Solicitation_Attachment_9_-_Questions_and_Answers_AMD_0007.pdf

W91CRB-19-R-0032 Army Evaluation Center Support Services (AECSS) RFP Questions and Answers

Updated 9/16/2019

REFERENCE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Q1

RFP Section B Manpower Reporting and CDRLs are not priced anywhere in the cost model, but the CLINS are requesting a price. We have traditionally marked these as Not Separately Priced (NSP). Is this acceptable for this procurement?

Pricing these CLINs as Not Separately Priced (NSP) is acceptable.

Q2

Government Cost Model

We have identified a substantial number of anomalies in the Government Cost Model Template. We have fixed these to the best of our ability and highlighted the cells in the attached document showing where the changes were needed and made (copy attached)

Q3

Government Cost Model

We note that the RFP mentions client and contractor site work, but the cost model only requests Government site rates and pricing etc.

Propose in accordance with the provided Solicitation Attachment 7 – LOE Spreadsheet. Subsequent task order competitions will designate on-site and off-site labor categories, when necessary.

Q4 Government Cost Model; Cost Summary Tab

Line 15 does not appear to display the correct total.

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q5 Government Cost Model; Cost Summary Tab

Line 22 does not appear to display total cost and fee appropriately

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q6

Government Cost Model; Direct Labor Rate Schedule Tab

Year 2 does not provide for escalation over year one. We embedded escalation in the rate column. You may wish to change this.

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q7

Government Cost Model; Direct Labor Rate Schedule Tab

The overtime column is hardwired for time and a half (1.5) when many if not all of these positions are salaried and subject to premium overtime.

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q8 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 1 Columns J, N, & P rows 67 -80 and 92- 103 have formula errors

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q9 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 2 Column I points to the wrong year rates Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q10 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 2 Row 204 total cells have formula errors Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q11 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 3 Columns J, K, N, P have formula errors Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q12 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 3 Row have formula errors Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q13 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 4 Row 306 Points to the wrong cells Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q14 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 4 Column G points to the wrong year rates

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q15 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 4 Column J, K, N, P have formula errors Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q16 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 4 Row 401 has formula errors Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q17 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 5 Row 405 point to the wrong cells Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q18 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 5 Row 500 has formula errors Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q19 Government Cost Model; Labor Cost Detail Tab

Yr 5 Row 503 sums improperly Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q20 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Row 40 points to the wrong cells Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q21 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 2 Column G point to the wrong year rates Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q22

Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 2 Column H multiplies by 1.5 for OT premium rather than using the rates in the Direct Labor Rate Tab. This is a potential error issue.

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q23 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 2 G48 & G49 point to the wrong cells Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q24 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 2 Rows 60 – 66 point to the wrong job title rows and associated salary data (inconsistent with Yr 1).

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q25 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 2 Columns I, J, K, M, O have formula errors

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q26 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 3 Rows 91-97 point to the wrong job title rows and associated salary data.

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q27

Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 3 Column H multiplies by 1.5 for OT premium rather than using the rates in the Direct Labor Rate Tab. This is a potential error issue.

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q28 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Yr 3 Columns H, I, J, K, M, O have formula errors

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q29 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Same for years 4 and 5 Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q30 Government Cost Model; Overtime Worksheet Tab

Row 163 column F, G, O have formula errors

Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q31 Government Cost Model; ODC Tab

Cell C22 appears to have wrong value Government Cost Model updated and attached to Amendment 0001

Q32

RFP, page 9; para

2.3 of the main solicitation

The RFP states "The contractor shall provide, an onsite Program Manager, during normal hours of work to perform overall management of any awarded task orders that support APG organizations and Redstone Arsenal for BMDS task orders." Please clarify whether it is the Government's intent for the PM to be on-site full time for awarded tasks? Also, is there a requirement to have a separate on site PM at Redstone Arsenal for BMDS tasks?

It is the Government’s intent to have a full time PM for each task order. The Government will allow PM’s to work off-site in Contractor facilities located in the vicinity of APG or Redstone Arsenal.

The specific LOE and requirements will be defined as part of each task order competition. Paragraph 2.3 of the Statement of Work revised.

Q33

RFP, page 74 The RFP states, “The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.” For the Cost/Price Volume, please confirm the Government will allow the offeror to use links in the Excel worksheets among tabs and between one Excel Worksheet and another Excel Worksheet. There are complex calculations which the Government template does not accommodate and having the capability to link will improve the accuracy of the calculations supporting the Government Cost Model.

The Government will allow links within the LOE Spreadsheet tabs. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure the links work prior to proposal submission.

