Draft RFP Questions_Comments_Responses_19August2021.pdf

Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) III Solicitation W900KK-21-R-0035

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all official information.

# Question/Comment Answer/Response

1 Can the Government confirm that in accordance with 13 C.F.R.

121.103(h)(4), for Small Business Joint Ventures, so long as the lead small business partner to a Joint Venture will perform the necessary Top Secret security work, then only the lead small business Joint Venture partner (and not the Joint Venture itself nor the other Joint Venture partner) needs to have a Top Secret FCL?

The Joint Venture who has been awarded the contract must hold an FCL at the required level and any member companies of the JV who will be performing on the classified contract or who have control, access or influence over the JV, as assessed by DCSA would require an FCL at the required level of the contract. There are instances where one or more members of the JV can be excluded from access to classified and not be required to hold an FCL; however, those are reviewed and determined on a case-by-case basis.

2 L.7.5.4 Statement of Compliance, The contractor and subcontractors have validated Facility Security Clearances (as stated within the DD254 [Section J of the solicitation, Attachment D]).

Therefore, respectful request the contractor shall be in in compliance at contract award and provide the required documentation

Updated the bullet to say “The contractor and subcontractors have validated Facility Security Clearances or the validation is in process (as stated within the DD254 [Section J of the solicitation, Attachment D]). Note that offerors will be deemed unawardable if validation is not received at time of actual award.”

3 M.9.2, Relevancy: states “Similar in magnitude is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for self-performed tasks involving managing 100 or more employees under a single project.” And “Projects that involve managing 200 or more employees under a single contract will be evaluated more relevant than projects managing less than 200 employees under a single contract.”

Will the Government consider removing, reducing, or changing these thresholds?

The government has redefined the similar in magnitude thresholds within Solicitation Section M.9.2.

“Similar in magnitude is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for self-performed tasks involving managing 50 or more employees under a single project.”

“Projects that involve managing 100 or more employees under a single contract will be evaluated more relevant than projects managing less than 100 employees under a single contract.”

4 Do all three past performance references have to meet a minimum of 100 FTEs?

The government has redefined the similar in magnitude thresholds within Solicitation Section M.9.2. Offerors not meeting the thresholds shown in Question 3 may be evaluated as somewhat relevant or not relevant based on an assessment of the scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities the solicitation requires.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

5 Will the Government amend section M.9.2 to read:

Similar in magnitude is defined as prime contracts self-performed by the prime within a 5-year period across multiple Prime contracts with total FTE of 50 or more employees. For the purpose of this solicitation “self-performed” is defined as tasks that the Offeror performed by their own personnel (as a prime managing multiple prime contracts, predecessor company, subcontractor, or within a partnership) or tasks performed by key personnel currently employed by prime contractor. In addition, Demonstration managing 200 or more employees in past performance aggregate by offeror (combination of prime and subcontractor past performance) will be evaluated more relevant than projects managing less than 200 employees under a single contract.

Rationale: This aligns with the nature of the individual task orders that will be issued in support of each PM like managing multiple different smaller prime contracts and task orders adding up to larger FTE count.

Section M.9.2 is viewed as too restrictive as it calls for a small business to have primed an effort =/>100 FTE or =/>200 employees under a single contract to be evaluated as more relevant (Substantial Confidence).

Given the fact to attain such a singular effort a small business would have had to achieve multiple smaller past efforts and the fundamentals to scale would remain unchanged.

To address the government’s potential transition or execution risk concerns, we recommend adding a requirement to demonstrate financial stability by demonstrating access to cash or credit of $4M or greater which would allow any qualifying firm to address scaling concerns.

The Government will not make the amendment requested to section M.9.2; however, the Government will make changes to this section. See the response to Question 3. Each project submitted in response to the past performance evaluation criterial will be evaluated for relevance separately.

6 M.9.3 Confidence: “In addition to the information included in the Past Performance Volume, the Government may use past performance information readily available from other Government program and technical offices, in addition to information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form will be added to the solicitation as Attachment 07 for offerors choosing to submit one.

Submission of a PPQ is not required.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or Past Performance Questionnaires, in addition to any other source as determined by the Government.”

Q: M.9.3 mentions a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) may be utilized along with the Past Performance Volume for evaluation purposes;

however, the draft RFP does not include the PPQ forms as an attachment or mention the PPQs in Section L. We request that the Government consider the value of requiring PPQs to increase/improve the breadth of facts upon which to arrive at the Government’s Performance Confidence Assessment. Comprehensive input (CPARS, PPIRS, and PPQs) from first-hand witnesses to past performance provides the best potential for arriving at a fair and accurate assessment.

