QandA_Amendment0002.pdf

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

Solicitation Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Q # Question Answer

1 Does a Joint Venture have to be recognized by the Small Business Administration as a Women-Owned small business?

As stated in the Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued Class Deviation 2021-O0002 Revision 01 (Verification of Eligibility for Women-Owned Small Business Program), signed 11 MAR 2021, at the time of proposal submission, an offeror must be designated as a Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) or Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) concern in the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS), or have an application pending within the SBA DSBS, or one of SBA's authorized third-party certifiers.

At the time of contract award, the apparent successful offeror must be designated as a WOSB or EDWOSB concern in the SBA DSBS. An offeror is NOT eligible for a contract award in response to the SETA III acquisition, a WOSB set-aside, unless the offeror is designated as a WOSB or EDWOSB concern in the SBA DSBS at the time of contract award.

In addition, at the time of proposal submission, if the offeror is a joint venture (JV) comprised of a WOSB or EDWOSB concern, serving as the managing venturer of the JV, and one or more other small business concerns...the WOSB or EDWOSB concern, serving as the managing venturer of the JV, must be designated as a WOSB or EDWOSB concern in the SBA DSBS, or have an application pending within the SBA DSBS, or one of SBA's authorized third-party certifiers. At the time of contract award, the WOSB or EDWOSB concern, serving as the managing venturer of the JV, must be designated as a WOSB or EDWOSB concern in the SBA DSBS. As a general note...each concern within the joint venture must also be considered "small business" under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the SETA III acquisition.

Also, at the time of proposal submission, if the offeror is a joint venture (JV) comprised of a WOSB or EDWOSB protégé firm and its SBA-approved mentor, the WOSB or EDWOSB protégé firm must be designated as a WOSB or EDWOSB concern in the SBA DSBS, or have an application pending within the SBA DSBS, or one of SBA's authorized third-party certifiers. At the time of contract award, the WOSB or EDWOSB protégé firm must be designated as a WOSB or EDWOSB concern in the SBA DSBS. As a general note...the WOSB or EDWOSB protégé firm within the joint venture must also be considered small business" under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the SETA III acquisition.

Furthermore, if a merger, sale, or acquisition occurs after proposal submission, but prior to contract award, an offeror should re-certify its size/status in certify.SBA.gov to ensure the SBA DSBS has the most current information at the time of contract award.

2 Can a WOSB “similarly situated” subcontractor assist in achieving the limitation of subcontracting requirement?

It depends. After consultation with our Office of Small Business Programs, we recommend each potential offeror review the guidance at 13 C.F.R. 125.6(c). For a more detailed explanation of the application of the limitation of subcontracting for a contract for services (NOT construction), first you must understand the definition of "Similarly Situated Entity," which is a first-tier subcontractor that has the same small business program status as the prime contractor. So, if the prime contractor, an SBA certified WOSB, as shown in the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) database, subcontracts work to a "similarly situated" subcontractor, who is also a SBA certified WOSB and considered a "small business" for the NAICS code assigned by the prime contractor to the work the subcontractor will perform...the amount subcontracted to the "similarly situated" subcontractor is excluded from the limitation of subcontracting calculation. However, the "similarly situated" subcontractor must perform the work with its own employees. Also, a prime contractor may no longer count a "similarly situated" subcontractor towards compliance with the limitations on subcontracting once the subcontractor ceases to qualify as a "small business" for the NAICS code assigned by the prime contractor to the work the subcontractor has been performing.

3 Question Topic – Clearance for an Official SBA Mentor-Protégé Program (MMP) Joint Venture

Is accordance with 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(4), for Mentor-Protégé Program (MMP) Small Business Joint Ventures - SBA states all official MMP joint ventures must be an unpopulated joint venture which means no individual works as an official employee of the MMP JV business entity. This means all individual who support the JV or execute a contract the JV has been award, are the employees of the companies who make up the JV, not the employees of the JV.

An example: If company A (Mentor) and company B (Protégé) join the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MMP) and form a SBA MMP JV called “ABJV”. If “ABJV” is awarded a contract, called CIO SETA, with an FTE level of 11 then the FTE positions are split (based on a minimal 51% Protege - 49% Mentor requirement) between company A (Mentor) and B (Protégé) becoming official employees of Company A and Company B, not the “ABJV” employees. With that in mind, from a Facilities Clearance point of view each company of the MMP JV (Company A and Company B) holds the clearance of each employee as well for contract CIO SETA, not the ABJV. The ABJV (unpopulated based on MMP policy) does not ever hold the clearance of any individual executing a government contract since they never become an employee of the

ABJV.

