A07_Solicitation_Questions_Amendment_02_W91CRB-17-R-0030.pdf

Attachment 6 Solicitation Questions added with Amendment 01 – dated 20 November 2017

1. When reviewing Section L, we were unable to determine page size and format requirements.

We provide the following suggestion and request the customer provide clarification: Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single-spaced and printed single side. Offers will use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾ inch side margins. The font size shall be no less than Times New Roman ten (10) point. Offers are allowed to use a font style of its choice for tables, charts, graphs and figures; the font shall be no smaller than eight (8) points for tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

- Concur with proposed suggestion, which has been included in Section L; fold-out pages may be used for tables, charts, graphs and figures only.

2. Part 2 Personnel Requirements, (page 18), paragraph 2.2 Key Personnel states that this contract requires 21.5 key personnel. When reviewing the Workload Attachment 4, we determined that there could be 32.5 key persons within this file. We request that the customer provide clarification.

- In accordance with the Workload Attachment 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) Paragraph 2.2 (page 19) was revised to state that this contract requires 29.5 key personnel

3. In the Workload Attachment 4, the following key personnel are not identified in the worksheet when compared to what is listed in the PWS: LIN Management Database Administrator/SLAMIS Coordinator (3.6.2.1); Affordability Analyst (3.6.2.2) – Can the Government please provide clarification to which key personnel role these positions are mapped to in Workload Attachment 4?

- The draft Workload Attachment 4 was updated and reflects the correct mapping for key personnel to the PWS. Administrator/SLAMIS Coordinator (PWS 3.6.2.1) is mapped to the first Equipping Plans & Operations (FDP) key in the Workload Attachment 4 and the Affordability Analyst (PWS 3.6.2.2) is mapped to the second FDP key position.

4. Section 1.18.4 Facilities states that workspace will be provided at the Pentagon, Crystal City, and Fort Belvoir. In addition, workspace will be provided in Germany, Hawaii, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In order to provide an accurate cost proposal for this effort, can the Government please provide guidance regarding which staff will be positioned in locations outside of the National Capitol Region?

- The staff that will be positioned in locations outside of the National Capitol Region are support personnel providing G8 LNO support as identified within PWS paragraph

3.10.3 and all applicable subparagraphs. LNO locations: Wiesbaden, Germany; Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Sumter, South Carolina. One individual will be positioned at each of these locations.

5. Can the Government confirm that only resumes and letters of intent are required for Key Personnel positions? The language in Section L, Volume 3 provides conflicting guidance – based on the requirement for the PM and all senior analyst and operational research analyst positions vs. just those key personnel positions.

- Resumes and Letters of Intent are only required for Key Personnel positions. All Key Personnel positions are identified within Workload Attachment 4.

6. Section L, Volume 3 instructions require the offer to present a letter of intent, signed by the candidate which includes a fully burdened rate. Given the proprietary nature found within a fully burdened rate, we request that this instruction be limited to an annual agreed upon salary rather than a fully burdened rate.

- No, Letters of Intent shall include the fully burdened rate only.

7. Due to the increase in scope and cost from the current incumbent contract, would the customer consider requiring all potential offers to hold a DCAA approved cost accounting system?

- No, a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) approved accounting system is not required.

8. Due to the emphasis placed on quality delivery, would the customer consider requiring all potential offers to hold a compliant and audited ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management System?

- No, ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management System is not required.

9. Key Personnel Count: Regarding Key Personnel requirements within solicitation #W91CRB- 17-R-0030: There is a discrepancy between Key Personnel requiring resumes identified within the solicitation and the accompanying A07 Draft Solicitation Questions document. The first identifies about 30 personnel as key, requiring resume and letter of intent submission (with salary data). The second requires more, some 59 total. Which is correct?

- The number of Key Personnel in the solicitation is 29.5 (PWS paragraph 2.2). The solicitation has been updated accordingly.

10. Requirement Relaxation. Complementary to the above question, and with particular regard to the Key Personnel requirements, we must emphatically state that a Small business set-aside (such as this) that requires even a low of 30 personnel with resumes plus salaried letters of intent can only reasonably be filled by the Incumbent contractor. Additionally, it renders competing offerors unable to extend invitations to incumbent workers (in event of contract win) thus greatly complicating transition activities. We assert that in order for the government to truly have a healthy competition to allow for the best company and personnel to serve it, a much lower number with fewer restrictions is necessary. We recommend the following:

a) Define Key Personnel as one person per labor category.

- No, Key personnel will remain as stated in the solicitation.

b) Require Key Personnel resumes only, with Letters of Intent to be considered merely an added benefit.

- No, Letters of Intent for all Key Personnel will remain a requirement within this solicitation.