7 For programs meeting the 12 month requirement for which CPARS have not been processed, will the Government provide the acceptable PPQ form and clarify the process for using a PPQ in lieu of CPARS in Section L?

A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form will be added to the solicitation as Attachment 07 for offerors choosing to submit one.

Submission of a PPQ is not required.

8 We recommend the Government revise its requirement for a minimum one year of performance history in considering past performance, to allow for completed performance periods of less than one year that have been formally evaluated by the Government through the CPAR process.

A CPARS for a completed project period of performance allows the Government to evaluate the completed transition and performance of work.

The requirement for past performance with at least one year of performance history will remain in the solicitation.

9 L.7.3.3 states that ““prime” contractors are identified as such on the cover page of contracts or TOs,” then lists examples. Will the Government confirm that the examples on Page 63, lines one (SF 1449) and four (DD form 1155) allow the offeror to use a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to satisfy Past Performance requirements?

Yes, as long as the prime contractor can show performance occurred. The narrative has been revised to state “For example, “prime” contractors are identified as such on the cover page of the following forms such as:”

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

10 In accordance with L.4.8, will the government accept a bidder’s past performance submission for a predecessor company to that bidder if that past performance reference is under the predecessor’s company’s name, DUNS, and CAGE code?

Yes, but the company would have to provide documentation that proves it performed the predecessor work.

11 In accordance with M.9.2, please confirm that a bidder can submit a past performance associated with a key personnel currently employed by the bidder provided it meets the “self-performed” relevancy requirements?

Solicitation sections L.7.3 and M.9.2 have been revised. The following note is added to the list of information required to be provided for any project: “** Note: For the purpose of this solicitation “self-performed” is defined as tasks that the Offeror performed by their own personnel. For example, if the Offeror or subcontractor is part of a Joint Venture for a submitted project, the Offeror or subcontractor can only submit tasks they performed under that Joint Venture contract.”

12 Section L.7.3.4, states “For the purpose of this solicitation “self-performed” is defined as tasks that the Offeror performed by their own personnel.” As a Woman Owned Small Business, we request the Government change this to state “For the purpose of this solicitation “self-performed” is defined as tasks that the Offeror performed by their own personnel or their subcontractors.”

Solicitation section L.7.3 has been revised to add the following note to the list of information required to be provide for any project.

“*Note: This may be the prime offeror or major subcontractor. If major subcontractor, prime offeror should identify the percentage of work it anticipates the major subcontractor performing for SETA III effort.”

13 L.7.3.4 provides a definition of “self-performed” as “…tasks that the Offeror performed by their own personnel.” M.9.2 reaffirms this definition and indicates an Offeror can only include performance completed by its employees and must exclude performance of its subcontractors. Will the Government eliminate the “self-performance” definition for inclusion of relevant experience?

Rationale: As a prime contractor on an effort, the prime is responsible for all performance on an effort including the performance of subcontractors.

Additionally, since L.7.1.3 requests offerors to include relevant data in the proposal describing Prime and Subcontractor relationships and management, it appears the Government would be interested in

No, the Government intends to keep the requirement for self-performed work but has clarified the requirement in Solicitation sections L.7.3 and M.9.2.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all evaluating the Past Performance of an Offeror that included its ability to manage subcontractors.

14 Factor 3 Past Performance L.7.3.3 second paragraph says, “All projects submitted in response to this solicitation shall have been performed as a prime contractor, predecessor company, major subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) partner. The small business prime contractor shall submit at least one project for consideration that they themselves performed (as a prime contractor, predecessor company, subcontractor, or JV partner).”

Would the government please confirm the language in the first sentence that indicates for projects submitted by the Prime offeror or one of their major subcontractors performing the cited project as a subcontractor, the offering company must have been a major sub to the prime of that project. Or, does it mean the offering company must be a major subcontractor on this offer (or one of the other options – prime, predecessor company, or JV) in order to submit a project that was performed as a subcontractor, regardless of total contract workshare on the cited project, and therefore, the language should state “All projects submitted in response to this solicitation shall have been performed by the prime contractor, predecessor company, major subcontractor, or Joint Venture (JV) partner?

The Government is allowing a prime offeror to provide projects from major subcontractors it anticipates using for the SETA III requirement. However, one project submitted for consideration must have been performed by the small business prime contractor as a prime contractor, predecessor company, subcontractor, or JV partner.

15 M.9.0, Page 80. Throughout the solicitation, the term “Offeror” specifically refers to the Prime Contractor responding to this RFP. However, in M.9.0, the term “Offeror” appears to be defined as the Prime Contractor responding to this RFP, in addition to teammates/major subcontractors.

Can the Government clarify the definition of an Offeror specific to Past Performance evaluation in Section M 9.0, Paragraph 2.

