Industry Q and A.pdf

NO. DOCUMENT PAGE SECTION KEYWORDS QUESTION/COMMENT ANSWERS

ATTACHMENT 0001

HQs_USAF_PWS 14 of 112 1.10.1 Contract Manager, and Site Supervisors Would you consider making the Contract Manager Key person directly billable?

The Government will not be making the Contract Manager Key person directly billable.

ATTACHMENT 0001

HQs_USAF_PWS

85 and 88, of 112 5.2.10.1 Numbering of requirements/paragraphs

5.2.10.1 Program Analyst Level III on page 85 and 5.2.10.1 Acquisition Analyst Level IV on page 88 share the same paragraph number - 5.2.10.1 - is this a mistake? Numbering corrected

ATTACHMENT 0002 Pricing Worksheet Tabs Tabs Number of tabs for pricing/length of contract

You have tabs for base period and for year 2, year 3, year 4, and year 5. And then you additionally have tabs for six option periods. Is this correct? There seem to be too many tabs.

The tabs for the six option periods is monthly pricing for 52.217-8.

4 PWS 7

1.5.4.3.10 - Coverage Plan

In order to allow Offerors to adequately address the coverage plan requirement, will the Government please define the parameters for the coverage plan, including a timeline for when the plan should be provided?

Parameters already provided; PWS updated to remove the requirement for a separate Coverage Plan

5 PWS 9

1.5.6.4 - Classified Work

If an offeror has off-site employees with access to a nearby military installation, would the Government consider allowing them to access a DoD-cleared facility for the purpose of accessing classified systems (e.g., SIPR access, SECRET VTC use)? This option would allow contractors assigned to Headquarters (APG) to attend classified meetings virtually using a SVTC at a local facility (e.g., Stafford/MCSC, Fort Belvoir).

Case by case basis; determined by government leads at each facility coordinated through the COR

6 PWS 9

1.5.6.4 - Classified Work

Will the Government consider approving alternate locations for limited classified work to increase the pool of candidates for this effort?

Case by case basis; determined by government leads at each facility coordinated through the COR

7 dRFP 6-May G2.1.1 - G2.1.3 Since the Government is contemplating a firm-fixed-price task order with a small percentage of cost reimbursable CLINS, how will the clauses at G2.1.1 - G2.1.3 apply? The section only applies to Cost CLINs

8 dRFP 50 Section L - Vol I - Phase I

Will the Government consider including CBRND experience as a Phase I gate criteria similar to an Offeror's requirement to have a TS FCL? See revised TOR for the Phase evaluation approach.

9 dRFP - Section L 50 Section L - Vol I - Phase I

Are offerors required to present additional information within Volume I - Phase I other than the statement and associated corporate information to confirm possession of a Top Secret facility clearance? This information will easily fit on less than one page. see revised TOR for submission guideline.

10 dRFP 50 Section L –Vol II - Administrative

The Administrative requirements state, "The offeror shall provide an Executive Summary which shall consist of a top-level description of what the corporation does as it relates to the CBRND specific mission space, an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (if necessary)." In lieu of the requirement to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan, will the Government consider requiring Offerors to certify they have conducted an OCI sweep and determined that no OCIs exist?

During the submission of Proposal Stage and during the period of performance, if an OCI is identified an OCI mitigation plan is required.

11 dRFP 50 Section L –Vol II - Administrative

The Administrative requirements state, "The offeror shall provide an Executive Summary which shall consist of a top-level description of what the corporation does as it relates to the CBRND specific mission space, an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (if necessary)." As OCI Mitigation Plans are typically several pages long, will the Government please consider either increasing the page limit for this Volume, excluding the plan from the page limit, or allowing Offerors to state they have conducted an OCI sweep with no OCIs found? OCI Mitigation Plans do not count towards the page limit.

12 dRFP 50 Section L –Vol II - Administrative

The Administrative requirements state, "for any additional Subcontractors being proposed at the Task Order level that were not previously approved at the IDIQ level, the offeror shall annotate the intent to add the Subcontractor(s)." Will the Government clarify if this refers to prospective subcontractors that were approved at the OASIS+ IDIQ level or otherwise clarify?

Any subcontractors being used for Task Orders shall be identified in the Proposal.

13 dRFP - Section L 50 Section L –Vol II - Administrative

Will the Government consider an increased page limit for the Administrative Volume? It will be extremely difficult to adequately cover the four requested elements in two pages. Five pages is for this section.

14 dRFP - Section L 50 Section L –Vol II - Administrative

Will the Government consider moving the requirement to describe CBRND-specific mission support to Volume I - Phase I? This input serves as an additional discriminator vice an administrative detail. Directions are provided wihtin the TOR

15 dRFP - Section L 50 Section L –Vol II - Administrative

If the Government chooses to move the CBRND-specific mission support requirement to Volume I - Phase I, please also consider the associated impact to page limit for Volume I.

