20170518_Solicitation_Q__A.docx

W9124J-17-R-0002 Solicitation Questions and Answers Q1. The Government contemplates performance in Afghanistan but has not included a requirement for offerors to demonstrate that they have the required Afghan business license issued by for former Afghan Investment Support Agency (AISA), now their Ministry of Commerce and Industries. This license is a requirement for performance in country, and a requirement in order to get individual employee work visas. The process to obtain the license takes six months or more, based on the experience we and others have had. Thus if an otherwise apparent successful offeror does not have the license, performance cannot begin in Afghanistan for a half of a year or more. The attached recent Army Corps of Engineers solicitation for work in Afghanistan does a nice job of articulating the requirement (see Page 15). We recommend the Government require demonstration of the license in Volume 1 as an attachment so that the Government can be sure its winning offeror is ready to perform.

A1. The government has determined the current evaluation factors are sufficient to evaluate contractor’s ability to perform.

Q2. The pricing instructions do not explain whether US Department of State adders should be included in the fixed hourly rates proposed or can be charged as ODCs. These costs include cost of living adjustments for Kuwait, Jordan and Qatar and danger and hardship premiums for performance in Afghanistan and Iraq. Please clarify whether these costs should be included in the rates or as ODCs.

A2. All costs are to be included in the fully burdened rates, to include hazard pay, escalation, etc.

Q3. We also respectfully request an extension to the proposal deadline of two weeks to allow time to adjust our proposal to the responses the Government provides to questions submitted.

A3. The solicitation close date will be extended from 26 May 2017 to 9 June 2017.

Q4. Was there prior notification on solicitation W9124J-17-R-0002?

A4. Yes, the Pre-solicitation notice was posted on Federal Business Opportunities on December 9, 2016.

Q5. And the solicitation states unrestricted but has a size code of 15M, is that correct?

A5. This requirement is being solicited for full and open competition. The $15M size code in the solicitation merely identifies the size standard.

Q6. What nationals can work on this project? also for the Afghanistan location, can we hire local national?

A6. Contract personnel most be US citizens in order to perform under this contract. Local nationals can not perform under this contract. (see DFARS 252.225-7040) Q7. We are Afghan owned company interested to bid on subject line project but we don't have Facility Clearance. Does Government accept proposals for those companies don't have Facility Clearance ?

A7. You will not be able to meet the requirements of the solicitation without a facility clearance. You can submit a proposal, but you will not receive an acceptable rating without the security clearance.

Q8. Would the Government consider extending the past performance questionnaire response time until May 26 to accommodate Government customer schedules and travel commitments?

A8. Past performance questionnaire submittal deadline will be executed from 19 May 2017 to 26 May 2017.

Q9. On solicitation page 110, under C. Proposal Preparation Instructions, is the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (paragraph 6) excluded from the page count in Volumes?

A9. Yes, the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms are excluded from the page count in each volume.

Q10. Solicitation page 109, C. Proposal Preparation Instructions, indicates that “Electronic submission shall be formatted to print on either letter (8.5” by 11”) or legal (8.5” by 14”) sized paper only. A legal size printed sheet will count as two pages.” Would the Government consider allowing 11” by 17” fold out pages and if so, would they count as one page or more than one page.

A10. No, the Government will not consider allowing 11” by 17” fold out pages.

Q11. Solicitation page 110, C. Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph 2., proposal font size – Tables, charts and graphs: In the solicitation, it states that “Minimum proposal font size shall be 11.” Will there be minimum font size requirements for any tables, charts and graphs within the proposal, or will the Government allow tables, charts and graphs to be sized at the offeror’s discretion?

A11. The minimum proposal font size regardless if it’s in a narrative, tables, charts or graphs shall be 11 point font.

Q12. On page 110 under the instructions for Volume II Technical Proposal-Factor 1, indicates a requirement under TAB C for a List of Table and Drawing and/or Cross Reference Matrix (if applicable). Does this mean a Cross Reference Matrix is not required? Also, would a Cross Reference Matrix, if provided, be excluded from the Volume 2 page count?