Solicitation section L.7.3 has been revised to add the following note to the list of information required to be provide for any project.

“*Note: This may be the prime offeror or major subcontractor. If major subcontractor, prime offeror should identify the percentage of work it anticipates the major subcontractor performing for SETA III effort.”

16 L.7.3.6, In Section L.7.3.6, the Draft RFP States “All information identified in the list below is required for any project submitted: …Dollar Value At Award…” Should Offerors identify the total dollar value at award or the base year value at award?

Narrative revised to state “Awarded Value (to include unexercised options).”

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

17 The RFP does not address Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts in the Past Performance requirements. Does one Task Order count as one Past Performance example, or can all of the Task Orders under a IDIQ Contract be bundled together and count as one Past Performance example?

When using an ID/IQ contract as a past performance project, note that the ID/IQ contract as a whole may be utilized as a single project which includes the ID/IQ itself along with all task orders. If the ID/IQ is submitted as a single project, then the task orders should not be submitted as separate past performance projects. If the ID/IQ is not submitted as a past performance project, then individual task orders may be submitted as separate past performance projects to the extent the task orders are applicable.

18 Question: L.7.3.3 states: “In order to be a major subcontractor, it must be responsible for at least 20% of the anticipated SETA III effort.” Will the Government change this threshold to 10%?

Rationale: Requiring such a high threshold on a set-aside contract where the prime contractor and similarly situated entities will be required to perform over 50% of the work to remain compliant with FAR 52.219-30.

This approach will limit teaming solutions. Moving to a 10% threshold would benefit the Government in terms of corporate experience and capabilities that an Offeror could tailor to the performance of STRI SETA

III.

No, the Government has determined that 20% is appropriate for this requirement.

19 Paragraph L.7.3.6 makes reference to the “Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database”. The PPIRS database was officially retired in 2019, and the new official system for retrieval of past performance information is CPARS.gov.

Noted and narrative revised replace PPIRS with CPARS.

Paragraph number L.7.3.6 on page 63 appears to be repeated on page

64. We suggest the Government consider renumbering the paragraph on page 64 as “L.7.3.7.”

Change made.

21 The paragraph numbering sequence between L.7.5.6.1 and L.7.5.6.3 has a paragraph numbered “L.7.5.6.1.2 Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest by Offerors.” We suggest the Government consider renumbering

Misnumbering corrected but paragraphs have been renumbered.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all the paragraph on page 64 as: “L.7.5.6.2 Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest by Offerors.”

22 Factor 4 Price, (L.7.4.4(1)) repeats the request for the offeror’s approach to recruiting, retaining, and developing personnel that was covered in L.7.1.4 Sub-element 2 of Factor 1. Will the respondents be required to address this topic twice, or just once in Factor1 Sub-element 2:

Recruitment and Retention Plan?

Offerors will be required to address the topic separately as one is a technical and the other is a price related factor.

23 In the RFP the first sub-section of M.11.0 VOLUME V:

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION: is misnumbered as “M.12.1.” It should be M.11.1.

Change made.

24 Section M: “Following confirmation of recency, the Government will review the proposed projects relevance utilizing Table 5.”

Table 6 defines Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. Please correct the table reference.

Correction made.

25 Section M: “In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings from Table 6.”

Question: Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are defined in Table 7. Please correct the table reference.

Correction made.

26 B.2, Page 3 & H.3 (f), Page 15. Given the large volume of travel, and the Government’s requirement to substantiate MI&E, request the Government allow offerors to charge General & Administrative (G&A) to a travel CLIN line.

The Government is allowing for G&A to be applied to travel. See Price Workbook “G&A Rate” value. It multiplies “Travel/Other Direct Costs” by a fixed G&A rate.

27 Page 51, L 1.1 States at the time of offer submission, each offeror shall be certified as a WOSB concern or have an application pending. Once a successful offeror is selected the status of the WOSB application will be verified by contacting the SBA. If a company experiences significant

As stated in DPC Class Deviation 2021-O0002 (Verification of Eligibility for Women-Owned Small Business Program), dated 17 DEC 2020, and the associated Revision 01, dated 11 MAR 2021, an offeror is NOT eligible for a contract award in response to a

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all growth by contract award in 2023 will the government confirm that WOSB certification is based on time of submission and not status at time of award?

WOSB set-aside solicitation unless the offeror is designated as WOSB in the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) database at the time of contract award. Meaning, the apparent successful offeror on the SETA III acquisition must be designated as WOSB, in the SBA DSBS, at the time of contract award. In addition, if a merger, sale, or acquisition occurs after proposal submission, but prior to contract award, the offeror should re-certify its size/status in certify.SBA.gov to ensure the Contracting Officer has the most current information at the time of contract award.