Phase 1 criteria under review; increase page limit when using CBRND specific support

16 dRFP 50

Section L - Vol III - Factor 1 - Technical

Will the Government consider allowing Offerors to submit a narrative justification with the sanitized labor table to explain proposed staffing plan? Yes, this will be part of Technical portion of proposal.

17 dRFP 50

Section L - Vol III - Factor 1 - Technical

For Factor I - Recruiting, Retention, and Management of Resources, will the Government allow at least a 25-page limit for this Volume to allow Offerors to provide sufficient detail of capabilities and experience? A recruiting and retention plan can easily reach 10 pages on its own, a transition plan is typically up to 5 pages long (depending on page space / foldout ability), and to sufficiently explain quality control procedures requires several pages as well. TOR Technical updated; Page Limit 25 pages

18 dRFP 50

Section L - Vol III - Factor 1 - Technical

The Technical page limit is TBD. Will the Government please allow a 25-page limit to provide Offerors enough room to fully explain all proposal elements being requested in Section L? See response to Question #17

19 dRFP 50

Section L - Vol III - Factor 1 - Technical

Will the Government allow additional, fold-out pages in order to clearly portray the Transition Schedule?

Factor 1 update to remove master schedule requirement;

no fold-out pages should be required.

20 dRFP - Section L 50

Section L - Vol III - Factor 1 - Technical

Within the Excel submission of the sanitized Pricing Worksheet, are offerors permitted to provide narrative explanation of the proposed staffing organization? Yes

21 dRFP - Section L 50

Section L - Vol III - Factor 1 - Technical

Within the Excel submission of the sanitized Pricing Worksheet, are offerors permitted to adjust columns to show minimum education and/or years of experience qualifications for each proposed position? Alternatively, request this information (i.e., minimum education and experience qualifications) to be included in the final PWS. There is concern that, if this information is not either included as a requirement within the PWS or proposed as part of the offer, there is potential for some offerors to price significantly lower for high level positions. This will present a high risk to performance and potential for a workforce reset.

Offers are not allowed to adjust the columns, but can include a narrative to justify the proposed labor mix.

22 dRFP 51

Section L - Vol IV - Factor 2 - Cost/Price

Cost/Price states that the page limit is, "Restricted to the attached worksheet and a PDF copy of the worksheet." Will the Government consider including a price narrative? This would allow Offerors to provide proof of an approved accounting system, rationale of the proposed level of effort and LCATS, and justification of reasonableness of proposed rates. A pricing narrative is allowed. Directions are within the TOR.

23 dRFP 51

Section L - Vol IV - Factor 2 - Cost/Price

The page limit in this volume is, "Restricted to the attached worksheet and a PDF copy of the worksheet." However, offerors are requested to provide evidence of an approved accounting system within Volume IV. Will the Government consider requiring a price narrative to allow Offerors to provide this information? A pricing narrative is allowed. Directions are within the TOR.

24 dRFP 51

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

The recency criteria is defined as a contract, "held within the last five (5) years from the release date of this Solicitation." This can have several conflicting meanings, such as a contract awarded within the last five years or a contract with a POP that has any overlap to the last five years (even if most of the work was performed more than five years ago). Will the Government please clarify what is meant by, "held within the last five (5) years from the release date of this Solicitation"?

This has updated now states "performance or award during past 5 years".

25 dRFP 52

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

The Past Performance requirements state that, "A major subcontractor is defined as those subcontracts that are performing more than 20% of the total proposed labor cost." Will the Government consider requiring executed teaming agreements for Offerors proposing past performance from a major subcontractor? If so, will the Government exclude these agreements from the page limit of the specified volume?

The government will update the Past Performance requirement to include extecuted teaming agreements for each submission of a major subcontractor. These executed teaming agreement will not count toward the page limit for Past Performance.

26 dRFP 52

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

Per bullet vi, will the Government clarify what is being requested with "contract administration activities pre-award monitor's name"? Bullet vi has been removed.

27 dRFP 52

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

Per bullet viii, Offerors must specify primary and secondary contract types for IDIQs. It also states that multiple task orders under one IDIQ should not be combined and that each task order must be included as a stand alone citation. Will the Government consider modifying this requirement to allow multiple TOs awarded under a single award IDIQ contract to be submitted as combined TOs, while competitively awarded TOs under a multiple award IDIQ contract must be cited individually?

This requirement is unchanged.

28 dRFP 52

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

Per PP bullet xiv, TOs cannot be combined into a single PP submission. However, initial JE-OPETS TOs were competed as one effort and then awarded and executed based on different funding sources / requiring office needs as separate TOs. Will the Government allow offerors to combine simultaneously solicited, awarded, and executed JE-OPETS TOs into one past performance citation since the primary reason for the multiple TOs was an internal Government concern and unrelated to how the contract was executed or managed? Same as above answer.