11. Section C, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 2.2, Workload Attachment 4, and Draft Solicitation Questions 3, 8, and 11. PWS Paragraph 2.2 states, “This contract requires 21.5 key personnel. The Program/Contract Manager (paragraph 2.2.1), 15 Senior Analyst, 5 Senior Operations Research Analyst, and 1 Operations Research Analyst. Positions identified as key are noted in the Workload attachment (Attachment 4).”

According to Attachment 4, there are 32.5 Key Personnel. They are the Program Manager (0.5), 25 Senior Analysts, 6 Senior Operations Research Analysts and 1 Operations Research Analysts, as shown in the Table below.

Number of Senior

Analysts

Number of Senior Operations Research

Analysts

Number of Operations Research

Analysts

DOM FBD 1

DOM FDC 2

DOM FDD 3

DOM FDG 3

DOM FDI 4

DOM FDL 3

DOM FDV 2

DOR FDA 2 1

DOR FDP 2

DOR FDR 1

DJI FDF 1

DJI FDO 1

DJI FDJ 1

DJI FDS 4

OCAR 1

TOTAL 25 6 1

Which is correct? If Attachment 4 is correct, will the RFP be amended to show the same numbers in both places?

- Workload Attachment 4 has been corrected. PWS Paragraph 2.2 has been revised to state 29.5 Key Personnel in accordance with Workload Attachment 4.

12. Page 83, Page Count Limitations, Volume 5 – Factor 4 – Page Performance, Page 85

Reference 1 states that Volume 5 is limited to “Maximum 5 citations. Limit two pages per citation.” Reference 2 states that “The Offeror shall present a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) performance narratives of recent and relevant contracts AND up to two (2) recent, relevant contracts performed by each major subcontractor or team member.” We interpret that it is the Government’s intent that we must submit a Minimum of three narratives from the proposed Prime and may submit additional narratives from Major Subcontractors. The total number of narratives for the team is not to exceed a total of five (5). Please confirm.

- The Offeror shall present a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) performance narratives of recent and relevant contracts for the Prime contractor AND up to two (2) recent, relevant contracts performed by each major subcontractor or team member.

13. Page 90, Section M, Relative Importance of Factors. “Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and Factor 2 (Personnel Qualification) are of equal importance. Factor 3 (Management Approach) is more important than Factor 5 (Price), but less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2. All non-price factors when combined are more important than Price and Question/Answer # 7 in the Draft Solicitation Questions The previous paragraph states that the Factors to be Evaluated include:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach (Trade Off); Factor 2 – Personnel Qualification (Trade Off);

Factor 3 – Management Approach (Trade Off); Factor 4 – Past Performance (Acceptable or Unacceptable); and Factor 5 – Price. Note that Factor 4 - Past Performance is not included in the stated “Relative Importance of Factors.” Question/Answer #7 in the Draft Solicitation Questions stated that “Past Performance (Factor 4) is more important than Price (Factor 5) and that Section M would be updated to reflect this change” Is that correct and will a change be made to Section M?

- Factor 4 will not be evaluated in relative importance, but will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable per the solicitation.

14. Page 93, Section M – Factor 4 – Past Performance, Paragraph 2, “Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful Past Performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown Past Performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Typically, Companies with unknown or no Past Performance are judged “neutral” as opposed to “Acceptable.” Since Past Performance is rated Acceptable or Unacceptable, Acceptable is, in fact, a favorable rating, which contradicts this statement, “the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.” This means that an offeror who submits no Past Performance would receive an acceptable. Would the Government change the rating of “no Past Performance” to “Neutral” or “Unacceptable?”

- No, please see “Note” in the solicitation under Section M, Past Performance, Factor 4:

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

15. The first paragraph of Volume 3 – Factor 2 Personnel Qualifications on page 75 states that letters of intent “shall include a fully burdened labor rate.” The first paragraph on page 86 (Letters of Intent) states that “Letters of Intent must include intended salary amounts. We assume that the Government meant to state “salary amounts” in both cases as that was the answer that was provided to Question #5 and because, providing fully burdened labor rates amounts to sharing competitive information with personnel who have the potential to share with other competitors. Please confirm that this is correct and that Section L will be updated.

- The solicitation has been updated to reflect that only fully burdened labor rates are required.

16. A relevant contract is defined as those efforts in support of the requirements “listed in Part 5 of the PWS.” Did the Government mean “Part 3?”

- Yes, the solicitation has been updated to reflect Part 3.

17. Pages one and two of the solicitation have the word “draft” as a background image.

Will the Government consider removing the background image on those pages?

- Yes, the “draft” watermark has been removed.

18. The automatic numbering system starts on page 1, continues on the next page, but is discontinued until page 45, when it resumes through the end of the document (page 94). The lack of page numbers will make cross-referencing in compliance matrices difficult.

Will the Government add page numbers to each page in the document?

- Yes, the page numbers have been updated.