28 To ensure consistency, will the Government provide a minimum font size for tables, screenshots, illustrations, and/or images (e.g., 8 pt)?

No change.

29 L.5.2.1, Will the government consider times new roman instead of arial for the entire document, or at least for graphics, to increase readability?

No change.

30 From Section L.5.2.1: “Arial font is required with 12-point minimum font size. (EXCEPTIONS: headers/footers with administrative information;

tables, screenshots, illustrations, and/or images). The exceptions shall not be utilized to encompass excessive amounts of information, i.e., putting the substantial portions of proposal in tables to circumvent using 12-point font.”

Can the Government define what is excessive amounts of information?

Solicitation reference updated to state “The offeror shall not utilize the exceptions in a manner that circumvents the 12-point minimum font size requirement, i.e. putting the substantial portions of proposal in tables to circumvent using 12-point font.”

31 Paragraph 1 of L.7.4.4 states “Offerors shall submit a single, comprehensive Total Compensation Plan, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-46. The Total Compensation Plan shall be in MS Word and Excel format, setting forth the base salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract”.

Please confirm it is acceptable to provide the salary ranges for each of the labor categories to meet this requirement.

Submission of a salary range is not acceptable as the labor rates will be fixed for the life of the contract.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

32 REFERENCE TEXT: “The Total Compensation Plan shall include details regarding the prime contractor and major subcontractors, as applicable.”

Question: Will the Government allow subcontractors to submit such data directly to the Government?

Comment: Details regarding compensation plans such as base salaries and fringe benefits, as well as other indirect rates (Overhead and G&A) that make up labor rates are often considered proprietary data by each company.

Yes, subcontracts are allowed to submit data directly to the Government utilizing DoD SAFE as specified in the solicitation.

Subcontracts shall identify prime contractor to ensure information is connected with appropriate prime contractor proposal.

33 L.7.5.8 Financial Information states “If the Offeror (or its global parent) does not file with the United States (US) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it shall submit the following as part of the Price Volume: (1) Financial statements (balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement (with associated explanatory notes) for the last two completed fiscal years and the current year-to-date, (2) aged accounts payable and aged accounts receivable reports (with the same "as of" date as the current year-to-date financial statements) and (3) status of all financial institution loans and lines-of-credit (to include name and address of the creditor, face value of the instrument, unused amount, maturity/expiration date and any special terms or conditions). Also include same/similar information on any loans from officers, stockholders and any other (non-financial institution) entities.”

Question/Comment: Given that this requirement is stated within the instructions for Volume V, Administrative Information, can the Government please confirm that this financial information should be submitted as part of Volume IV, Price Volume, or Volume V, Administrative Volume.

The intent is to assess financial information as part of responsibility. As such, the following statement has been removed form M.10.6 “The extent to which the Government uses the financial information in the evaluation of contractor responsibility is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.” Based on this removal, solicitation should correctly request financial information be provided as part of Volume V, Administrative Information.

34 In Section L.7.4.5, the Draft RFP states “If the Offeror’s accounting system has never been audited by their cognizant federal audit agency, Offeror should submit the form as requested. Offeror is free to submit any additional information it deems necessary to support

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all the Offeror will so state and the Offeror shall complete SF1408 - Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist, returning the documentation as part of the Price Volume of the proposal.”

Due to the backlog of DCAA reviews and the inability of capable contractors to obtain a pre-award review from the DCAA, common industry practice has allowed for these reviews to be conducted by third-party independent Certified Public Accounting Firms. A third-party review can assist the Contracting Officer in determining accounting system adequacy of prospective contractors. Will the government accept SF- 1408 forms signed by third-party independent Certified Public Accounting firms as part of a third-party audit demonstrating DCMA/DCAA compliance?

the adequacy of its accounting system. However, determining the adequacy of the accounting system is part of the PCO's responsibility determination and therefore the Government reserves the right to obtain support from other Government agencies, including DCMA and DCAA, as deemed necessary.

35 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) includes pricing for each ordering period and the initial task order (TO). Will the sample TO be awarded at contract award?

The Government’s intent is to award the initial task order concurrently with the base contract award.

36 Please confirm the offeror is to fill in cell B:55 with its proposed Travel / ODCs for the Initial TO Price.

Comment: The "Initial TO Price" tab includes a Column for Indirect Rates titled "Government Estimate" (cell B:54) but the cell immediately below it (cell B:55) for Travel / Other Direct Costs (ODCs) is blank and shaded yellow indicating the offeror is to fill in this cell.

Yes, the offeror is required to fill in all areas highlighted in yellow, which includes Travel/ODCs. Attachment 02, has been updated to title this column “Offeror Value.”