A12. List of Table and Drawing and/or Cross Reference Matrix are not required to be in the proposal; however if the offeror chooses to include them in the proposal it must be in the format identified in Volume II Technical Proposal-Factor 1.

Q13. The contract price matrices show an Information Technology Specialist as one of the labor categories. PWS 1.6.6.6 appears to show requirements for 3 different labor categories under the Information Technology Specialist position heading– each with different experience and qualification requirements:

1.6.6.6.1 – Desktop Support Specialist II; 1.6.6.6.2 – Tier 2 Field Deskside Support Technician; 1.6.6.6.3 – Information Technology Services Specialist (ITSS)

Would the Government consider establishing separate labor categories for each of the three IT Support Specialist requirements (PWS 1.6.6.6.1, 1.6.6.6.2, and 1.6.6.6.3)? If the answer is yes, then for the Attachment 0002 CASS Contract Price Matrix and Attachment 0003 CASS Pricing Matrix Task Order 0001 will the Government specify which of the three specific IT specialist labor categories is required for each CLIN?

A13. The Information Technology Specialist is one labor category. This section has been updated in the PWS to prevent from any confusion.

Q14. PWS section 1.6.6.6.2.9.1 states that the Tier 2 Field Deskside Support Technician must have 4 years of experience in Network Engineering, Systems Administration, Information Technology, Computer Science, Hardware/Software, Litigation Support, Web Development, Customer Support and interaction with vendors while Paragraph 1.6.6.6.2.10.1 states that 2 years of experience are required. Please clarify how many years of experience are required.

A14. Computer Science, Hardware/Software, Litigation Support, Web Development, Customer Support and interaction with vendors are require to have 4 years’ experience. This section has been modified and is now 1.6.6.6.1.6.1.

Q15. In PWS section 1.6.6.6.2.9.4 there is a requirement for the Tier 2 Field Deskside Support Technician to have knowledge of litigation support software (i.e., concordance, sanctions). Please provide more information about which litigation support software the Technician must support and whether their support is restricted to installation, upgrade and maintenance of the software or are they require to have more in depth knowledge of how the software is used.

A15. This section of the PWS has been updated and knowledge of litigation support software is no longer a requirement.

Q16. PWS section 1.6.13, Contractor Travel, states all travel must be approved by the Contracting Officer. Does this approval requirement include travel within a given AOR?

A16. Yes. The only exception is travel within the daily commute area.

Q17. PWS section 1.6.9 states the contractor key personnel is the Contract Manager. In industry, the term Contract Manager typically refers to individuals on the Corporate Staff who provide indirect support and manage Corporate contracts. Request the title of the key person be changed to Program Manager to better align with industry practice of providing a person responsible for day-to-day execution of PWS requirements including staffing, recruiting, and management of program activities including those stated in PWS 1.6.9.

A17. For consistence within government documents, the PWS will remain as is.

Q18. PWS section 1.6.11, Mission Essential Personnel, appears to be referring to a different requirement rather than providing CASS support in a deployed environment. Recommend deleting that paragraph.

A18. PWS section 1.6.11 is relevant to this requirement and will not be deleted.

Q19. The solicitation document, page 72 of 125, contains by reference DFARS clause 252.225-7024 - Requirements for Products or Services from Afghanistan. This clause states, “The Contractor shall provide only products from Afghanistan or services from Afghanistan under this contract, unless, in its offer, it specified that it would provide products or services other than products from Afghanistan or services from Afghanistan.” Please clarify the Government’s intent.

A19. DFARS clause 252.225-7024 - Requirements for Products or Services from Afghanistan has been removed from the solicitation.