19. Section L does not direct offerors to use a specific font type, size, or a standard pitch in their proposals. To foster consistency, would the Government consider directing offerors:

(1) To use Times New Roman 11 point for text type and size

(2) To use Arial 8 point for graphics and tables

- Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single-spaced and printed single side.

Offers will use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾ inch side margins.

The font size shall be no less than Times New Roman ten (10) point. Offers are allowed to use a font style of its choice for tables, charts, graphs and figures; the font shall be no smaller than eight (8) points for tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

20. Section L does not address whether offerors may elect to use 11X17 pages as foldout pages and, if so, what impact this would have on numbering systems. To foster consistency, would the Government consider providing guidance on use of fold-out pages?

- Fold-out pages may be used for tables, charts, graphs and figures only. Fold-out pages should be numbered consistently with the overall proposal and one fold-out page will count as one page for limitation purposes. Only electronic copies of the proposal will be accepted per Section L.

21. Section L requires offerors to submit a detailed OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan in Volume 1 (Introductory Volume). It further states that offerors must certify the accuracy of the findings presented in the plans to the best knowledge and belief by an official authorized to bind the company. Would the Government consider having bidders provide that certification in their transmittal letters as opposed to the OCI Identification and Mitigation plans submitted in Volume 1?

- No, it shall remain the same.

22. Section L, para 5, page 82 states that other than the rates included in the letters of intent (in Volume 4 – Management Approach), offers are to only submit pricing information in Volume 6 (Price). However, Section L, page 87 also states that bidders are to provide the contract value (along with other contract award information) in their selected contract submissions in Volume 5 (Past Performance).

Will the Government consider adding “and contract values in Volume 5” to the existing language in Section L?

- No, the requirements for Volume 5 will remain as stated in the solicitation.

23. Section L, Page Limitations, page 83 states that cover letters, title pages, table of contents, table of figures, lists of tables, and glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms do not count against page count limitations. However, in the following table which outlines requirements for each volume, Section L states that Vol 2 (Technical Approach) may have an executive summary which does not count against page limits.

QUESTION: Would the Government consider adding executive summaries to the list of items excluded from page counts for all proposal volumes in section “Page Limitations”?

- No, page counts will remain as stated in the solicitation.

24. Block 4 states that the Due Date is 12:00 AM 29 Nov 2017. Is that midnight on the 29th (2400 hours) or midnight on the 28th (0000 hours)? Would the Government consider changing the time to 4pm EST 29 Nov? In addition, since this proposal is to be submitted electronically, will the Government provide an immediate email confirmation of receipt?

- Yes, the Government will provide an email confirmation receipt for each proposal.

Solicitation has been updated to reflect the correct time: 12:00PM 29 Nov 2017.

25. Are we required to use our estimated indirect rates and must we provide cost data since this is not a CPFF contract?

- Pricing requirements are provided in Section L of the solicitation.

26. Where are the places of performance for the key personnel positions?

- The work to be performed under this contract will be performed at Government facilities within the National Capital Region (NCR). LNO locations: Wiesbaden, Germany; Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Sumter, South Carolina. One person will be positioned at each of these locations.

27. Will the Government provide a new pricing template as the cells are not lining up and computing correctly on the “FD-Labor Cost Detail” worksheet (starting at cell J73)

- Yes, an updated spreadsheet has been added.

28. PWS 2.2 states that 21.5 positions are designated as Key Personnel. However, Workload Attachment 4 indicates what appears to be a total of 32.5 that are designated as key. In some areas in which there are multiple positions, the attachment specifies “1 key, 2 non-key”.

However, in others there are multiple positions (for example, FDI Senior Analyst, 4 positions) that simply says “key.” Should we assume that all four positions are key, or only one?

- Yes, unless otherwise stated, all personnel are key.

29. Is there an incumbent currently performing this work? If so, please provide the contract number and name of contractor.

- Yes, MDB Group is the incumbent performing contract number W91CRB-15-C-0011.

30. Are we allowed to adjust the hours for the FFP transition-in POP?

- No, the hours will remain as shown in the solicitation.

31. Will the Government please clarify if the Letters of Intent should be included in Vol. 3 - Factor 2 - Personnel Qualifications with the resumes (most of the instructions suggests this) or should they be included in Vol. 4 - Factor 3 - Management Approach as the page count limitation table suggests (p.83 of solicitation)?

- The Letters of Intent and resumes are required in Volume 3 – Factor 2.

32. In Section B, what is the difference between estimated and ceiling price?

- If deemed necessary, the Government would have provided an estimated price. The ceiling price will be based on cost provided in the proposals.

33. Found within Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, Performance Work Statement, Subsection 2.3.13, Experience Substitutes states that an additional four years of experience is required in lieu of meeting Bachelor's Degree requirements. Then in the next bullet it states an additional ten years of related experience is required if personnel only has a high school diploma.