29 dRFP - Section L 52

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

Will the Government consider reducing the points of contact required for each past performance reference to the Administrative Contracting Officer and the Technical Representative? This requirement is unchanged.

30 dRFP - Section L 52

Section L - Vol V - Factor 3 - Past Performance

Will the Government consider, for past performance references being submitted by a subcontractor to the Prime offeror, requiring explanation of the intended percentage of work the subcontractor will be assigned?

The percentage of work being performed by subcontractors shall be disclosed.

31 dRFP 53

Section L - Vol V -factor 3 - Past Performance

The Past Performance requirements state that, "Offerors shall include a list of all the POCs who were sent questionnaires." Will the Government confirm that there is not page limit for PP or, if a page limit is imposed, clarify that the PPAQ POC table is excluded from the page limit? Unlimited.

32 dRFP - Section L 53 Volume V - Past Performance

Will the Government consider allowing PPAQs to be sent to the Technical Representative / Contracting Officer's Representative as one of the preferred points of contact? PPAQ shall be submitted to POC's identified in the TOR.

33 dRFP - Section M 54 Phase I: Volume I

If the Government chooses to move the CBRND-specific mission support requirement to Volume I - Phase I, will specific evaluation criteria (e.g., Pass/Fail, Adjectival Ratings, etc.) be assigned to assess relevant CBRND support as part of the Phase I gate criteria? Specified in the TOR.

34 dRFP 55-56 Section M - Basis for Award

Will the Government clarify how it anticipates evaluating the Administrative / Executive Summary Volume?

Administrative/Executive Summary volume will not evaluated.

35 dRFP - Section M 55

Section M - Basis for Award (Paragraph 3)

Does the Government intend to assign a minimum Past Performance rating for offerors to be considered for award? Other than defining the Past Performance ratings and stating that a 'No Confidence' rating in Past Performance MAY discontinue the evaluation process, there is no explanation as to how the Government will consider those Past Performance ratings in the overall consideration for award. This has been specified in TOR.

36 dRFP - Section M 55

Section M - Basis for Award (Paragraph 5)

Please clarify whether a 'No Confidence' rating in the Technical Factor and/or the Past Performance Factor will result in ineligibility for award. While Paragraph 5 states that a 'No Confidence' rating will "…therefore be ineligible for award", it does not specify whether this rating applies to the Technical Factor, the Past Performance Factor, or both. Further, Paragraph 4 only states that a rating of 'No Confidence' in either factor "...MAY discontinue the evaluation process", so it is unclear whether evaluators will be permitted to continue the evaluation on a subjective basis. This has been specified in TOR.

37 dRFP - Section M 56

Section M - Basis for Award - 1.

Technical

Please clarify the evaluation criteria for the Technical Factor. As written, it is unclear how the Section L requirements align to the Section M evaluation criteria. Section M states "…proposals will be evaluated to ensure the offerors can fulfill the requirements" - does this mean the Section L requirements, the PWS requirements, or something else? In addition, Section M states "... proposals will be evaluated to ensure the offerors can...complete the tasks as specified in the attached PWS";

however, there are no Section L requirements that align to or allow offerors to explain how they will complete PWS tasks other than the transition activities. This has been removed from TOR.

38 dRFP 56

Section M - Basis for Award - 1.

Technical

The TOR states, "The offeror’s technical proposals will be evaluated to ensure the Offerors can fulfill the requirements and complete the tasks as specified in the attached PWS." However, the Technical volume consists of staffing, transition, and management without consideration to the technical requirements within the PWS. Will the Government clarify how it will evaluate an Offeror's ability to perform the PWS tasks?

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the

TOR.

39 dRFP 56

Section M - Basis for Award - 1.

Technical

Section M states that Offerors will be evaluated on ability to complete the PWS tasks, however, an approach to do so is not requested in Section L. Will the Government please specify in which volume Offerors should include this information? TOR updated

40 dRFP 56

Section M - Basis for Award - 1.

Technical

Since the Government is requesting Offerors to propose a mix of labor categories and levels to execute PWS requirements, will the Government please consider requiring a cost/price narrative?

This will allow Offerors to provide rationale for proposed staffing. Yes

41 dRFP 56

Section M - Basis for Award - 1.

Technical

The Confidence Rating Definitions provided in the Technical Volume tie to the, "approach." Will the Government clarify what aspects of the Technical volume (e.g., staffing, quality, management, transition) will be evaluated for the Confidence Rating? This has been specified in the TOR.

42 dRFP 57

Section M - Basis for Award - 3.

Past Performance

Recent contracts are currently defined as, "contracts performed, all or in part, during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation." Will the Government consider providing a recency rating scale for this solicitation? This has been specified in the TOR.

43 dRFP 57-58

Section M - Basis for Award - 3.

Past Performance

Relevancy is defined as, "similar scope and magnitude of this effort" in Section M. Will the government clarify that this rating will be based on the number of FTEs and/or the dollar value of proposed efforts? This has been specified in the TOR.

