clarify. (ADDENDUM 52.212-1 pg. 17 through 21) GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

55. It is typically for pricing information to have a narrative response as well as details in a spreadsheet to show how rates and prices were determined. Will the government accept spreadsheets as an attachment and separate file, and will the spreadsheet count against the page count? Please clarify. (ADDENDUM 52.212-1 pg. 17 through 21).

GOV RESPONSE: Spreadsheets are acceptable and please see question 52.

56. On page 18 of 58 in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Government states in the table that lists each of the proposal volumes, a total of three volumes that are required in the Offeror's response. The Government also states in the PWS that there are five evaluation factors that will be scored in this response. Factor 5 is the Price evaluation; however the Government has not assigned a volume number to Factor 5. Does the Government intend to assign Volume IV as the Price volume in which our team can provide the requisite pricing data?

GOV RESPONSE: Pricing information is to be provided in volume I. Please see revised 52.212-1 language.

57. The RFP lists pricing as Factor 5 under the Past Performance for Volume III. Does the Government intend on having pricing within the 10-page limitation of the Past Performance Volume? In most cases pricing is submitted as a separate volume without page limits or within a strict pricing matrix. Can the Government please reconsider pricing as a separate volume and either provide a pricing matrix or allow offerors an adequate number of pages to provide the Government effective and competitive pricing?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

58. Is there a specific format the pricing needs to be quoted back in? The proposal lists in Factor 5 Price, “Offeror’s shall submit, at a minimum, the proposed level of effort in terms of hours, all escalation factors applied, hourly rates for each labor category and build up to the billing rate.” Does the government prefer submission in an Excel document or via tables within a Word document response?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 55 and revised 52.212-1 language.

59. In reviewing the proposal requirements, Factor 5 Price appears to fall under the Past Performance Volume (III). Is that the intent of the Government? What volume should the pricing information be included in? (Solicitation – Instructions to Offerors – Page 18 of 58 Solicitation – Instructions to Offerors – Page 21 of 58)

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

60. In the RFP, Price is listed as Factor 5 under the Past Performance Volume III. Is that in error? If not, is Factor 5: Price within the 10 page limitation of the Past Performance Volume? We recommend the Government make Price Volume IV with no page limitations in the RFP.

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

61. Can the Government please clarify the reason behind requiring a build-up to the billing rates as found in the RFP on page 21 and please provide greater detail as to the Government’s expectations within the build-up?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 53.

62. Is there a specific format that the Government wishes for the price section of the proposal (e.g. specific pricing table format) that will help to standardize submissions? (Solicitation – Instructions to Offerors – Page 21 of 58)

GOV RESPONSE: The offeror shall provide a price proposal in accordance with their business practices that meets the requirements of revised 52.212-1 Factor 5 Price language.

63. RFP Addendum 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Content Requirement: the Table and Paragraph (2) Business Proposal, Page 18; and Paragraph 4. Past Performance (Page 20) and Paragraph entitled Factor 5 Price, Page 21 Issue: The referenced Table and the several referenced paragraphs do not make it clear in which volume the actual proposed pricing and Executive Summary should be included. The Table directs Volume I Business Proposal to contain the Executive Summary/Abstract. Paragraph (2), which details the contents of the Business Proposal, omits mention of either the Executive Summary or the proposed pricing. The paragraph on Page 21, entitled Factor 5 Price, suggests that it be included in Volume III Past Performance (as it follows immediately after the Factor 4 Past Performance content instructions).

Questions:

0. In which volume, should offerors propose their pricing: Volume I, Volume III, or an additional Volume IV?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

0. Is there a page limitation to the (A) – (F) contents in the Business Proposal?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

0. Should the Executive Summary be placed at the beginning of Volume II Technical; and, if so, can this serve as the “Summary Section” for Volume II? (Note, this would keep technical solution content from being included in the same volume as price solution content.)

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 52.

PROPOSAL DUE DATE

64. Given the amount of requested clarifications, would the Government consider extending the due date of this proposal to allow for well-rounded proposal efforts that will provide adequate competition among 8(a) companies?

GOV RESPONSE: The proposal due date is extended to 10:00AM ET, August 17, 2018– see revised 52.212-1 and 1449.

65. Given the number of the ambiguities in the current RFP, would the Government consider extending the due date of this proposal to allow for adequate proposal development time and a greater competitive 8(a) pool for this requirement?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 64.