Q20. Page 120 of the solicitation provides Evaluation Criteria for Sub-factor 1-C: Quality Control Plan, which under paragraph (c) states “the proposal shall address how the offeror will safeguard all Government equipment and information as required by PWS paragraphs 1.6.1.” Would the Government consider including this as an element to be addressed in Sub-factor 1-A Project Execution Plan instead of within the Quality Control Plan? If it remains within Sub-factor 1-C: Quality Control Plan, recommend the PWS reference be changed from 1.6.1 to PWS paragraph 1.6.5 Physical Security.

A20. The PWS reference in Sub-factor 1-C: Quality Control Plan will be changed to reference 1.6.1 instead of 1.6.5.

Q21. Page 114 of the RFP at Sub-factor 1-C: Quality Control Plan, paragraph (b) includes “leave/rest and recuperation policy” as an element within the QCP. Would the Government consider including this as an element to be addressed in Sub-factor 1-A Project Execution Plan instead of within the Quality Control Plan?

A21. No.

Q22. Page 114 of the RFP at Sub-factor 1-C: Quality Control Plan, paragraph (b) includes “maintaining an adequate workforce” as an element within the QCP. Would the Government consider including this as an element to be addressed in Sub-factor 1-A Project Execution Plan instead of within the Quality Control Plan?

A22. Solicitation Amendment 0001 that was posted on 4 May 2017 moved “maintaining an adequate workforce” to Sub-factor 1-A Project Execution Plan.

Q23. Paragraph 1.6.1 Quality Control of the PWS requires procedures for “… methods of ensuring all lock combinations are not revealed to unauthorized persons…” Would the Government consider including this as an element to be addressed in Sub-factor 1-A Project Execution Plan instead of within the Quality Control Plan?

A23. No.

Q24. Questions about Volume IV Price-Factor 3 Instructions and Evaluation Criteria, and about the Attachment 2 CENTCOM Acquisition Support Services Contract Price Matrix.

a. Attachment 2 CENTCOM Acquisition Support Services Contract Price Matrix and IAW Vol IV Price-Factor 3, page 123 of the solicitation:

“The Government provided Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amounts for the following cost reimbursable items: Mobilization, De-Mobilization and ODCs. If it’s the offeror’s intention to apply an indirect rate (G&A, Material Handling Rate, etc) to these cost reimbursable items and if it’s in accordance with the offeror’s accounting system, then provide the rate with your proposal; include it in Attachment 2 “CENTCOM Acquisition Support Services Contract Price Matrix”, which will then become part of the contract. If it’s the offeror’s intention not to apply an indirect rate, then please state so in the proposal. The indirect rate will be applied to the NTE amounts provided by the Government for the cost reimbursable items identified above and the resulting amount will be included in the total evaluated price.”

Question: after entering data in cell A51 of Attachment 0002 CASS Contract Price Matrix, the figures in rows 38 – 40 change as a result but the figures in rows 12 – 14 and rows 25 – 27 do not. Request that the Government review this to ensure functionality of cells in those rows.

b. Attachment 0002 CASS Contract Price Matrix – Cell G41 does not appear to be calculating properly. Request that the Government review this function.

c. Attachment 0002 CASS Contract Price Matrix – Hourly Rate blue highlighted cells – is it the Government’s intent to round the numbers to less than 2 decimal places?

d. The Period of Performance dates identified in Attachment 0002 CASS Contract Price Matrix are 8/1/17-7/31/22 + 6-month extension. On the other hand, the solicitation section DELIVERY INFORMATION on page 64 and clause 52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity (OCT 1995) (d) on page 104 provide a Period of Performance of 9/21/17 – 9/20/22 + 6 month extension ending 3/20/23. Would the Government clarify the correct Period of Performance?

A24. The errors in the spreadsheet have been corrected. FAR clause 52.216-22 was updated to be consistent with the Contract Price Matrix and Delivery information. The period of performance 8/1/17-7/31/22 + 6-month extension.

Q25. (Reference: Amendment 0001: Volume II Technical Proposal-Factor I, Sub-Factor 1-A: PEP (e)). This section simply state "bcontractors". Can the government please elaborate on the response requirement. Ie. Managing subcontractor quality, communications with subs?