44 dRFP 58

Section M - Basis for Award - 3.

Past Performance

Will Relevancy and Past Performance Confidence be the only elements rated for the Past Performance Factor? As written, it is unclear how Recency will be factored into the evaluation methodology. This has been specified in the TOR.

45 dRFP 58

Section M - Basis for Award - 3.

Past Performance

The definitions for Past Performance confidence ratings seem to focus on meeting contractual requirements (quality) without indication of recency or relevancy considerations. We suggest the Government consider amending the definitions to clearly tie in the ratings to recency and relevancy, especially is confidence is the only element that will impact award eligibility. Same as question 43 & 44

46 Pricing Worksheet n/a Total Proposed Tab

Will the Government please review the pricing worksheet as there seem to be errors with the formulas? Government will review the file.

47 Pricing Worksheet n/a Total Proposed Tab

The Total Proposed Tab uses the VLOOKUP formula to summarize each LCAT proposed. However, each spreadsheet (Base Year, Year 2, etc.) breaks out the rows by LCAT and Level. Due to this, the Total Proposed Tab formula will only pull the first use of an LCAT into the summary row, therefore ignoring the varying levels proposed. Will the Government confirm the Total Proposed Tab should only present one LCAT per row regardless of Levels proposed? Government will review the file.

48 Pricing Worksheet ALL ALL Are offerors permitted to delete / change the labor categories listed on each worksheet, as appropriate? Yes

49 Pricing Worksheet ALL ALL Please clarify what information is to be included on the Years 2 - 5 worksheets versus the Option Period 1 - 6 worksheets.

The Pricing is monthly for 52.217-8. Annually for OY1, OY 2, OY3, and OY4.

50 Pricing Worksheet ALL ALL

Please clarify the intent for the 'Year' versus the 'Option Period' worksheets. The dRFP, Section F, states that there are only 4 Option Periods, so it is unclear why there is an Option Period 5 and 6 worksheet. Option period is Monthly.

51 Proposal submissions 47

The government states, "Subcontractors, not submitting proposals through the Prime, shall submit proposals via email in accordance with the proposal submission instructions above. All subcontractor proposals shall clearly indicate the Prime Contractor for which they are proposing within the proposal and file name. File names shall be formatted as: PRIME-subcontractor-Volume XX."

Will the government clarify under what conditions subcontractors would not be submitting proposal (in whole or in part) for this solicitation through the prime? If no longer relevant, please consider deleting the content.

The Government only requires submissions from the Prime.

52 Proposal submissions 47 The maximum email size (email and attachments) is 50 MB per email.

Please reconcile with OASIS+ and update as appropriate. Its this Offerors understanding that GSA's eBuy will be used for OASIS+ Task Orders and proposal and other interactions are often through it's portal vice email. Updated to GSA's eBuy.

53 Proposal submissions 47

Offerors may encrypt and/or password protect proprietary information as they see fit. However, if the Government is unable to access the documents, the proposal will not be considered for award.

Please reconcile with OASIS+ and update as appropriate. Its this Offerors understanding that GSA's eBuy will be used for OASIS+ Task Orders and proposal and other interactions are through it's portal vice email, therefore encryption will not likely be necessary. Updated to GSA's eBuy.

54 Proposal submissions 47 Legacy wording may be confusing.

Revise from "The header of each page shall include the Business Area and Task Order (i.e., ACQUISITION, BUSINESS, SCIENTIFIC AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES) being proposed" to "The header of each page shall include the "TOR # W911QY-24-R-HQ01 - ACQUISITION, BUSINESS, SCIENTIFIC AND

LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES." TOR has been updated accordingly.

55 Proposal format 47

Each volume shall be properly identified, numbered, clearly indexed, logically assembled, and tabbed.

Will the government remove the "tabbed" requirement. Electronic submission with TOC are clear on their face on how and where things are located. TOR has been updated accordingly.

56 General 48

Contacting any Government personnel other than the individuals identified above may result in an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and may result in an offeror being excluded from competition and award.

Will the government revise the text to read "Contacting any Government personnel other than the individuals identified above about this program/TOR may result in an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and may result in an offeror being excluded from competition and award. TOR has been updated accordingly.

57 Volume I - Phase I 50

Efficacy and effectiveness of Phase I. Our concern is this step creates an extra hurdle for source selection (and adds to timeframe) with very little to any benefit for the government.

Will the government consider removing this from as a stand alone Phase and adding it as a requirement in Volume II? Having each Offeror affirm in the volume that they have a Top Secret facility clearance and provide their cage number for verification will eliminate Offerors who do not meet the requirement. If the Government prefers, they can review each cage code upon submission prior in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) prior to evaluating other relevant volumes.

Thus, ensuring the source selection personnel do not review Offerors that do not meet the TS facility clearance requirement. Phase 1 criteria under review

58 Volume I - Phase I 50

The government likely inadvertently worded this requirement in a manner that will eliminate almost every Offeror. Specifically, only companies that have SCIFs will meet this requirement. And very few small businesses have SCIFs.