37 Attachment 02, Question: Is it the Government's intention to have the bidder determine the amount of travel/ODCs or would it be less subjective to have the Government provide a fixed amount for this Initial

TO?

Yes, the offeror is required to fill in all areas highlighted in yellow, which includes Travel/ODCs.

38 Paragraph L.7.2 states “The Government has provided estimated overarching hours for each functional labor category.” Attachment 5, Initial Task Order PWS does not provide any estimated hours.

Reference to overarching hours has been removed from the solicitation. See the responses to Questions 39 and 40 for more specific information.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

Attachment 2, SETA III Price Workbook has a column for the information but the information is blank

Reference is made to the Industry Day briefing, page 9, provides the SETA distribution by organization and Labor Category. Is this information at the Industry Day on page 9 still valid? If not, will PEO STRI provide an updated chart?

Does the Government plan on providing the estimated overarching hours?

There have been no significant changes to the distribution of personnel briefed at Industry Day. No updated chart will be provided.

39 REFERENCE TEXT: “L.7.2 - The SETA III Proposal Price Workbook contains the Government's Estimate of the total hours to help scope the effort and is provided for informational/solicitation purposes only. The Offeror shall determine and propose the necessary level of effort to support the Initial TO. The Government has provided estimated overarching hours for each functional labor category."

“L.7.4.3.2 - The Initial TO Worksheet contains overarching hours for each functional labor area; the Offeror shall allocate those hours by position in accordance with their proposed approach.”

Question: Will the Government provide the hours?

Comment: The "Initial TO Price" tab does not provide overarching hours for each functional labor area. Please provide the information in the Proposal Price Worksheet for the Initial Task Order, as indicated by the RFP statements, to help scope the effort.

Reference to overarching hours has been removed from L.7.2 and states “The SETA III Proposal Price Workbook contains a tab for the offerors to fill in its proposed hours and travel to complete the tasks outlined in the Initial TO PWS, Attachment 05.”

Reference to overarching hours has been removed to the Price Workbook section in Factor 4, Price (draft RFP section L.7.4.3.2).

The first paragraph tentatively says, “The Offeror shall allocate those hours by position in accordance with their proposed approach. The period of performance is one year. The Government has provided a set value for EWW to give offerors an estimate of expected EWW on this TO. Offerors do not need to include EWW hours in the proposed hours.”

Further, although the Government’s overall estimated labor hours for each category for each year have been estimated for the purposes of calculating the total evaluated price of the entire contract, the Offeror will be responsible for determining appropriate staffing to accomplish the individual performance work statements supporting each task order. The Offeror must determine appropriate staffing for the initial proposal in accordance with its specific approach. Given that, each offeror should determine and

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all utilize its estimated labor hours required to meet the needs described in the PWS.

40 L.7.2 includes sentence that reads: “The Government has provided estimated overarching hours for each functional labor category.” We infer this means the Government will provide these overarching hours in Section J, Attachment 2 – “Price Workbook” in Column B of the “Initial TO Price” Tab. As of the Draft RFP, these estimated hours do not appear in the Price Workbook. L.7.4.3.2 also implies the Government would include their estimated overarching hours. Will these overarching hours be added to Column B of the “Initial TO Price” Tab of the Price Workbook? Alternatively, if the Government will not provide the overarching hours, will the Government provide the number of estimated hours for the Initial Task Orders as a percentage of the overall SETA III Effort contained in the other Price Workbook tabs?

See the Government response to Question 39.

41 L.7.4.3, Reference: “The Offeror shall complete Attachment 02 – SETA III Price Workbook provided with this solicitation (to include all Worksheets within the Workbook) to submit prices for the entire five year ordering period, excluding material and travel amounts for which the Government has provided estimated fixed amounts for evaluation purposes within Ordering Period 1 through Ordering Period 5 worksheets. Offerors may not alter pre-existing formulas within the workbook. No other changes to the workbook are allowed.”

“Attachment_02_SETA_III_Price_Workbook_9July2021.xlsx” “Initial TO Price” worksheet contains an amount of $55,000 in cell D51 for “EWW Estimated Value”. This amount exceeds the maximum amount for the initial Task Order as indicated in Section A.2.

Should this $55,000 amount be removed?

The value in Solicitation section A.2 shows the minimum amount intended to be issued on this basic Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity vehicle. A.2 identified the minimum guarantee of $50,000 or the value of the initial Task Order. The Government has provided a set value of $55,000 for Extended Work Week (EWW) to give offerors an estimate of expected EWW on the Initial Task Order and will not be removed from the workbook.