Q34

Section C, 2.3 Contract Administration and Management, p 9

The first paragraph states “The contractor shall provide, an onsite Program Manager (PM), during normal hours of work to perform overall management of any awarded task orders that support APG organizations and Redstone Arsenal for BMDS task orders.”

Question: Does the Government intend to provide full time on-site office space and equipment to PMs from all companies awarded IDIQ contracts; or.will the Government allow these Key Personnel to work off-site in Contractor facilities located in the vicinity of APG or Redstone Arsenal?

No, On-site office space for the PM will not be provided.

The Government will allow PM’s to work off-site in Contractor facilities located in the vicinity of APG or Redstone Arsenal

Paragraph 2.3 of the Statement of Work revised.

Q35

Section L, A, 2 Proposal Submission Instructions, p75

Paragraphs three and four state “Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required” and “Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape”.

Question: Will the Government allow the use of Arial Narrow in tables and illustrations?

Arial Narrow font may not be used.

Q36 Section L, Vol 1, Factor 2

Paragraph F states: “Note that the prime contractor must be capable of complying with all DD254 requirements at the time of

A1: Section L, Volume 1, Factor 2, Subfactor 1.b remains unchanged.

Technical, Sub-factor 1.b.F, p78 proposal submission” and the DD254 specifies Secret Safeguarding. A Prime Contractor has applied for secret safeguarding, but final approval has not yet been granted, and it may not be granted by this RFP’s submission date because the company is dependent upon the schedule of the DSS representative to complete the process.

Question 1: Will the Government change the wording of paragraph F to state “complying with all DD254 requirements at the time of contract award”? This change would allow a qualified Prime bid on this contract.

Question 2: If the Government will not change the wording to ‘at time of contract award’, will the Government allow the Prime Contractor to meet the safeguarding requirement by use of a major subcontractor’s approved safeguarding capability until the Prime receives final approval on their own safeguarding capability?

However, Attachment 3 – DD254 has been revised.

A2: The Government will allow the prime contractor to meet the safeguarding requirement by use of a major subcontractor’s safeguarding capability. This only applies to safeguarding capability, not facility clearance. If a major subcontractor’s safeguarding capability is utilized, they are required to provide a co-utilization agreement signed by both the prime and subcontractor. The prime contractor must meet the facility clearance requirement.

Q37

Section L, Vol 2, Factor 2 Experience, p79

The fifth paragraph states “…offerors shall address the following within their proposals using Solicitation Attachment 1 (Summary of Experience Form)”. The attachment contains approximately 3 pages of material that will impact the 25 pages available.

Question: Do we have to incorporate the entire Attachment 1 within the Volume 2, or does it simply provide the format we should use in the Narrative section of the volume?

The format in Solicitation Attachment 1 is required to be submitted in an offeror’s proposals. Offerors may incorporate Solicitation Attachment 1 into their proposal, if desired.

Q38

Section L, Vol 4, Factor 4 Past Performance, p81

The first paragraph states “References for past performance shall be provided on Solicitation Attachment 3 (Contract References Form), yet the third paragraph describes a different organization for the Volume with nearly identical information requirements.

Question 1: Will the Government eliminate the requirement for use of this Contract References Form?

Question 2: If the use of the Contract References Form remains a requirement, does each form get added as an attachment to the volume?

Question 3: May we convert the form to MS Word format for simplicity? As we will have

See revisions to Section L, Factor 4 – Past Performance. The submission of Solicitation Attachment 3 – Contract References Form is no longer required and has been removed from this Factor and Section J.

to have the entire volume in MS Word to convert it into a pdf file, using a Word version of the Contract References Form will simplify the process.

Question 4: Do these forms count against our 45-page requirement even though they contain much of the same material required in the narrative?

Q39

Section L, Vol 4, Factor 4 Past Performance, p81

The third paragraph states “This volume shall be organized into the following sections: 1. Section 1 – Contract Descriptions…” and “2. Section 2 Performance…”.

Question: Is the Government asking for all of the cited contract descriptions to be provided sequentially in Section 1 with the narrative explanations for each to be provided sequentially in Section 2; or can the Section 1 and 2 details for each cited contract be placed together?

See revisions to Section L, Volume 4:

Factor 4, which reorganizes this Volume to keep the Contract Descriptions and Performance Information for each contract together.

Q40

Section L, Vol 4, Factor 4 Past Performance, General

In some cases, companies had a contract that ended part-way into the 5 year window required by this Solicitation, and were then awarded one or more ‘Bridge’ contracts with the same customer, scope of work and contract representatives as the original contract, but different contract numbers.

Several of these contracts might be needed to prove 3 years of experience in a competency area.