Will the government revise, "The offeror is required to receive, handle, and generate sensitive and classified information up to and including Top Secret." Historically, "The offeror is required to receive, handle, and generate sensitive and classified information up to and including Top Secret at a Government cleared facility?" TOR has been updated accordingly.

Section L, General, Vol II, Administrative. 50

As written: Volume II – Administrative: The offeror shall provide an Executive Summary which shall consist of a top-level description of what the corporation does as it relates to the CBRND specific mission space, an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (if necessary), and a description of any teaming arrangements utilized to meet this requirement. For any additional Subcontractors being proposed at the Task Order level that were not previously approved at the IDIQ level, the offeror shall annotate the intent to add the Subcontractor(s).

Would the Government please clarify its intent with the following language "For any additional Subcontractors being proposed at the Task Order level that were not previously approved at the IDIQ level, the offeror shall annotate the intent to add the Subcontractor(s)." This wording in not likely relevant to this OASIS+ Task Order.

Any subcontractors being used for Task Order should be identified on Proposal.

Section L, General, Vol II, Administrative. 49/50

As written: Volume II – Administrative: The offeror shall provide an Executive Summary which shall consist of a top-level description of what the corporation does as it relates to the CBRND specific mission space, an Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (if necessary), and a description of any teaming arrangements utilized to meet this requirement.

Table 1 on page 49 states the maximum page count is two pages to satisfy this requirement. That's allot of information to pack in two pages. Will the government increase the page counts from 2 to 5?

If an Offeror identifies an OCI, will the government exempt the OCI Mitigation Plan from page count?

During the submission of Proposal Stage and during the period of performance, if an OCI is identified an OCI mitigation plan is required. Any OCI Mitigation Plan is required it will not count towards the maximum number of pages. The maximum number of pages is increased to 5.

Volume III - Factor 1 - Technical 49/50 Page Count

Currently there are three major headings and ten sub bullets of requirements that Offerors must address, the maximum page count is currently marked TBD in Table 1 on Page 49. We recommend a maximum page count of 25 to adequately address these specific requirements.

Page count limit recommended at 25 pages under consideration

Volume III - Factor 1 - Technical 50 Clarity

Will the government clarify the intent behind each Offeror providing "a sanitized copy of the Pricing Worksheet with their Technical Volume. This copy shall not include any pricing, just the proposed labor in this volume? Will the Government describe how the pricing sheet will be evaluated as part of this volume?

As stated in the TOR, this document will be used to evaluate the proposed labor mix. A narrative explaining the labor mix is allowed and would be included in the technical portion of the proposal.

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50

As written: "The Offeror shall provide a sanitized copy of the Pricing Worksheet with their Technical volume. This copy shall not include any pricing, just the proposed labor."

If the government elects to keep this requirement, Will the Government allow for this sanitized copy of the pricing worksheet to be listed as an attachment to the word file of Vol III and not count against the page count for Vol III? Concur; final page count still under review

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50 Completeness

Will the Government add the following to the recruitment, retention, and management of resources section, "The Offeror shall convey their understanding of the supported office(s);" Naturally done through revised Phase I; omit from technical

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50 Completeness

Will the Government add the following to the recruitment, retention, and management of resources section, "The Offeror shall describe it's understanding and capability in CBRND." Rationale: A small piece if CBRND is asked for in Volume II - Administrative, but it is not evaluated. CBRND is such a critical element that we recommend JPEO-CBRND add it Volume III to ensure it is evaluated. Naturally done through revised Phase I; omit from technical

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50 Completeness

Will the Government add the following to the recruitment, retention, and management of resources section, "The Offeror shall describe its organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities;" Non-concur; attempting to streamline, not increase

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50 Completeness

Will the Government add the following to the recruitment, retention, and management of resources section, "The Offeror shall describe how it will manage subcontractors;" Non-concur; attempting to streamline, not increase

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50 Completeness

Will the Government add the following to the recruitment, retention, and management of resources section, "The Offeror shall describe how it will manage contractual compliance and security;" Non-concur; attempting to streamline, not increase

Section L, General, Vol III, Factor 1 Technical -recruitment & retention 50 Completeness

Will the Government add the following to the recruitment, retention, and management of resources section, "The Offeror shall describe how it innovate and continuously improve over the POP;" Non-concur; attempting to streamline, not increase

Volume IV - Factor 2 - Cost/Price 51 Amplify

Would the government revise the page limit from "restricted to the attached worksheet and a PDF copy of the worksheet" to read "Restricted to the attached worksheet, a PDF copy of the worksheet, and a not to exceed five page narrative on how the Offeror's price will benefit JPEO-CBRND? If the government elects to make this change, Table 1 should be updated accordingly.

A narrative explaining the labor mix is allowed and would be included in the technical portion of the proposal.