42 Will the government provide historical work load data or estimated workload hours in the TO tab?

No, it is not the intent to provide historical or overarching hours for this effort. Applicable solicitation sections have been revised.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

43 The USG states: “….ensure successful accomplishment of SETA III Support Services PWS and individual TO requirements.”

Similar statements are made throughout the RFP.

Can the government please clarify the use of the terms “Base PWS” as the SETA III PWS and “Individual/Associated Task Order PWS” is in reference to the PM SE PWS (Initial Attachment)?

The Base PWS narrative is in reference to the overarching SETA III PWS in which the base contract is awarded. The individual task order PWSs, like the PM SE PWS, will build upon the base PWS for task order specific requirements.

44 The referenced FAR 52.216-7 applies to cost-reimbursement and time-and-materials contracts.

Please confirm that this clause applies only to the non-labor CLINs and that FAR 52.232-16 Progress Payments will apply to FFP labor CLINs.

That is, the resulting contract will NOT be an FFP level of effort (LOE) contract type.

It is respectfully suggested that the Government revise the Solicitation to encompass the utilization of either solely cost reimbursable labor CLINs or both cost reimbursable and FFP labor CLINs, in order to ensure the Government’s ability to employ the most appropriate contract type depending on specific Task Order requirements.

Please confirm that the Cost Element identified in QASP Section 4(c) will not be utilized in any way to measure the quality of deliverables provided under FFP CLINs.

Yes, FAR clause 52.216-7 will apply to the cost-reimbursement and time-and-materials contract line items.

No, FAR clause 52.232-16 will not apply to the Firm Fixed-Price labor line items as the Government will not provide progress payments based on cost. The Government is not offering contract financing.

The Cost section of the performance evaluation elements is primarily related to Cost Reimbursable lines but may include FFP, if deemed appropriate.

45 It is respectfully requested that PEO STRI consider structuring this $365M procurement, the first PEO STRI SETA acquisition that will be set-aside for Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), as a multiple award in lieu of a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract. Such an approach will further enhance PEO STRI’s

This Government has considered a multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract but determined it would not allow for effectively and efficiently fulfilling the mission. The Head of Contracting Activity has made the determination required by 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1).

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all commitment and objective of maximizing contract opportunities for WOSBs.

Furthermore, this approach would be consistent with the requirements of FAR 16.504(c), Multiple award preference, which states, that “...the contracting officer must, to the maximum extent practicable, give preference to making multiple awards of indefinite-quantity contracts under a single solicitation for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources.”

Has the Head of the Agency made the determination required by FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1) to justify the use of a single source IDIQ Contract?

If so, what was the rationale supporting that determination?

46 Solicitation Section B.2, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Type (page 3), states as follows: “Base contract CLINs are marked as Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for the sole purpose of facilitating administration of the contract in the Government’s Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2) system. The Government anticipates all labor will be FFP while travel and other direct costs (ODC) will be a Cost (no-fee)-type CLIN” (emphasis added). Why is the “sole purpose” of identifying the Base Contract CLINs as FFP to “facilitate[e] administration of the contract”?

Each of the CLINs in Section B is identified as being “FFP”. Additionally, Solicitation Section L.7.4.3.1, Ceiling Labor Rates (page 65), states as follows: “The Offeror shall propose fixed fully burdened ceiling labor rates for ALL labor categories inclusive of all ordering periods. All proposed fully burdened rates are fixed and binding throughout all ordering periods of the contract. One labor rate shall be provided per labor category, per ordering period. The fully-burdened labor rates include all direct labor and indirect costs applicable to that direct labor (such as fringe benefits, overhead, and G&A), and profit. The proposed labor categories and fixed fully burdened labor rates, will be used for any work under the

The contract writing system utilized by Army Contracting Command-Orlando functions best for creating task orders when FFP CLINs are utilized on the basic contract.

This language allows for flexibility within the vehicle but the Government intends to issue all task orders under this vehicle as FFP as the bulk of the orders will be FFP labor. However, cost line items for Other Direct Costs and Travel are expected with some instances of time and materials.

Firm Fixed-Price contracts are appropriate when acquiring service on the basis of reasonably defined requirements. This is the case for SETA requirements, which have been successfully supported by Firm Fixed-Price for over 10 years.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all contract for the entire five-year ordering period of the resultant ID/IQ contract. This data will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant contract. The awardee will use these rates when pricing all resulting orders, which will be negotiated prior to TO Award. A single labor rate is to be proposed for each labor category that is a composite of both prime and/or subcontractor rates. It is the intent of the Government to maximize issuance of TOs on a FFP basis and the Government intends to significantly limit the use of Cost CLINs for labor requirements” (emphasis added). Please clarify whether the intent of the last sentence is that if a FFP Task Order is deemed not to be feasible by the Government, a Cost Reimbursable-based Task Order will be employed.