Question: Will the Government allow companies to compile the primary and bridge contracts into one citation for both Volume 2 and 4 for simplicity, reduced redundancy, and space savings? All contract numbers and periods of performance would be included in the appropriate spots.

Offerors should not compile multiple contracts into one citation. Each contract shall be listed separately.

Q41

Section L, Vol 4, Factor 4 Past Performance, sub-section 3 Subcontracts, p82

This paragraph states “This description shall include an estimate of the total contract value that the prime and all major subcontractors are expected to perform.” Considering that Prime contractors do not know the total dollar value that will actually be put on task order (TO), how many (or which) TOs we will be awarded, nor the value for each of these TOs; we cannot provide a reasonable estimate of total contract value for each subcontractor. As an example, one subcontractor may have one primary support role and if we win a TO in that area, they may receive 50+% of that work and 50% overall, but if we do not receive that award, they might only receive 5% of all work.

Yes, the use of percentages is acceptable.

Section L has been revised.

Question: Is the use of percentages for the estimate of total contract value acceptable?

Q42

Section L, Vol 5, Factor 5 Cost/Price, General Questions

Question 1: Will the Government please provide the proposed start date of the contract for pricing purposes?

Question 2: Will the Government please clarify what cost volume documents major and minor subcontractors are required to submit?

A1. For proposal purposes, use 1 March 2020 as the proposed start date of this contract.

A2. Major and minor subcontractors shall submit all the same documents in order to properly analyze the costs proposed.

Q43

Section L, Vol 5, Factor 5 Cost/Price, 4th paragraph, p83

This paragraph has an asterisk and appears to discuss cost realism.

Question: Will the Government please explain this paragraph regarding direct labor rates. Does this apply to offerors using multiple salary survey data points, does it apply if the offeror and its subcontractor(s) are proposing rates for one individual labor category, or does it mean something else?

This explains the data that will be used in the statistical analysis. It is not an average of the rates proposed per labor category. Assume an offeror proposed $50/hour for a labor category. Two of its subs proposed $48/hour and another $52/hour. We would not use the average of the three. Each of the proposed rates would be used as data points.

Q44

Section L, Vol 5, Factor 5 Cost/Price, 5th paragraph, p83

The fifth paragraph requires the submission of a Total Compensation Plan.

Question: Does the Government have a preference as to where that plan should be with regards to the Cost/Price volume?

Should it be an attachment to the cost narrative?

No preference. An attachment to the cost narrative would suffice.

Q45

Solicitation Attachment 7;

Embedded MS Word Instructions, Paragraph 6.

NOTE 4

This paragraph states that the productive hours are based on a 1920 hour work year, however the “Instructions” worksheet in Attachment 7 shows 1,880 as the annual productive hours in Cell H11.

Question: Will the Government please indicate which FTE is correct?

The annual productive hours is 1880. The instructions in paragraph 6, Note 4 have been updated to reflect the change.

Q46

Solicitation Attachment 7, AECSS LOE

Spreadsheet;

Direct Labor Rate Schedule Worksheet

In this worksheet, the overtime rates are calculating at 1.5 times the straight time rate based on the Government’s inserted calculation. However, it appears that many of the labor categories are Exempt, which would preclude the payment of half time for overtime hours worked.

Question: It is assumed that this calculation can be changed. Please confirm.

Uncompensated overtime is not encouraged. The overtime calculations should remain as they are.

Q47

Solicitation Attachment 7, AECSS LOE

Spreadsheet;

Direct Labor Rate Schedule Worksheet

On the worksheet, in CLIN 0001 – Year 2, Columns F and G are included for SCA Identifier and Labor Type. They are not included in the first year, which is where this information would seem to go. These columns also show “n/a” for SCA Identifier and “Professional” for Labor Type. In reviewing the labor category descriptions in

All labor categories have been determined to be professional in nature.

Attachment 2, many of the labor categories are not Professional and are therefore Non- Exempt.

Question: Will the Government please explain or clarify these two columns?

Q48

Solicitation Attachment 7, AECSS LOE

Spreadsheet;

Direct Labor Rate Schedule Worksheet

On the worksheet, in CLIN 0001 – Years 3-5 include an escalation column to fill in but Year 2 does not include an escalation column. Question: Will the Government please confirm that this is an error and revise Attachment 7?

Escalation column inserted. Attachment 7 adjusted accordingly.

Q49

On page 79, Factor 2:

Experience

The Government uses the term “prime contractor” and “offeror”.

Question: Will the Government confirm that the term “offeror” makes reference to the “prime contractor” and/or “major sub‐ contractors”? OR Will the Government confirm that the term “offeror” and “prime contractor” are not synonymous and makes reference to both the “prime contractor” and/or “major sub‐contractors”?