As outlined above --- If the members (Mentor and Protégé) of an SBA MMP Joint Venture both hold the clearance level required by PEO STRI SETA III (Top Secret) then the SBA MMP JV submitting a proposal will meet the Facility Clearance requirement as outlined in the DRFP. If there are any concerns with this statement, I will gladly connect PEO STRI with an SBA MMP point of contract, as well as the Army Small Business office to verify this statement as correct.

Offerors compliant with 13 C.F.R § 121.103(h)(4) will not be prohibited from receiving an award. Solicitation section L.7.5.5 has been updated.

4 RFP Reference: “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. Note that

Offerors compliant with 13 C.F.R § 121.103(h)(4) will not be offerors will be deemed unawardable if validation is not received at time of actual award.”

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 13 C.F.R.121.103(h)(4)(i),. “A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance.

(i) Where a facility security clearance is required to perform primary and vital requirements of a contract, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.

Question: Can the Government confirm that in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(4)(i), 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?

5 Page 1 Question 1 the response states: “The Joint Venture who has been awarded the contract must hold an FCL at the required level.”

Please confirm that, when evaluating whether an offeror has met the applicable FCL requirement, that the Agency will follow the requirements of 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(4) (set forth in full below), which under certain circumstances does not require the JV entity itself to obtain an FCL.

13 CFR 121.103(h)(4)

(4) Facility security clearances. A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance.

(i) Where a facility security clearance is required to perform primary and vital requirements of a contract, the lead small business partner to the joint venture must possess the required facility security clearance.

(ii) Where the security portion of the contract requiring a facility security clearance is ancillary to the principal purpose of the procurement, the partner to the joint venture that will perform that work must possess the required facility security clearance.

6 This is a follow up comment to Question 1 answer on the previously released PEO STRI SETA III Q&A.

This topic is regarded the FCL for an Official SBA Mentor-Protégé Program (MMP) Joint Venture.

Is accordance with 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(4), for Mentor-Protégé Program (MMP) Small Business Joint Ventures - SBA states all official MMP joint ventures must be an unpopulated joint venture which means no individual works as an official employee of the MMP JV business entity. This means all individual who support the JV or execute a contract the JV has been award, are the employees of the companies who make up the JV, not the employees of the JV.

An example: If company A (Mentor) and company B (Protégé) join the SBA Mentor-Protégé program (MMP) and form a SBA MMP JV called “ABJV”. If “ABJV” is awarded a contract, called CIO SETA, with an FTE level of 11 then the FTE positions are split (based on a minimal 51% Protege - 49% Mentor requirement) between company A (Mentor) and B (Protégé) becoming official employees of Company A and Company B, not the “ABJV” employees. With that in mind, from a Facilities Clearance point of view each company of the MMP JV (Company A and Company B) holds the clearance of each employee as well for contract CIO SETA, not the ABJV. The ABJV (unpopulated based on MMP policy) does not ever hold the clearance of any individual executing a government contract since they never become an employee of the

ABJV.

As outlined above --- If the members (Mentor and Protégé) of an SBA MMP Joint Venture both hold the clearance level required by PEO STRI SETA III (Top Secret) then the SBA MMP JV submitting a proposal will meet the Facility Clearance requirement as outlined in the RFP.

7 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

Offerors compliant with 13 C.F.R § 121.103(h)(4) will not be partner (and not the Joint Venture itself nor the other Joint Venture partner) needs to have a Top Secret FCL?

However, security policies are fluid and the awardee will be required to comply with said security policies following contract award as they are implemented.

8 Does the SETA RFP require the WOSB prime to have current active TS Facility Clearance?

The DD254 addendum references an SCI with SECRET OR TOP SECRET which leads to ambiguity as to whether a WOSB can prime if they only have SECRET facility clearance.

The awardee will be required to have a Top Secret Facility Clearance prior to performing under the contract. See the revised Section L.7.5.5 for what is expected at the time of proposal submission. The SETA III requirement requires a Top Secret Clearance so the contractor can work efforts at and have employees cleared as high as Top Secret to meet our program requirements. However, not every position is required to have Top Secret clearance. Base PWS Section 6.2.2 states that clearances can range from Secret to Top Secret. In the case of the Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information (CNWDI), there are multiple programs at varying levels of classification, Secret to Top Secret.

9 On Attachment C - DD254, Section 6 has “Planning Purposes Only” where the company information should go and does not appear to be fillable. Will you be supplying a fillable version of the DD254?

The offeror will not be required to fill out the DD254 at proposal submission.

10 The third bullet point under Section L.7.5.5 states that the authorized official must certify the following: “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.” Would the Government specify what kind of information and/or documentation about Facility Clearances for both prime and subcontractors does it require in the proposal?