Based upon the nature of the technical requirements for this Solicitation, as well as the potential lack of certainty regarding the actual required level of effort at the time that Task Orders are solicited and awarded, please explain why the Government has elected to employ a FFP contract type in lieu of a Time and Materials (T&M) contract type.

47 Question: Please confirm the anticipated award date is 2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2023 and not Fiscal Year 2022 (i.e. is it a typo?).

The solicitation is correct.

48 H.1.(e)(7), The phrase “… the contractor agrees not to perform writing by the Contracting Officer, …” is confusing. Could the Government clarify the meaning?

One line was missing from the narrative. Language has been corrected to state “If the contractor provides AAS services as defined in paragraph (d) of this clause, it shall be ineligible thereafter to participate in any capacity in Government contractual efforts (solicited or unsolicited) which stem directly from such work, and the contractor agrees not to perform similar work for prospective offerors with respect to any such contractual efforts.

Furthermore, unless so directed in writing by the Contracting Officer, the contractor shall not perform any such work under this contract on any of its products or services, or the products or services of another firm for which the contractor performs similar work. Nothing in this subparagraph shall preclude the contractor from competing for follow-on contracts for AAS.”

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

49 I: Contract Clauses 52.222-42 Statement Of Equivalent Rates For Federal Hires, For labor categories, that don’t specify a location, where will the FTEs be located? Multiple locations?

The majority of performance is expected to support programs in the Orlando, FL area with the exception of OCONUS. However, because of the possibility for remote work we cannot cover every potential location that personnel will perform work. As such, the Government will have one rate, which will include both CONUS and OCONUS.

50 Will the Government provide the performance site location of the labor categories that are listed in the Pricing Workbook? Currently only the Security Specialist labor category provides a place of performance location of Orlando, FL and Huntsville, AL. Additionally, are the requested FFP rates representative of Govt-site or Contractor-site support?

The majority of performance is expected to support programs in the Orlando, FL area with the exception of OCONUS. However, because of the possibility for remote work we cannot cover every potential location that personnel will perform work. As such, the Government will have one rate, which will include both CONUS and OCONUS.

51 Does the Government consider Management Approach Sub-elements 1, 2 and 3 to be weighted equally in the evaluation?

The following language will be added to Relative Order of Importance section “Factor 1 (Management Approach) includes 3 Sub-elements. The Sub-elements will not be treated as Sub- Factors, and adjectival ratings will not be assigned for each Sub-element. The Sub-elements are considered of equal importance.”

52 REFERENCE TEXT: "A complete copy of the Cross-Reference Matrix shall be included in each volume of the proposal (Volume I, II, III, IV and V)."

Question: Would the Government indicate where, in each Volume, the Cross-Reference Matrix should be placed?

Reference to the cross-reference matrix has been added to each volume narrative.

53 REFERENCE TEXT: Would the Government clarify the requirements for the executive summary title page (L.7.1.1, L.7.2.1, L.7.4.1, L.7.5.1) and the cover page? In L.6, paragraph #2, the Govt indicates that each Volume shall contain a cover and title page, but there are also requirements for some volumes for an executive summary which includes the title page (L.7.1.1, L.7.2.1, L.7.4.1, L.7.5.1). It seems that

The requirement for cover page and executive summary have been blended.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all there may be two competing requirements in many Volumes for a cover (or title) page.

54 REFERENCE TEXT: “L.7.3.1 Executive Summary. The first page (or pages) of the Executive Summary shall be completed IAW FAR Clause 52.215-1(c)(2) (“first page” and “title page” as described in this clause are considered the “Executive Summary” for the purposes of this solicitation).

The Executive Summary shall include the Offeror’s CAGE Code and

DUNS.

L.7.3.2 Volume Table of Contents. The Volume’s Table of Contents shall contain the appropriate volumes/titles/page corresponding to the beginning of the relevant material.”

Would the Government clarify the content requirements for Volume III, Past Performance? In subsections L.7.3.1 & L.7.3.2, the Govt indicates that Volume III requires a table of contents and an executive summary.

However, in Table 2 on page 58 of 84 (Proposal Structure) the table of contents and Executive Summary are not included.

Table 2 and specific volume sections have been updated to clarify the requirement.

55 Will the Government require major subcontractors to submit sealed bids?

No.

56 L.7.5.6.1 indicates that one of the criteria the Contracting Officer will consider is if any prime contractor, subcontractor, etc has a unfair competitive advantage in regards to providing support services to PEO STRI. Additionally, clause H.1 of the Draft solicitation, paragraph (a)(2) states the purpose of the OCI Clause, in part, “…is to ensure that the contractor…is not biased because of its current or planned interests (financial, contractual, organizational or otherwise) that relate to the work under this contract.”