The second bullet appears to contradict the first bullet in that you would only need four years of related experience to count for a Bachelor's degree. We respectfully request clarification regarding this requirement.

- Amended to state that 10 years of related experience is required for personnel without a bachelor’s degree.

34. Para 3.5.2 states: AOs for SATCOM, and CYBER are required to have to TS/SCI Clearance.

Page 86 of the solicitation (Volume 3 Factor 2 last para.) states: “The Offeror shall submit proposed personnel with a minimum of a Secret clearance at time of proposal submission.

EXCEPTION: Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearances are required at the start of the performance of the following PWS requirements: PWS 3.5.2 Communication Security (COMSEC) Modernization, CYBER Operations, SATCOM Database Operations.” There is a discrepancy that Para 3.5.2 calls for two (2) TS/SCI billets in FDC and page 86 of the solicitation identifies three (3) positions requiring TS/SCI clearance. Which is correct?

- The solicitation was updated to remove Communication Security (COMSEC) Modernization from page 86. Only two positions require TS/SCI for FDC in PWS paragraph 3.5.2.

35. On Page 82, the Government states, Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically to John Harvey, Contract Specialist, via e-mail to john.a.harvey1.civ@mail.mil.”). In addition, Paragraph 8 of the Instructions states, “Each factor shall be submitted as a separate volume,” which concludes that we must email 5 separate files, each of which could be large. Therefore, 1) is there a maximum attachment file size for emails, and 2) if so, may we send multiple emails as long as we clearly indicate in the Subject Line (e.g., Email 1 of 2) that we are doing so? Since this is an email submission, will the Government provided an immediate email acknowledging receipt?

- Yes, the Government will provide an email confirmation receipt for each proposal. All emails must be 5MB or smaller. Multiple emails will be accepted as long as they are clearly marked.

36. Paragraph 2.3.7 and Attachment 4, A01_Workload_Data_Final_Force Development states that the G8/FD FDZ Force Documentation position (Paragraph 3.0 thru 3.3, and 3.7.1 thru 3.7.6) is an Analyst position. On 1 Sep 2015, the G8 FD approved a change for the G8 FDZ Force Documentation position from Analyst to Senior Analyst based on the complexity of the position requirements. Was the change to Analyst in Attachment 4 an oversight or is it the Government's intent to change the position back from the previously approved Senior Analyst to Analyst?

- The requirements will remain as shown in the solicitation.

37. Section 3.10.3.1 (page 35) and 3.10.3.1.1 (also page 35), the list of regionally selected military installations/sites includes "and Clay Kaserne, Weisbaden, Germany (AFRICOM/EUCOM). Since the other locations are all Army-level organizations will the government confirm that this should not be (US Army Africa/USAEUR)?

- AFRICOM/EUCOM is US Army Africa/USAEUR.

38. Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical Approach (page 85): Reference the bullet which requests a phase-in and phase out transition plan. Would the government please clarify the following sentence: "The Offeror's plan will describe the transition plan from both the perspective of an incoming awardee (phase-in) as well as the perspective of an outgoing incumbent (phase-out). Is the government expecting to see the incoming awardee perspective only for the phase-in plan and the outgoing incumbent perspective only for the phase-out plan?

Or is the government expecting to see both perspectives (awardee and incumbent) for both the phase-in and phase out sections of the transition plan.

- The Government expects to see both a transition in (phase-in) plan from the perspective of an incoming awardee and also a transition out (phase-out) plan as the outgoing incumbent in the offeror’s proposal.

Questions added with Amendment 02 – dated 21 November 2017

39. The DD 254 issued as an attachment to the original RFQ dated 30 Oct 17 (as a.pdf file) is completely blank. This serious government shortcoming was neither addressed in the answers to questions from bidders nor in the revised documents you released earlier today.

- The DD254 will be filled out upon award of the contract.

40. New section L: The Offeror shall present a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five

(5) performance narratives of recent and relevant contracts for the Prime contractor AND up to two (2) recent, relevant contracts performed by each major subcontractor or team member.

Prime must do 3, but can do up to 5. Major subcontractors can do up to two. So for a team with more than 2 major subcontractors is the total limit 5 regardless that at least 1 major sub provides no PP, or can the total be more than 5? i.e. prime does min of 3, 3 major subs do 1 each = 6.

- As stated in Section L, the Prime contract shall provide up to 5 past performance narrative AND up to 2 past performance narratives for each Major Subcontractor.

41. In response to question 6 of the questions and answers posted today, the Government states that fully burdened rates are to be provided. As it is unusual to provide a company’s bill rate to an employee, is this considered to be the pay rate plus incentives/benefits or the full bill rate?

- Fully burdened rates equates to the pay rate plus incentives/benefits.