At proposal submission, the offeror shall certify to this requirement. Attachment 10, Security Vetting for Contractor Form shall be submitted for Government validation of Facility Security Clearance status.

11 The third bullet point under Section L.7.5.5 states that the authorized official must certify the following: “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

The third bullet under Section L.7.5.5 has been modified to read as follows: “The offeror and subcontractors have validated Facility Security Clearances or the capability to obtain any necessary clearances based on the offeror’s proposed approach (as stated within the DD254 [Section J of the solicitation, validation is not received at time of actual award.” Does the government require that a DD254 is submitted by the prime and subcontractors with the proposal?

Attachment D]). Offeror shall complete and submit Attachment 10, Vendor Self-Vetting Form.”

The offeror is not expected to fill in the DD254 at this time.

However, offeror shall complete Attachment 10, Security Vetting for Contractor Form.

12 In Attachment D, Item 18 states, “The vendor/contractor identified in Block 6 is a Multiple Facility Organization (MFO) and is authorized to submit DD254 and SCI Addendum for the following SCI locations (Facility Name and CAGE Code).” If a DD254 is required, regarding item 18 on Attachment D, would the Government clarify if it expects contractors to fill out item 18 with Facility Names and CAGE codes and return Attachment D with their proposals?

The offeror is not expected to fill in the DD254 at this time.

13 L.5.2.1 makes no mention of 11”x17” foldouts. Will the Government allow 11”x17” foldouts within submitted proposals?

Solicitation L.5.2.1 states that 8.5” x 11” shall be used with the exception of Volume IV but we did add an additional exemption for organizational structure charts so 11” x 17” can be used. This will still count towards the page count and should only include the chart itself. Narrative within the chart should not be extensive. Language revised to say “EXCEPTIONS: Volume IV and an Organization Structure chart, if applicable, within Factor 1, Sub-element 1: Corporate Capability).”

14 RFP states under L.5.2.1 Proposal Electronic File Instructions that page setup is as follows: “Page Size, Width – 8.5” and “Page Size, Height - 11”. As the Government requires a depiction of organizational structure in response to Volume I, L.7.1.4, Corporate Capability, Offeror requests the Government’s consideration in allowing a maximum of one foldout page (11” x 17”) to allow sufficient space for this depiction.

Government has added an exemption for organizational structure charts so 11” x 17” can be used. This will still count towards the page count and should only include the chart itself.

Narrative within the chart should not be extensive. Language revised to say “EXCEPTIONS: Volume IV and an Organization Structure chart, if applicable, within Factor 1, Sub-element 1:

Corporate Capability).”

15 Paragraph L.7.5.2.1 of the base solicitation requires all pages to be 8.5” wide and 11” height. Request the Government allow either 8’X11” landscape, or 11”X17” landscape as required to show Level of Effort data for the Sample Task as required by paragraph.7.2.5.

Section updated to allow for a 8.5” x 11” page size. There is no requirement for it to be portrait.

Government has added an exemption for organizational structure charts so 11” x 17” can be used. This will still count towards the page count and should only include the chart itself.

Narrative within the chart should not be extensive. Language revised to say “EXCEPTIONS: Volume IV and an Organization Structure chart, if applicable, within Factor 1, Sub-element 1:

Corporate Capability).”

16 Section L, 5.2.1 identifies the appropriate page size for proposal submissions to be 8.5” x 11” paper while maintaining a 12 pt font, with exception to “headers/footers with administrative information; tables, screen shots, illustrations, and/or images”. To ensure the readability of specific tables, images, and graphics, the offeror is requesting the use of 11x17 sized paper to clearly illustrate the data required.

No, however the Government has added an exemption for organizational structure charts so 11” x 17” can be used. This will still count towards the page count and should only include the chart itself. Narrative within the chart should not be extensive.

Language revised to say “EXCEPTIONS: Volume IV and an Organization Structure chart, if applicable, within Factor 1, Sub-element 1: Corporate Capability).”

17 L.5.2.1 makes no mention of 11”x17” foldouts.

Will the Government allow 11”x17” foldouts for graphic or table elements within submitted proposals; and if so, would it count as one page or two pages?

still count towards the page count and should only include the chart itself. Narrative within the chart should not be extensive.

Language revised to say “EXCEPTIONS: Volume IV and an

18 May we use an 11x17 foldout page for a graphic.

still count towards the page count and should only include the chart itself. Narrative within the chart should not be extensive.

Language revised to say “EXCEPTIONS: Volume IV and an

19 With the limited page allocation for the Past Performance proposal response severely restricting adequately addressing all PWS areas, will the Government allow the Past Performance to be presented in a table format at a smaller font size so that we may present a more detailed demonstration of our experience?