Will the Government confirm this include Prime or Subcontractors performing SETA and/or AA&S support work for collocated commands from other Services such as the Naval Air Warfare Center Training

The Organizational Conflict of Interest requirements apply to all contractors that intend to perform on the SETA III requirement. It is incumbent upon the offerors to ensure that current and future work does not create a conflict of interest as defined in FAR Part 9.5.

The Government does not believe at contractors performing SETA and/or Advisory and Assistance Services (AAS) services for co-located commands creates an OCI.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all

Systems Division (NAWCTSD), the Marine Corps Systems Command Program Manager Training Systems (PM TRASYS), and the Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation (AFAMS)?

57 Section L.7.5.5 states “The Offeror shall complete the fill-ins and provide any appropriate signatures without modification to the sections to include but not limited to those identified below.” Section L.7.5.5 a. “Section I.

Contract Clauses” references FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 2014), which does not appear to require a fill-in or signature. Will the Government confirm that a fill-in or signature is, or is not, required for Section L.7.5.5 a, FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (MAY 2014)?

The offeror is to annotate what, if any, labor categories are covered under the Service Contract Labor Standards Act. This will be completed in the “Labor Category Exemption Status” tab of the Price Workbook. As such, reference to FAR clause 52.222-42 has been removed from this section. If non-exempt labor categories are provided, they will be added to FAR clause 52.222-42 at award.

Attachment E, Recommend the Government add the following in Paragraph 8.a. of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP): “The Government will provide feedback on performance relative to QASP standards on at least a Quarterly basis.”

Rationale: Establishes a minimum frequency for assessing contractor performance between CPARS that is actionable by the contractor.

It is intended for the COR/ACOR, PCO, and contractor to have a relationship where feedback is provided, as needed, throughout performance. However, a process for Contractor Nonconformance Reporting has been added to the QASP.

59 In element 5 of Attachment A to the QASP, the contractor must fill vacancies within 10 calendar days to earn an Exceptional or Very Good rating. Request the Government allow 21 calendar days for the Exceptional and Very Good ratings and 30 calendar days for Satisfactory and Marginal ratings.

Attachment A of the QASP has been updated to allow for 15 calendar days for Exceptional and Very Good ratings and 21 calendar days for Satisfactory and Marginal.

60 Request Government delete 2nd sentence and insert the following: “It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure the electronic files submitted are virus free. The Government will confirm that all files submitted can be opened and read by the Government.”

Rationale: Past experience with submitting proposal files through the DoD SAFE site has revealed that some files can get corrupted when

The Government accepts this recommendation and has revised the applicable solicitation section.

Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

NOTE: Information provided within this Q&A is for information purposes only and is subject to change; the solicitation will contain all processed through the site. Other government agencies to whom we have submitted proposals have recognized this issue and agreed to confirm they could open/read proposal files.

61 Attachment 05, Will the Government please establish a bidder’s library to offerors to include example plans, processes, and procedures described in the Initial TO PWS?

Can the Government provide the following SOPs as part of the draft

RFP? SOP 25-2, SOP 25-2-3, SOP 25-2-7, SOP 25-2-8, SOP 25-7, SOP

190-1, SOP 385-10, SOP 385-10-2, SOP 525-27, SOP 690-990-3, and

SOP 735-5.

With the exception of SOP 690-990-3B, which has already been provided as Attachment 06 to the solicitation, reference to the SOPs have been removed from the Base PWS.

62 Base PWS, PWS 3.2.9.8 references “DA PAM 350-9”. This publication is not available on the Army Publishing Directorate web site and appears to have been superseded by the “PEO STRI TRAINING DEVICES CATALOG”. Will the Government provide the preferred publication to bidders?

DA PAM 350-9 has been superseded by the “Training Support System (TSS) – Enterprise Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADDS) Index and Catalog,” dated 15 July 2021. The Base and Initial TO PWS have been updated to remove to the document and its replacement. The PWSs now state “The contractor shall support the TADSS cataloging process to include formulating and submitting requests for Device Numbers, National Stock Numbers Non Standard Line Item Numbers, Management Control Numbers, and MNP requests.”

63 Section L Table: Past Performance - Shall not exceed 15 pages (letters of consent/commitment, as described in L.7.3.5, Executive Summary, and Table of Contents are excluded from the 15- page limit and can be unlimited pages in length).

Q L.3.1 Past Performance (page 58 of 84):

The Government has limited the page count for the Past Performance Volume to 15 pages, which is 10 pages less than past SETA solicitations.