Volume V - Factor 3 - Past Performance 51

As this is a SB set-aside and the Prime needs to execute over 50% of the work, the government may have inadvertently created a scoring rubric that awards equal value to subcontractor performance. As worded, A prime can submit one PP and two major subcontractors can submit one each. As drafted that Prime that may only have one relevant PP and could be rated equal to a Prime that has three PPs.

Based on the topic, would the government consider making the following changes to even the field.

Would the government raise a significant subcontractor to 25%? Would the government weight the Prime Offerors PP higher than that of sub past performance? Would the government only permit each Offeror to submit one subcontractor PP? If the government elects to make one or more of these revisions, wording in Section M would need to be updated accordingly. This remains unchanged.

72 Para 3 55

The Government states, " To be considered for award, Offerors shall receive a rating of no less than “Confidence” for the Technical Factor. Offerors shall follow all instructions in this TOR; shall provide all required submissions for the Technical and Cost/Price factors; and the proposed cost/price shall be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award. Offerors rated “No Confidence” for the Technical Factor will not be considered for award and no cost analysis will be performed."

The topic to the left is confusing.

Specifically, the statement " To be considered for award, Offerors shall receive a rating of no less than “Confidence” for the Technical Factor" means that if an Offeror is rated adequate confidence or no confidence they can not be awarded.

Than, this statement contradicts the first statement "Offerors rated “No Confidence” for the Technical Factor will not be considered for award and no cost analysis will be performed." This implying that an Offeror rated Adequate confidence could receive an award. Can the government revise the language for greater clarity? Wording in the TOR has been revised.

73 PWS 5.2.10 85 & 87

PWS 5.2.10 is used twice. On page 85,

5.2.10 5.2.10 Requiring Office:

Headquarters, Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological Radiological Nuclear Defense (HQ, JPEO- CBRND) Team: Acquisition and Analytics and on page 87, 5.2.10 Requiring Office: United States Air Force (USAF) Team: USAF CBRN Defense Branch (AFLCMC/WNUW).

This is just an admin note to let the government know you may want correct the PWS para numbering? PWS has been updated accordingly.

On Page 48, it states, "The proposal shall be valid for 120 days after the solicitation closing date. The offeror shall make a clear statement that the proposal is valid until such date in Volume I – Administrative of the proposal." while on page 49 Volume I is titled "Volume I - Phase I." Please clarify where the government want the validity statement. TOR has been updated accordingly.

Section L, General, Volume V – Factor 3 – Past Performance: 51 as written: "If a subcontractor’s past performance is proposed, the Offeror shall state so in the proposal."

Will the Government please clarify where this statement is to be located in the proposal?

Recommend this statement be located in Volume V Past Performance. TOR proposal wording updated to clarify

Section L , General, Volume IV

– Factor 2 – Cost/Price 51 as written: One FTE equals 2080 hours.

Will the Government please update the numbers of hours for one FTE. At 2080 hours this does not account for time off for federal holidays (11 holidays listed in the PWS document) nor for the paid time off each company provides to their employees as part of their individual compensation.

Recommend that the Government allow for one FTE to be equal to 1920 productive hours as this will take into account Federal Holidays and company paid time off. The Government is using 2080 hours for one FTE.

77 Section M, 2. Cost/Price 56

As written: Cost/Price: Total Task Order Price for labor (base and all options) will be compared for award determination.

Is the basis for comparison of offerors submitted price the government's internal cost estimate or other vendor's submitted price?

Pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price IAW FAR Part 15.4 procedures.

78 General After award of the TO, if a JPEO, USAF, or other Service element desires to add the same type of personnel to the TO support their efforts, can they do that or will that require a whole new TOR?

During performance of a TO, a within scope modification could be made to add an FTE. If the labor category, level, and location is already priced on the TO then the relevant pricing will be used (base year, OY1, etc.)

79 page 50 TOR Volume I – Phase 1 How long after submission of Phase I will offerors be notified of down select to bid Phase II?

Government will evaluate based on the solicitation but cannot provide a timeline.

80 page 50 TOR Volume I, Phase I is two pages long, but the page limit is two pages long.

Other than a short sentence or two affirming the existence of Top Secret clearance, what else does the Government want that might take up two pages? Caution: A print out from NISS is CUI and greatly complicates proposal submissions.

Phase 1 criteria under review; update wording to reflect submission of CAGE Code

81 page 54 TOR Section M. Phase II.

How will the Government notify those that pass Phase I? Will there be a mandatory reply required to ensure all those that pass Phase I received the Phase II notice?

Government will evaluate based on the solicitation but cannot provide a timeline.

82 Page 4 PWS Quality Assurance. Will the Government release the QASP with the final TOR? Yes

83 page 14 PWS 1.10.2; 1.10.3; and 1.10.4. Will the Government remove all references to Key Personnel? Or is the CPM Key?