A25. “bcontractors” was a type, (e) should state the following “The offeror shall address which tasks required by the PWS will be assigned for performance within the offeror's corporate entity and among proposed subcontractors”.

Q26. (Reference: POP of each Task Order) Can the government provide the average Period of Performance per task order?

A26. The Government does not have an average task order period of performance as each task order is based on the needs of the customer. Three task orders have be issued on the current contract with the following periods of performance:

Task order 0001: 21 Sep 13- 20 Sep 14 Task order 0002: 27 Dec 13-26 Dec 14 plus 2 one-year options Task order 0003: 14 Jan 17 - 13 Jan 18 Q27. ( Reference: Amendment 0001: Volume III Past Performance-Factor 2) Can the Government state the reach back for Past Performances to be used as references? In other words, how recent do the past performance references need to be within 3 or 5 years?

A27. 3 years. Per Volume III Past Performance-Factor 2 any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within the following standards: three years prior to the solicitation closing date, or awarded more than three years prior to closing date, but services were performed approximately within the three-year period prior to the closing date of this solicitation is consider recent.

Q28. (Reference: Amendment 0001: Volume II Page Limit) After reviewing all the information the Government requesting for the technical, in order to provide a fully developed project execution plan with details of our procedures for (b)(1-8) page 8 of Amendment 0001, quality approach, mobilization/demobilization plan, key corporate personnel resumes within organizational and management approach, industry is requesting an increase to page limitation.

A28. The page limitation for the technical volume is increased to 70 pages.

Q29. (Reference: Amendment 0001: Volume II, Sub-factor 1-A: PEP, Instructions and Evaluation) The evaluation criteria states staff resumes are not required to respond to the solicitation, yet instructions state No resumes of individuals, other than key personnel, shall be submitted in the proposal. Is industry to submite key personnel resumes in technical or not?

A29. Yes, key personnel resumes need to be submitted with the offeror technical proposal.

Q30. (Reference: Pricing) Are hourly rates to include locality pay and other costs provided by US Department of State regulations or are those to be charged as ODCs?

A30. All costs are to be included in the fully burdened rates, to include hazard pay, escalation, etc.

Q31. (Reference: Pricing Spreadsheet & PWS 1.6.2.3) The price spreadsheet lists 60 productive hours per week, but the PWS 1.6.2.3 (Page 5) states productive hours between 40-75 per week. Is the Government willing to pay Time & Materials rate for productive hours over 60 (so up to 15 hours each week)?

A31. The labor hour rate remains the same, regardless of the number of hours are worked. The number of hours to be worked are negotiated at the task order level.

Q32. Offeror's Proposal Matrix, Column F, J, N, R, & V, Ordering Period, Hourly Price is rounding to the nearest dollar. Will the Government round to the nearest hundredth to be consistent with total price columns?

A32. The proposal matrix has been updated to remove rounding.

Q33. Offeror's Proposal Matrix - Task Order, Column F, Ordering Period, Hourly Price is rounding to the nearest dollar. Will the Government round to the nearest hundredth to be consistent with total price columns?

A33. The proposal matrix has been updated to remove rounding.

Q34. Offeror's Proposal Matrix, formula in cell G41 seems to be broken as it is not calculating the summation of the information above.

A34. The proposal matrix has been updated to correct formula issue.

Q35. Offeror's Proposal Matrix, cell A51, Indirect Rate formula is rounding to the nearest whole percentage point. Will the Government change the formula to round to the nearest hundredth percentage point in order to accommodate offers actual indirect rate?

A35. The proposal matrix has been updated to remove rounding.

Q36. Offeror's Proposal Matrix - Task Order, cell A20, Indirect Rate formula is rounding to the nearest whole percentage point. Will the Government change the formula to round to the nearest hundredth percentage point order to accommodate offers actual indirect rate?

A36. The proposal matrix has been updated to remove rounding.