Offerors are allotted at least 3 pages per project (if submitting 5 projects). We believe this is sufficient to meet the requirements of Factor 3, Past Performance. The Government is not seeking for offerors to explain how the past performance addresses all PWS areas. See M.9.2. Relevancy for more information.

20 Section M.9.2 states that “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.”

The Government should also consider if the Project is performed as a Prime contractor or Subcontractor. Prime contractors have overall responsibility for all aspects of performance, management, and contractual obligations. Subcontractors have very limited responsibilities.

Please confirm if a Project performed as a prime contractor will be evaluated more relevant that a Project performed as a subcontractor.

No, the relevancy rating will not consider whether the offeror performed as a prime or subcontractor on its proposed effort.

21 L.7.3.4 Past Performance. In order to be considered a major subcontractor, it must be responsible for at least 20% of the anticipated value of the SETA III effort.

Question: What constitutes the anticipated value of the SETA III effort?

Total value of assigned staffing dollars or simply the agreement that the subcontractor will perform 20% of the work?

The anticipated value of the SETA III effort would correlate to the offerors Total Evaluated Price, as proposed within the Price Volume. As such, major subcontractors should perform 20% of the Total Evaluated Price value. This will be identified in L.7.3.4.2.

22 Volume III Past Performance - Section L.7.4.4.1 of the RFP – The second sentence reads, "Additionally, letters of commitment shall be included…..". Is "commitment" here meant "consent", or are there two letters needed?

These are two different documents. Letter of consent is needed for the prime offeror to release information pertaining to the subcontractor. Letter of commitment is needed to show the subcontractors commitment to the prime offeror in performance of SETA III if awarded the contract.

23 Will the Government please confirm that letters of commitment and letters of consent are only required of major subcontractors whose past performance is included in Volume III?

Letters of commitment and consent are only required if the prime offeror intends to utilize the major subcontractors past performance.

24 Does the Government want items such as legal agreements or letters of consent/commitment submitted as separate attachments or inserted within the volume itself?

If possible, the volume should be one file. However, it is acceptable to split the file if it exceeds the limitations set forth within DoD SAFE.

25 Volume III Past Performance – Section L.7.3.4.2 of the RFP contains *Note: This may be the prime offeror or major subcontractor. If major

The second sentence of the note is simply requesting the prime offeror to state what percentage of the SETA III effort the major subcontractor will perform. This statement is not requiring subcontractor, prime offeror should identify the percentage of work it anticipates the major subcontractor performing for the SETA III effort.

The second sentence of this note requires Past Performance Content to state how the offeror intends to define work share for the SETA III proposal. Please clarify if this is correctly stated to be included as part of the Past Performance.

specific content. However, in order to provide an accurate number to the government offerors and its subcontractors should decide, amongst themselves, the allocation of work shared to develop the percentage it provides to the Government.

26 Section L.7.3.4.2 of the RFP lists the information required for any project submitted as Past Performance. One item says “Offeror’s Role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor)*”. The description for the * is, “*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.” Please provide some clarity on what should be included in this field based on the scenarios below.

a. Would the “Offeror’s role” be the role of the organization on the project submitted, or their role on the SETA III team? For example, if Company A is the SETA III prime offeror, and their role on the project they submit was as a subcontractor, should they list their role as “prime” for SETA III, or “subcontractor” for Project N?

b. If the answer to question a is “subcontractor”, is the prime required to include their percentage of work performed on the project submitted, or does that part of the Note not apply to the SETA III prime offeror?

c. If the role of the organization is as a subcontractor for SETA III, but their role on the project submitted was as a prime, should they list their role as major subcontractor for SETA III, or prime for the project submitted?

d. When a SETA III major subcontractor submits a project where they were a prime or a subcontractor, what percentage of work should be reported? The percentage to be performed on SETA III, or the percentage that was performed on the project submitted?

This has been clarified in the solicitation section L.7.3.4.2. There is now a bullet for “Contractors Role for SETA III Effort (prime, joint venture partner, subcontractor) and, if applicable, anticipated percentage of work to be performed.*” and a bullet for “Contractors Role for Project Submitted (prime, joint venture partner, subcontractor)”

Additionally, bullet regarding percentage of work updated to state “Type and percentage of work self-performed for Project Submitted**” to clarify the expectation.

27 “Offeror’s Role”.

Would the Government please confirm or clarify that this is the role of the firm providing the PP citation on the PEO STRI SETA III effort (which

This has been clarified in the solicitation section L.7.3.4.2. There is now a bullet for “Contractors Role for SETA III Effort (prime, joint venture partner, subcontractor) and, if applicable, anticipated percentage of work to be performed.*” and a bullet may be from a Major Subcontractor) or if it is the Prime bidder for the PEO STRI SETA III solicitation?

for “Contractors Role for Project Submitted (prime, joint venture partner, subcontractor).”

