W900KK20R0011_CRM_20200327.xlsx

Sheet1

W900KK-20-R-001_NCRC_EPOS_Conformed_at_Amendment_0002_20200227 L.7.7.4 RFP Amendment 0002 section L.7.7.4 describes requirements for Offerors to address Contract Relevancy and Performance. Similarly, Attachment 35 (Past Performance Contract Description) page 2 contains a Contact Relevancy Narrative section. The wording on Page 2 of Attachment 35 is not reflected in the instructions for this Solicitation (i.e., there is no Section L.12.14, the Relevance Narrative is part of Section 4 instead of Section 3 (L.7.7.4), and there is no Appendix E in the Past Performance Volume.

a. Is the offeror permitted to delete Page 2 of Attachment 35 in their submission?

b. Is the offeror permitted to embed the contents of Attachment 35 (in Word) into the Past Performance Volume or does the government wish a separate file?

c. Is the offeror permitted to create the Contract Relevancy Narrative as Section 4 of the proposal in Contractor format?

d. Or should Section 4 be provided in Attachment 35. The wording in sections L.3 and L.7 of the RFP has been modified to clarify the Government's intent with respect to the Past Performance Proposal requirements. Additionally, Attachment 35 has been revised to remove reference to a relevancy discussion. The content presented in Attachment 35 corresponds to the requirements in sections L.3.7.3 and L.7.7.3, "Section 3 - Contract Descriptions" and shall be part of Section 3 of the offeror's Past Performance Proposal. Per sections L.3.7.4 and L.7.7.4, the offeror shall address relevancy in Section 4 of their Past Performance proposal.

a. See above narrative.

b. See above narrative.

c. Offeror's shall comply with format instructions in L.1.20.

d. See above narrative.

a. Should the offeror reconfigure Attachment 32 to be portrait, or remain landscape?

b. Should the offeror use a separate Attachment 32 for major subcontractors, or all contracts combined into one sheet?

c. Is the offeror permitted to embed the contents of Attachment 32 (in Word) into the Past Performance Volume or does the government wish a separate file? a. See updated Attachment 32 which has been changed to a portrait orientation.

b. The content presented in Attachment 32 corresponds to the requirements in sections L.3.7.2 and L.7.7.2, "Section 2 - Past Performance Contracts" and shall be part of Section 2 of the offeror's Past Performance Proposal. The offeror is permitted to present multiple tables, if necessary, to comply with the requirements in L.1.20; however, the Government's intent is to receive a simplified summary of the offeror's past performance.

c. See response b, above.

5 RFP L.1.9.4.4 The RFP states that, “Offerors shall hand carry and/or mail digital copies of the NCRC EPOS Solicitation Comment Form(s) on DVD-R/CD-ROM.”

1) Is it acceptable for offerors to FedEx digital copies of the comment form?

2) Are there additional security instructions applicable to FedExed or mailed DVDs/CDs?

1) Yes, Offeror's may FedEx digital copies of the comments form.

2) There are no additional security instructions applicable to FedExed or Mailed DVDs/CDs.

In addition, it states: Offerors shall clearly identify the anticipated percentage of work for which the major subcontractor is responsible.

a. Does this requirement refer to the NCRC EPOS Sample Information Technology System Management (ITSM) PWS or the NCRC EPOS IDIQ PWS subparagraph numbers?

b. Does “the anticipated percentage of work for which the major subcontractor is responsible” refer to the ITSM Model Task Order only, or to the full NCRC EPOS Lot 2 effort? Paragraph L.7.7.1.2 (and L.3.7.1.2) has been updated to clarify the Government's intent. The purpose of Past Performance Section 1 - Organization/Teaming Arrangement is to provide further substantiation and insight in support of the rationale provided by the offeror under Section 4 - Contract Relevancy and Performance. Specifically, the content addressed in these Sections 1 and 2 and throughout the entire Past Performance volume shall correspond to the Past Performance examples initially referenced in Paragraph L.7.2.3 (and L.3.2.3) and outlined in further detail in Paragraphs L.7.7.2.2 (and L.3.7.2.1).

Additionally, the definition of major subcontractor in Paragraph L.7.1.3 (L.3.1.3) has been modified to broaden the definition.

a) Reference to specific PWS paragraphs is no longer required.

b) The past performance references selected by the offeror as part of its past performance volume shall be selected based on the requirements of the model orders identified in Paragraphs L.7.2.3 (and L.3.2.3) . The anticipated percentage for work for which the major subcontractor is responsible refers to the ITSM model task order only in the NCRC EPOS Lot 2 effort (and the CHS model task order only in the NCRC EPOS Lot 1 effort).