Key Personnel are listed as the Contract Manager and Site Supervisors; Remove Key personnel references in Section 5

84 Page 15 PWS 1.13.1, Travel.

Since travel cannot be forecasted, will the Government provide a plug number for the FINAL TOR Price worksheet? Travel is not part of the Total Evaluated Price

85 Page 39 PWS

5.2.2.2. Program Analyst Level III; pg. 59,

5.2.5.1 Program Analyst Level III; pg. 85,

5.2.10.1. Program Analyst Level III

The descriptions do not include the required or desired skill sets. Will these be provided in the final TOR or are we to assume that previous Program Analyst Level III skill sets apply to all LCATS for the same title?

Government lead did not call out in their WBS; it was omitted intentionally

86 Page 90 PWS

5.2.10.1.2.1 Preferred: Defense Acquisition

University (DAU) Program Management (Advanced) Certification.

Please define advanced certification. Do you mean Level III DAU certificate with resident training or PMP certification from PMI? DAU updated their certifications, no longer use Levels

87 Page 92 PWS

5.2.10.2.2.1 Preferred: Defense Acquisition

University (DAU) Program Management (Practitioner) Certification

Do you mean Level I or II DAU certificate or PMP certification from PMI?

DAU updated their certifications, no longer use Levels

88 TOR RFP

Pg 13 Pg 38

52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications 52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations

Would the Government remove any requirement to recertify business size since the OASIS+ SB contract awards are established with a five year base and recertification is not required until the exercise of the OASIS+ vehicle Option period.

The KO may ask a small business to recertify if and when a TOR is posted.

89 TOR RFP and Attachment 0002 Pages 13 -

Representations and Certifications and Offeror Fill-Ins

Clause 52.252-1 on page 45 states " In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer." Please clarify if the Offeror is required to submit Representations and Certifications given the inclusion of fill-in clauses in the draft RFP and if so, which volume do we include it?

The clause to explain that solicitation provisions by references needs to be check throughly by offeror, because some of clauses or provision may included contents that the offeror is required to submit. In this case, the provision requires the offeror to submit certain data, the offeror needs to identify what provisions are included.

90 TOR RFP and Attachment 0002

TOR RFP

(Page 4)

Attach 0002:

Sheets "Base Year, Year 2 through 5, and Option Periods 1- 6"

Section F in the TOR RFP identifies the Period of Performance with a short Base Period and 4 one year option periods.

Attachment 0002 provides pricing sheets for a Base with Years 1-5 and Option Periods 1 - 6.

Please clarify the period of performance and ensure the pricing template (Attachment 0002) is in sync with the TOR RFP Section F. Pricing spreadsheets will be updated accordingly.

91 TOR RFP, Sections A and G.2 Pg 5

Section A states "The contract type will be hybrid with firm-fixed-price (FFP) and a small percentage of cost reimbursable (CR) CLINs."

G.2 Invoicing Rates that Deviate from Proposed Rates

Please clarify which cost reimbursable type CLINs would be subject to the Section G.2 clause since labor will be Firm Fixed Price and would not incur a cost overrun? Any cost type CLINs included in the TO.

92 TOR RFP, Sections A and G.2 Pg 6

Section A states "The contract type will be hybrid with firm-fixed-price (FFP) and a small percentage of cost reimbursable (CR) CLINs."

Section G.2.1.4 states " Contractors are cautioned that costs should be directly proportional to hours expended, and if in excess, may be considered a cost overrun by the Government."

Section G.2.1.4 appears to require contractors to invoice by labor hours expended which is in conflict with a typical Firm Fixed Price award. Will the Government remove Section G.2 as it should not apply to a Firm Fixed Price type award. This section does not apply to the FFP CLINs.

93 TOR RFP Pg 12 Section I includes 52.222-46 Evaluation Of Compensation For Professional Employees

Section L does not require the submission of a Compensation Plan, yet the FAR clause is included in Section I. Please clarify if a professional compensation plan is required and which volume to include it and how it will be evaluated. TOR has been updated accordingly.

94 TOR RFP Section L Pg 47

Section L states " Subcontractors, not submitting proposals through the Prime, shall submit proposals via email in accordance with the proposal submission instructions above."

Since this is a Firm Fixed Price proposal with Prime rates that would cover any subcontractors, will the Government remove the reference for subcontractors to submit proposals?

The Government only requires submissions from the Prime.

95 TOR RFP Section L Pg 47

Proposal Format requires that Proposals shall be written in 11-point Calibri font in the portrait orientation. Please confirm this requirement does not apply to Attachment 0002 Pricing Worksheet. Concur.

TOR RFP Section L, General Paragraph 2 Pg 48 Central Contractor Registration

Since Central Contractor Registration has transitioned to the System for Award Management (SAM), please update this reference. TOR has been updated accordingly.

97 Attachment 0002 Labor categories, descriptions and hours

Attachment 0002 Instructions tab requires the offeror to "Add labor category descriptions from the PWS to the labor category columns…". Should this be 'labor category titles' rather than 'labor category descriptions'? Price file has been updated accordingly.