28 “POC for Reference (Name, Company, and Telephone Number)”

Will the Government please confirm if this is a reference to the corporate POC for the firm providing the PP citation or the Government contact for the citation contract (such as the CO)?

This has been clarified in solicitation section L.7.3.4.2. Bullet now says “POC for Contract Issuer (Name, Company/Agency, and Telephone Number).”

29 Section L.7.3.4 states the following:

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 women-owned 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).

If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies, a JV, for the purpose of this Solicitation, the JV will be evaluated as a single Offeror. The experience of each joint venture partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work and in the proposed JV role for this project.

Section M.9.2 Relevancy states the following:

For the purpose of this solicitation “self-performed” is defined as tasks that the Offeror or its major subcontractor (as defined in L.7.3.4) 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.

Note: This Section M language was not included in the draft

FRP.

This language is very similar to language found in RFP No. FA8622-21- R-8335, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering, professional and administrative support services at the Air Force Material Command headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, If the offeror is the mentor-protégé JV, then the mentor-protégé JV can submit projects that any member of the JV performed.

The intent of this statement is to restrict offerors from using past performance of a traditional JV partner that is not on this requirement. For example, JV AB performed a past project and Company A wants to use the entire effort as its own past performance. This is not acceptable. Company A should explain what part of the previous effort they performed. The following statement has been added to L.7.3.4 and M.9.3, “For JV prime contractors, the one project must come from the JV or at least one of the JV partners.”

Ohio. [Contractor] protested the RFP violates the requirements of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations pertaining to small-business mentor-protégé offerors, and also is otherwise unduly restrictive of competition. The protest was upheld.

The foundation of a mentor/protégé joint venture is for the protégé to benefit from the capabilities, qualifications, and past performance of the mentor in order to compete and grow their business. [Contractor] does not yet have a past performance to submit as executed by the joint venture.

Question:

Request the Government change the requirements for past performance as it relates to joint ventures to allow either the mentor or the protégé to submit a past performance as the prime.

30 Can you verify if the SETA transition post-award is incremental or full transition of the 400+FTE across the PEO and its defined outlying locations? My understanding/assumption is correct that the entire contract personal footprint is absorbed post-award or is it a piecemeal assumption over a limited period of time?

The entire workforce transition is expected within the 90 day transition period. The current workforce is approximately 400 FTEs but this could vary with offerors proposed solutions.

31 RFP states: “Any Offeror who has a current contract with PEO STRI, in a prime or subcontract capacity, shall submit along with its offer, a mitigation plan in accordance with the Section H, Organization Conflicts of Interest section which includes a certification of whether or not an offeror has a conflict of interest.” Does this requirement include incumbent contractors on the SETA II contract that will be proposed as subcontractors on the SETA III contract?

Substantial edits were made to section L.7.5.7. These edits were made to provide clarity on issues related to OCI and if/when mitigation plans are required.

32 L.7.5.7.3, Paragraph a. states: “Any Offeror who has a current contract with PEO STRI, in a prime or subcontract capacity, shall submit along with its offer, a mitigation plan…”

Will the Government confirm that work performed under the current PEO STRI SETA II program is exempt from this requirement?

33 Para. 7.5.7.3 states that any Offeror or Offeror’s teammate (subcontractor, joint venture or other team mate) that has a current contract with PEO STRI, in a prime or subcontract capacity, shall submit along with it’s offer a mitigation plan. Offeror requests that Government provide clarification whether a mitigation plan is required to be submitted for those subcontractors currently providing the same support under incumbent contract, PEO STRI SETA II, as that which is anticipated under PEO STRI SETA III.

In addition, can the Government confirm that references made in Para.

7.5.7.3 to Attachment A, Base PWS, Section 4.6.3, Organization Conflicts of Interest should be Section 4.8.3, Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

OCI and if/when mitigation plans are required.

Yes, the correct reference to Organizational Conflict of Interest within the Base PWS is 4.8.3. Section L has been updated.

34 Section L.7.5.7.3 of the RFP states: “Any Offeror who has a current contract with PEO STRI, in a prime or subcontract capacity, shall submit along with its offer, a mitigation plan in accordance with the Section H, Organization Conflicts of Interest section which includes a certification of whether or not an offeror has a conflict of interest.” Does this requirement include incumbent contractors on the SETA II contract that may be proposed as a subcontractor on the SETA III contract?