The above referenced Instructions state that the NCRC EPOS Compliance Matrix should be in each individual Volume, yet M.10.1 states that the NCRC EPOS Compliance Matrix should be in Administrative Information Volume (V) (IV?). The instructions for Volume IV do not require the NCRC EPOS Compliance Matrix.

Documentation Change: Attachment 28 – Cyber Training Event Scenario: Change 1st sentence of Event Overview to reference footnote as follows: “… requests support for an upcoming, intermediate-sized1, one week cybersecurity training event.” And include footnote that reads “The reference to intermediate-sized event here is the same as the medium sized training event described in attachment 16”

22 W900KK-20-R-001_NCRC_EPOS_Conformed_at_Amendment_0002_20200227 L.6.8.1 (Page 167 of 221) Would the government please confirm that an electronic signature (a real pen and ink signature on paper that has been scanned and enabled electronically via PDF) would be acceptable in places throughout the solicitation that requires "original signature"? Rationale: Offerors usually have a very high-level person such as a Vice President that is the authorized signature authority who may not be readily available in person to sign documents. This would create an administrative burden and potential delays in Offerors being fully responsive to the government.

1) File type updated to native MS Word Format.

2) Government POCs have been updated

3) Due date language was corrected

Please refer to Paragraphs L.3.7.2.3 and L.7.7.2.3 which provide additional information concerning the updated Government POCs.

Additionally, the Government acknowledges that Attachment 34 is not signed by the PCO; it is merely a tool for providing information to the parties that will be completing the Past Performance Questionnaires.

26 W900KK-20-R-001_NCRC_EPOS_Conformed_at_Amendment_0002_20200227

L.5.8.1.1; L.5.8.1.3; Attachment 37 Tab 1 and 3 Section L.5.8.1.1 and L.5.8.1.3 refers to the "NCRC EPOS Rate Guide" while Attachment 37 includes the Rate Guide as part of "Tab 3 Rate Schedule"

One week of event execution.

Documentation Change: Attachment 28 – Sample Training Event Scenario: Change 1st sentence of Event Overview to read: “… requests support for an upcoming, intermediate-sized, one week cybersecurity training event.”

31 W900KK-20-R-001_NCRC_EPOS_Conformed_at_Amendment_0002_20200227

L.4.7.2, L.4.10, M.4.4 The RFP states, “Enforceable/binding agreements will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable/non-binding ones.” Would the government please confirm that it considers fully executed teaming agreements as enforceable/binding agreements? Would the government please clarify whether this requirement pertains to all subcontractors or just major subcontractors? If the government intends this statement to include workshare would the government, please consider removing this requirement or requiring this at the Task Order level where the Prime and Subcontractor will know what specific tasks/services are required? Rationale: It is difficult if not impossible to estimate the appropriate workshare at the IDIQ level before the prime understands the specific type of work to be performed, the personnel needed, and level of support required to meet the PWS requirements. The level of detail provided at the Task Order level would allow both the prime and subcontract to understand the government’s requirements and determine an accurate workshare distribution; without that level of detail both companies are basically creating a best athlete approach which would effect workshare and may vary from what is agreed upon based on personnel and resources available at the time of the Task Order release. The Government considers "enforceable commitments" with respect to Paragraph L.4.7.2 and M.4.4 as agreements that are signed by both parties (the prime and the sub). The Government acknowledges that commitment documents are being requested in relation to an unawardable task order.

With respect to the Offeror's question concerning workshare - the 25% small business subcontracting goal is based on 25% of the applicable cost of the action, not 25% of the effort.

33 THIS ROW INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

L.5.8.3 The RFP states, "The Offeror and each subcontractor/team member shall provide the following information on each and every proposed indirect rates applied to direct labor, travel, and Material, other direct costs." Comparing this statement to the language in section 5.8.2, it appears this would only apply for subcontractors/team members above $10M annually, will the Government please verify?

L.5.8.1.3; L.5.8.6.23 L.5.8.1.3 refers to potentially lowering the ceiling rates proposed in the "NCRC EPOS Rate Guide" due to FPRA reductions. L.5.8.6.23 states that "at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, labor rates may be adjusted or re-negotiated due to unforeseeable factors".