98 Attachment 0002 Labor categories, descriptions and hours

Attachment 0002 Instructions tab requires the offeror to "Enter labor categories, hours, rates and other requested information.." To ensure all offerors are bidding the same labor categories and same number of hours for onsite and offsite positions, will the Government provide a pricing template that has the labor categories and hours by On-Site and Off-Site already included?

The government is not dictating the number of LCATS or hours.

TOR RFP, Sections A and Attachment 0002 Pg 6

Section A states "The contract type will be hybrid with firm-fixed-price (FFP) and a small percentage of cost reimbursable (CR) CLINs."

Attachment 0002 requires the offeror to provide Hourly Rates by labor category.

Please clarify the contract type for this award and update the FTE to 1920 rather than 2080.

Rationale: contractors would not bill for holiday and PTO hours as this is typically included in a contractor's fringe rate and not directly billed to a customer. If the contractor will be required to invoice for every hour incurred, then this appears to be more suitable as a T&M or Labor Hour type task order. The Government is using 2080 hours for one FTE.

100 Attachment 0002

GSA's buyers guide for OASIS+ (https://www.gsa.gov/oasis-plus/buyers-guide/printable/#task-orders) states that contractors must include the estimated Contract Access Fee (CAF), 0.15%, in each task order proposal based on the total estimated order value as a separate line item. This will be required as a separate line item on all invoices to the government, regardless of contract type. Please update the pricing template to include a line item for the inclusion of the CAF. Pricing file has been updated accordingly.

101 TOR RFP JPEO CBRND HQ

Pg. 49 &

Table 1. Requirements for Submission of Proposal Documents identifies Phase I consisting of Volume I - Phase I. Section M Pg. 54 states, "Phase II: All offerors that successfully meet the requirements of Phase I will advance to Phase II which will consist of best value evaluation of the technical, past performance, and price volumes."

Can the Government please clarify the following:

1) What Volumes consist of the Phase I submission? Is it Volume I – Phase I and Volume II – Administrative?

2) What is the time frame between Phases 1 and Phases 2? Does the Government have an timeframe expectation for when offerors will be notified of their acceptance into Phase 2?

TOR has been updated to explain what volumes consist of the Phase 1 submission. The Government cannot provide an exact timeline for notification of acceptance or rejection as a result of the Phase 1 Evaluation.

There are three (3) aspects to Past Performance evaluation:

Relevancy Recency Quality 48479 Clarity

Would the Government reconcile the instructions and evaluation criteria? A number of inadvertent administrative disconnects may have Offerors a bit confused on the government's intent. The TOR has been updated accordingly.

We recommend that the government include information on who is currently performing the functions identified in the draft PWS. Offerors may be able to provide better solutions and personnel with that information.

The Government will not provide this information. However, the Government have provided GOVERNMENT ESTIMATED

WORKLOAD.

We recommend that the government limit Volume III – Factor 1 – Technical to 7 pages to ensure clarity and conciseness of offers, while reducing burden on the government during the evaluation process. The TOR provides page information.

Key personnel identified for this requirement include a Contract Manager and Site Supervisors (page 14 of the draft PWS). Is the contract manager a separate FTE or one of the FTEs already identified?

The Government will not be making the Contract Manager Key person directly billable.

Page 14 of the draft PWS states: “Site supervisors for each requiring office shall be designated…” and “The Site Supervisor, identified for each support location…”. Please clarify if there are 2 Site Supervisors required for each requiring office (HQ, JPEO-CBRND and USAF) or if there are 3 Site Supervisors required for each support location. Considering that Ft. Leonard Wood and Camp H.M.

Smith only have one FTE each, we would recommend that Site Supervisors shall be designated based on requiring office instead of support location.

The Government is not dictating the number of Site Supervisors required.

For Volume V – Factor 3 – Past Performance, we recommend that the government accept current CPARS for past performance in lieu of Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires to reduce administrative burden on the government.

The Government will be reviewing Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires, as well as CPARS.

Page 47 of the Draft RFP, under Instructions to Offerors, states “The header of each page shall include the Business Area and Task Order (i.e., ACQUISITION, BUSINESS, SCIENTIFIC AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES) being proposed.” Can you please clarify the Business Area this task order falls under? TOR has been updated accordingly.

Page 50 of the draft solicitation states “the offeror shall possess an existing TOP SECRET facility clearance.” Please confirm that in the case of JV offerors that the JV itself must have a Top Secret

FCL.

Prime Offerors CAGE Code will determine who holds the TS Facility Clearance

Page 53 of the draft solicitation states that the page limit for Past Performance is Unlimited. We recommend that the government limit the Past Performance volume to 5 pages to allow the offeror to succinctly address the requirements and not overburden the government evaluating a large number of offers. TOR has been updated accordingly.