35 Section L, Para. L.7.5.7.2 states, ‘If any of the contracts identified pursuant to L.7.5.7.1(f) contain an Organizational Conflict of Interest Provision, the offeror may request a waiver of that provision and propose contractual safeguards or job procedures to mitigate conflicting roles that might produce an Organizational Conflict of Interest.’

Referenced Para. L.7.5.7.1(f) does not appear to exist within the solicitation documentation, therefore, Offeror requests that a clarification be made to this reference.

36 The DOD Safe web site at https://safe.apps.mil/ states to drop off files.

Drop-off (upload) a file for a DoD user (must have request code from recipient).

Additional instructions have been added to L.4.9.2. Non-CAC users (L.4.9.2.1) must request a code from the Government by emailing the SETA III email (usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil).

https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil

Will the Government clarify how we are to receive the request code?

37 Para. L.4.9.2 states that Offerors shall submit proposals through DoD SAFE, however, there appears to be a ‘request code’ that is required in order to ‘Drop Off’ files for submission. Offeror requests that the required ‘request code’ be provided by the Government in order to use the DoD SAFE website.

emailing the SETA III email (usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil).

38 Section L.4.9.2 Proposal Submission states “Offerors shall submit proposals through DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) to the solicitation POCs listed in Table 1.”

The DoD SAFE websites states that to Drop Off “Drop-off (upload) a file for a DoD user (must have request code from recipient).” Will the Government be sending out request codes for offerors to upload their proposals?

emailing the SETA III email (usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil).

39 Offerors are required to submit proposals through the DoD SAFE web portal. Does the Government have a minimum timeframe prior to submittal for when Offerors are required to submit DoD SAFE POC information to the Contracting Officer and/or Contracting Specialist to receive the DoD SAFE link for submittal?

emailing the SETA III email (usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil).

40 Will the Government provide a drop-off code for DOD Safe upon request?

Additional instructions have been added to L.4.9.2. Non-CAC users (L.4.9.2.1) must request a code from the Government by emailing the SETA III email (usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil).

41 The solicitation states that Offerors are to submit proposals via DoD Safe. Historically, DoD Safe codes are only active for a limited period of time. Can the Government please elaborate on the necessary process and timeframes for Offerors/subcontractors to obtain DoD Safe codes for submission?

emailing the SETA III email (usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil).

42 What is the maximum individual file size and the collective submission size for proposal submission through DoD SAFE?

Based on DoD SAFE’s website (under “Help”) the maximum package size is 8 GB. It does not appear to have an individual file size limit. However, this is subject to change at DoD SAFE’s mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil discretion. If an offeror will exceed this number, it will need to request a second code and submit a second package.

43 What is the maximum number of files that can be uploaded at one time? Based on DoD SAFE’s website (under “Help”) the maximum number of files per package are 25. However, this is subject to change at DoD SAFE’s discretion. If an offeror will exceed this number, it will need to request a second code and submit a second package.

44 If an individual file exceeds the maximum file size limit for submitting through DoD SAFE and needs to be split, will the Government please advise what the naming convention should be for the two files?

If a file must be split, offerors should add “file#” at the end. A possible example would be, offeror name_Volume#_File#. If the file was split into 3 files 1, 2, and 3 would be used.

45 Volume IV Price - Section L.7.4.5 The requirement for the Total Compensation Plan states that the plan shall include details regarding the prime contract and major subcontractors. Typically, elements in a compensation plan such as salaries and specific benefits are considered company proprietary data and not shared among companies. L.4.9.3 states that subcontractor proposals must be submitted through DoD SAFE. Please confirm that subcontractors can submit their own compensation plans directly to the Government via DoD SAFE.

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

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

46 The Government asks for a single Total Compensation Plan. Due to sub-contractor’s salary and fringe information being a part of the required submission, will the Government allow for subcontractors to submit their Total Compensation Plans separately?

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

47 Section L.4.9.3 states by submitting a proposal, the Offeror agrees to comply with all terms and conditions as set forth in this solicitation.

Subcontractor proposals must adhere to the proposal due date/time in the solicitation and be submitted through the DoD SAFE web portal. Can the Government clarify what documents are expected to be submitted by the subcontractor?

L.7.4.5 requires details regarding the prime contractor and major subcontractors for the Total Compensation Plan. Subcontractors are allowed to submit data directly to the Government utilizing DoD SAFE as specified in the solicitation. Subcontractors shall identify prime contractor to ensure information is connected with appropriate prime contractor proposal.

Note that L.7.4.5 has been updated to require a letter of commitment for all subcontractors submitting a Total Compensation Plan.

48 Attachment 8 states:

Please complete the enclosure and return to the usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil no later than proposal submission deadline of 25 October 2021.