OPTIONAL CLIN

66. In the PWS, page 11, 6.2.4 is listed as an “Optional CLIN” is this meant to be an optional CLIN or actually included in the main labor CLINs?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see revised CLIN structure in the solicitation and the estimated LOE table.

67. Would the Government please confirm that 6.2.4 is not an Optional CLIN, as listed in the PWS and is meant to be included in the main labor CLINs? (PWS, Page 11) GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 66.

68. Paragraph 6.2.4 Material Management Support is identified as an Optional CLIN in the PWS. How does the government want the Optional CLIN priced since no ITEM NO is identified in the SF1449? (PWS 6.2.4 Pg 11-13) GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 66.

INCOMING TRANSITION PLAN

69. The PWS states that the Incoming Transition Plan draft is due with the proposal (page 15, in the Deliverables Table), but is not mentioned as a factor within the Technical Proposal. Can the Government please clarify if a draft of the Incoming Transition Plan is due as part of the proposal and if so, will the Government either allow additional page limits or allow offerors to submit it as an attachment to the Technical Proposal not within the 30-page limit?

GOV RESPONSE: The incoming Transition Plan is due with the proposal and is not included in the page limit. The “draft” is also removed. Please see revised 52.212-1 & 52. 212-2 language.

70. In the Deliverables Table on page 15 of the PWS, the Incoming Transition Plan draft is due with the proposal; however, it is not mentioned in any of the Technical Proposal factors. If the Incoming Transition Plan is due with the proposal, will the Government allow offerors to submit it as an attachment to the Technical Proposal that is not within the 30 page limit?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 69.

71. Per the PWS, a draft of Deliverable 2 (Incoming Transition Plan) is due with the proposal. Which volume of the proposal should this draft Incoming Transition Plan be included in, and does it count towards the page limitations referenced on page 18 of the solicitation? (PWS section 7 (Deliverables) Solicitation – Instructions to Offerors – Page 18 of 58)

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 69.

72. RFP Addendum 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Content Requirement; Paragraph (3) Technical Proposal, the paragraphs identified as Factors 1 – 3, Pages 18 – 20; and PWS 7, Deliverables, Page 15 Issue: The Deliverables Table, Ref. 8.1, requests submission of a Draft Incoming Transition Plan with offerors’ proposals, yet no mention of this requirement is included in the content required under Factors 1 through 3 of the Technical Proposal Question: Is a Draft Incoming Transition Plan required in offeror proposals and, if so, would the Government stipulate where it is to be located and increase the page limitation to accommodate it?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see question number 69.

COVERED EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

73. RFP Attachment 5. Covered Employee Question: Please clarify what is the purpose of Attachment 5, Covered Employee Participation Agreement, in this solicitation?

GOV RESPONSE: Attachment 5 is affirmation that each employee fully understands and agrees to terms contained related to confidentiality of information. Refer to Paragraph 15.5 in the PWS.

GOVERNMENT FURISHED EQUIPMENT

74. RFP Attachment 7. GFE Question: Please clarify what is the purpose of Attachment 7, GFE, in this solicitation?

GOV RESPONSE: Attachment 7 is the current list of GFE to be part of this requirement.

75. Will the government accept submission of our proposal via the AMRDEC SAFE web application? (ADDENDUM 52.212-1 pg. 17) GOV RESPONSE: Yes

WAGE DETERMINATION

76. The government has included Wage Determination,WD-95-0819 in the solicitation package. Can the government identify which tasks in the PWS it expects to be covered by WD-95-0819?

GOV RESPONSE: Please see updated wage determination WD 15- 4270 (Attachment 8). The Government does not determine which potential labor categories within the requirement are covered but expects the vendor to proposed in accordance with the Wage Determination if they determine there are labor categories that are covered within the Wage Determination guidelines.

PAST PERFORMANCE RESPONSES

77. For clarification, the past performance questionnaires are to be submitted with our proposal and the government will forward them to the point of contact?

GOV RESPONSE: No, the Offeror shall forward the questionnaires to their identified references. The references should forward completed questionnaires to the solicitation point of contact.

78. Considering that this has been designated an 8(a) set-aside, will the government consider allowing more than one past performance from a subcontractor?

GOV RESPONSE: No, only one past performance reference for each identified subcontractor.