How does the government anticipate implementing these changes to the "NCRC EPOS Rate Guide" and would it only be applicable on an individual Task Order basis? Rationale: Offerors rates are extremely competitive and ceiling rates shouldn't be adjusted without Offerors full written agreement before work starts.

contractor facilities, and the Government facilities in Orlando, FL; Charleston, SC; Patuxent River, MD; and Ft. Walton Beach, FL." Attachment 37 only allows for one set of labor rates, is it the Government's intention for the client site rates to encompass the four locations mentioned or will the Government create a section for each location in Attachment 37?

Having each individual element a separate document will make it difficult to create an automatic table of contents without linking the documents together electronically.

In addition, with this format, is listing each individual Figure and Table in the separate documents of Volume IV desired?

Would the government consider revising the language in L.6.6, and L.10.6 to:

L.10.6 Table of Contents

A Table of Contents should be created. The Administrative Information Volume containing separate standalone documents shall be logically assembled and clearly indexed: each document shall be listed and the total number of digital pages that encompass each complete document shall be specified

If this wording is acceptable, then the file name in L.6.2, and L.10.2 should be reworded to:

D_Table_of_Contents

The instructions in L.6.8.10.1, and L.10.8.10.1 – Section J – Exhibits/Attachments state:

The Offeror shall complete appropriate sections of the NITC Government Rights in Technical Data and NITC DD Form 254 and Continuation Sheet (See Section J, Attachment 10 and Attachment 11 respectively).

Are the attachments referenced in this instruction to be included with the documents in Volume IV?

If so, what would be the requested file name(s) for those documents?

Question: Does this instruction refer to the NCRC EPOS IDIQ PWS or to the ITSM Model Task Order PWS subparagraph number?

Question: Please clarify if this organizational changes “roadmap” is required only for the Offeror and major subcontractors who submit Past Performance efforts as part of the Factor 1 Past Performance evaluation.

Question: Does this instruction refer to the anticipated percentage of work at the NCRC EPOS IDIQ contract level or to the ITSM Model Task Order specifically?

Lockheed Martin desires to ensure that there is ample time to conduct a thorough review of all LM document recipients and data repositories. Please advise if the Government has a desired timeline for destruction.

Additionally, in the past the Government has on occasion provided red-lined documents when changes have been made. Kindly advise whether red-lined PWSs will be provided so that we can quickly identify the changed areas and make the appropriate updates to our in-process proposal

All NCRC EPOS Distribution Agreements approved prior to 21 February 2020 were revoked on 25 February 2020. Data Custodians were instructed via beta.SAM.gov to ensure ALL draft documents, to include briefing slides and Comment Review Matrices, are not used for proposal preparation. The Government requested notification when the documents are destroyed in accordance with terms and conditions contained in the NCRC EPOS DA. Please complete destruction no later than 5 April 2020. An e-mail containing these instructions will be sent to each contractor that received an approved NCRC EPOS DA prior to 21 February 2020.

The Government will consider posting compared documents moving forward.

52 RFP Attachments 37 and 41

L.7.7.4.3 – “…provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence.” And L.7.7.4.4 – “Provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for problems or shortcomings that occurred during contract performance and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence.”

L.7.7.4.3 – “All requests for deviation and requests for waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions.” And L.7.7.4.4 – “Address any failures to meet the proposed delivery schedule, requirements for Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver with respect to causes and corrective actions.”

Question: Is it acceptable for the Offeror to address these duplicative instructions in a single narrative response?

Is it the Government’s intent that individual labor rates be rounded? Or is the rounding referenced intended to be for total costs? Please clarify.

Since this requirement is included in the small business set-aside portion of the solicitation under the direct pay section, and since many small businesses do not have FPRA or FPRRs, how should small businesses comply who do not have average labor rates for every proposal category listed, at every location for the last three years? Please clarify the Government’s intent for this requirement.

Please clarify the contract type for the ODC CLINS

The Rates Schedule tab of the Cost/Price Workbook (both Lot 1 and Lot 2) does not include a column for location or overhead site. In addition, the rates do not indicate them as FFP or CPFF. Please indicate the government’s intent regarding multiple potential sets of rates for the labor categories.

Is it the Government’s intent that the Rate Guide should be prepared by location and overhead site as well? As this indicates it needs to match those within the Cost/Price Workbook, the Cost/Price Workbook does not include a column for location. Please clarify the Government’s intent.

Is this intended to reference actual direct pay for each labor category or is this intended for overhead category rates?

Is the Government requesting a single set of rates to cover all locations, or a set of rates for each location? Also please clarify whether the Government’s is requesting CPFF and Firm Fixed Price rates separately.

65 THIS ROW INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

66 THIS ROW INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.