However, the RFP states that the submission date is 15 October 2021, will the Government please clarify?

Attachment 8 contained a typo and the deadline is 15 October 2021. Attachment 8 updated.

49 Attachment 8 states “Please complete the enclosure and return to the usarmy.orlando.peostri.list.seta3@mail.mil no later than proposal submission deadline of 25 October 2021.” However, the proposal submission deadline is 15 October 2021. Please confirm the correct due date for Attachment 8 submission.

Attachment 8 contained a typo and the deadline is 27 October

50 Attachment 8 states. “Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation. Please complete the enclosure and return to the usarmy.orlando.peostri.list.seta3@mail.mil no later than proposal submission deadline of 25 October 2021.”

Block 9 of the solicitation states that the submission date is 15 October 2021.

Question: Is October 25, 2021 the correct submission date for the past performance letters or are they due on the same date as proposal?

51 Attachment 8 is named “Performance Assessment Questionnaire”.

However, the document is titled and referenced as “Past Performance Assessment” in all other documents. Please confirm the correct title/name for Attachment 8.

Attachment 08 has been renamed to Past Performance Questionnaire.

52 The cover letter on Att 08, Performance Assessment Questionnaire, states “Please complete the enclosure and return to the usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.seta3@mail.mil no later than proposal submission deadline of 25 October 2021”

Per the SF 33, the proposal due date is 15 October 2021.

Please provide an updated Att 08 and if possible, provide a version that can be completed electronically (either a fillable PDF or Word version).

A fillable PDF has been provided.

53 Would the Government allow an acronyms table to be included outside the page count?

Sentence below Table 2 revised to state “*Cover pages, title pages, table of contents, cross reference matrices, dividers, index tabs, acronym lists, definitions tables, and glossary lists will not be counted as part of the page count, so long as they are inserted solely for the purpose of reading ease and locating sections of the proposal.”

54 It is our intent to include an Acronyms and Definitions table at the end of every Volume submission. Will these tables, which will be in their own Volume Section, be counted against the established page limits?

index tabs, acronym lists, definitions tables, and glossary lists will not be counted as part of the page count, so long as they are

55 “*Cover pages, title pages, table of contents, cross reference matrices, dividers, index tabs, etc. will not be counted as part of the page count, so long as they are inserted solely for the purpose of reading ease and locating sections of the proposal.”

Is an Acronym List included under “etc.”; and if so, may we include an Acronym List outside of page count?

index tabs, acronym lists, definitions tables, and glossary lists will not be counted as part of the page count, so long as they are

56 Page 70 of the RFP notes that cover pages, title pages, table of contents, cross reference matrices, dividers, index tabs, ect. will not counted as part of the page count. Please confirm that glossary/acronym lists are not included in the page count requirements for each volume.

Sentence below Table 2 revised to state “*Cover pages, title pages, table of contents, cross reference matrices, dividers, index tabs, acronym lists, definitions tables, and glossary lists will not be counted as part of the page count, so long as they are

57 Section L instructions require an Executive Summary for each volume.

Will the information contained in these Executive Summaries be evaluated as part of the associated volume(s)?

The executive summary includes identifying information about the contractor. This information is requested for informational purposes and shall not contain anything to evaluate. Additionally, Table 2 shows that the Executive Summary has no page limit.

58 “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). Among the items identified in FAR Clause 52.215-1(c)(2), the Executive Summary shall also include the: …”

The solicitation instructions indicate additional information can be added to the Executive Summary (“among the items” and “shall also include”).

Would the Government please define what additional data may be included in the Executive Summary section?

FAR clause 52.215-1(c)(2) includes a list of items required in the executive summary. We then state, the executive summary should also include the Title of Proposal, Proposal Volume Number and Title, Offeror’s Name, Offeror’s CAGE Code and DUNS. No information outside the requirements of 52.215- 1(c)(2) and the four bullets within that section should be included.

59 L.5.2.1 makes no mention of cross-referencing in the proposal. L.7.2.3 states: “The technical approach for the TO shall be submitted in the Offeror’s format and shall be a standalone response and not reference other portions of its proposal.”

We understand this to mean no external cross-referencing to other volumes.

Due to the limited page allocation for the proposal response, will the Government allow cross-referencing between sections within each volume?

Offerors can cross-reference within sections of the same volume.

60 Section L.1.5 second sentence states “Offerors are cautioned that each volume of the proposal will be evaluated standalone against the criteria set forth in Section M of the Solicitation and the evaluators for one volume may be different than the evaluators of another volume.” Please confirm if evaluators will evaluate the entire volume they are assigned to.

The same evaluators will evaluate the volume they are assigned

to. However, certain information, like executive summary and table of contents are requested for informational purposes and shall not contain anything to evaluate.

61 Section L.5.2 states “The Government will confirm that all files submitted can be opened and read by the Government.” If we submitted our proposal a day before submission due date, will the Government confirm files submitted can be opened that same day, allowing us to resubmit any files that for any reason cannot be opened?

That is the intent but the timing of the submission could affect the Government’s ability to confirm the files can be opened before the proposal submission deadline.

62 Para. L.4.5 states ‘…”Certificate of Independent Price Determination” is applicable to both the award of the basic Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract and the award of individual TO’s. As this award is not intended to be a Multiple Award Contract (MAC), it would seem that the management approach would only need to address independent pricing during the solicitation phase and not with the award of individual TO’s post award. Can the Government confirm the need for an Independent Price Determination process at the TO level?

Reference to “individual TO” has been replaced with “the Initial

TO.”

63 Para. L.7.5.9, Financial Information, states that states that Offerors shall submit “…the following as part of the Price Volume: (1) Financial Statements...”, however, Table 2 lists this requirement to be provided within Volume V, Administrative Information. Draft Q&A’s #33 dated 19 August 2021 also confirmed that the Financial Information requirement should be provided within Volume V. Offeror requests that the Government provide clarification within Para. L.7.5.9 that Offerors should submit L.7.5.9 Financial Information within Volume V, Administrative Information, vice Volume IV, Pricing, as stated in the solicitation.

Reference to Price Volume was in error. This section has been revised and no longer states “Price Volume.”

64 The instructions for Volume V – Administrative Information in Section L.7.5.9 state, “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…” These instructions are listed under Volume V, but the instructions say to insert the information as part of Volume IV- Factor 4, Price. Please provide clarification as to whether the requirements in L.7.5.9 items (1), (2), and

(3) need to go in Volume IV or Volume V.

65 The instructions for Volume V indicates that L.7.5.9 Financial Information should be included in in Volume IV. Please confirm that the entirety of the response for 7.5.9, including all attachments and explanations, can be cross referenced and included in Volume IV Price.

66 Will the Government please combine all pricing instructions and requirements into Volume IV: Factor 4 – Price?

Rationale: The Administrative Volume gives instructions for the Price volume. In Volume V: Administrative Information, L.7.5.9 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”.

67 L.7.5.9 requires offerors provide “…Financial statements (balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement)” and “…aged accounts payable and aged accounts receivable reports” so the Government can “…determine the financial responsibility of the Offeror in accordance with

FAR 9.104.”

Would the Government please remove these requirements from the solicitation package, and that this data be sought in a FAR 9.106 pre-award survey required when the contracting officer cannot make a determination regarding responsibility of an offeror with available information?

Rationale: The request for these financial data is atypical for the solicitation phase of a contract and include some of the most protected and proprietary financial information in a company. Information provided by offerors in their representations and certifications (e.g. FAR 52.209-5, 52.209-11, etc.), pre-award survey (SF 1408), and within existing government systems (e.g. the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System [FAPIIS], etc.) are typically sufficient for the contracting officer to make a Determination of Responsibility on an Offeror in alignment with FAR 9.104. Additionally, a request could be made that the company provide a Dun and Bradstreet report which is a comprehensive report providing risk and financial analysis data on the

Section L.7.5.9 revised to state “The Government will be requesting the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) perform Financial Capability Surveys of all Offerors. Offerors can expect to be contacted by DCMA to provide additional financial data which may include financial statements, aged accounts payable and receivable reports, and the like so the Government can determine the financial responsibility of the Offeror in accordance with FAR 9.104."

company. If the Determination of Responsibility yields questionable data, we assert the government can still retrieve requested financial/accounting data in pre-award phase per FAR 9.106-4.

68 L.6.2.0- Table 2 Note: Legal agreements identifying joint ventures/major subcontractors/teaming arrangements will not be counted toward any page limitations of this volume.

Question: What documentation is the Government expecting to see for Teaming agreements?

In accordance with L.7.1.4 “The Offeror shall provide signed documentation (format as established by Offeror) indicating a legally binding agreement (i.e., joint ventures/major subcontractors/teaming arrangements) among the parties to support the proposed team structure.”

69 The solicitation requires that this proposal be classified as "CUI" (L.5.2.1); however, the Government also states "Files shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening." All CUI documents would be required to be password protected before transmitting electronically for submission. Please clarify.

In accordance with DoDI 5200.48 Section 4.1 CUI information may be transferred electronically via systems utilizing other protective measures such as transport layer security (e.g., https).

DoD SAFE provides this level of security therefore, password protection would not be required.

70 The solicitation…