Rationale: Many of my Division Tasks are systems that play in joint theaters with Air Force, Navy, Marines, Missile Defense Agency, etc. in Europe, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and now the Pacific.

Please see revisions to Section L, Volume 2: Factor 2 – Experience.

Q50

On page 79, "Factor 2:

Experience

The Government explicitly states that the offeror "has a minimum of three (3) years of experience (performed within the past 5 years) supporting AEC's functional and commodity areas outlined in the Performance Work Statement."

Question: Will the Government consider equivalent experience in similar DoD functional and commodity areas outside AEC’s responsibility?

Rationale: Active Systems of Systems architectures and Army operational system participation in joint operational theaters ( PACOM, EUCOM,SWA) with Joint Interagency, Intergovernmental and Multinational (JIIM).

No, equivalent experience in similar DoD functional and commodity areas outside AEC’s responsibility will not satisfy the requirements in Factor 2. Factor 2 remains unchanged.

Q51

On Page 74, A.

Proposal Submission Instructions (Section L)

Proposals must be submitted electronically through the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) website at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/Welcom

e. The AMRDEC system will provide a confirmation to the sender when files are

Please see revisions to Section L, Proposal Submission Instructions.

transmitted successfully. It is the responsibility of the offeror to allow adequate time to submit proposal files before the submission deadline. Any proposal that is received in the AMRDEC system after the appointed deadline is “late” and may not be considered for award. Proposals shall be submitted to the following recipients in

AMRDEC:

robin.m.delossantos.civ@mail.mil;jeffrey.a.s choerner.civ@mail.mil; and gerald.h.taulbee.civ@mail.mil.

Question: Currently the AMRDEC SAFE homepage automatically redirects you to the new DoD SAFE site, however one key difference is that non‐DoDusers can only upload files based on a specific request from a DoD address. The DoD SAFE is stated to be in a “beta” development stage. Will there be any specific updates on how to handle the proposal submission? Will a backup submission process be offered?

Q52

In Table 1.

Qualifications of Key Personnel on

The Government states that the Program Manager must have 5 years’ experience leading and/or supervising “100 or more people in a technical environment.”

Question: Will the Government favorably consider a candidate that has supervised less than 50 people, especially if the level of project management effort was equivalent to or greater than the general LoE for this contract? Second, does leading and/or supervising a subcontracting workforce apply to the 50 person minimum, or must all employees be directly employed by the candidate’s organization to meet the supervisory standard?

Rationale: Currently many DoD T&E technical programs require a high talent level of project management and integration of sub‐contractors across specialized areas, regardless of the number of supervised FTE’s.

Table 1. Qualifications of Key Personnel remains unchanged. Supervising a subcontractor workforce will not be considered in meeting the minimum supervision of personnel experience requirement.

Q53

Paragraph 2.10 Travel/Temporary Duty (TDY).

Paragraph 2.10 Travel/Temporary Duty (TDY). Travel to other Government facilities or other contractor facilities may be required and will be specified in the individual TOs.

Question: For proposal purposes will the Government provide plug numbers for travel for each contract year proposed?

Please see Solicitation Attachment 7 – AECSS LOE Spreadsheet, which provides the Government normalized Other Direct Costs (ODCs), which includes travel.

If so will the plug numbers serve as Not to Exceed (NTE) values for each contract year?

If not what criteria should the contractor use to calculate travel cost? Will any projected travel schedules be included in the proposal Task Order?

Q54

VOLUME 3:

FACTOR 3 –

TRANSITION

PLAN

Transition Plan states that “All costs associated with the transition plan will be reflected in Solicitation Attachment 7 (LOE Spreadsheet)”.

Question 6: Will the LOE Spreadsheet include ALL LOEs that must be addressed in the Transition Plan?

This statement is not included in the final RFP posted to FBO on 7 August 2019.

Q56 Pg 12, Sec 2 Para

2.7 Surge Support

Will Surge Support be a line item on Task Order development response

Surge requirements MAY be included in task order competitions.

Q57

RFP, page 17, Section 3.1.3, Contract Funds Status Report

Historically, on the current AEC IDIQ contract, the funds status information has been provided on a monthly basis. Section

3.1.3 requires significant additional cost data to be developed outside of standard monthly cost processes, which will be billable directly to a task order, increasing the overall cost to

AEC.

Will the Government consider removing section 3.1.3 and maintaining the historical data requirements stated under section 3.1.2 and 3.1.4?

PWS Section 3.1.3 remains unchanged.

Q58

RFP, page 11, Section 2.4, Subcontract Management

The last sentence of this section states “The prime contractor shall provide the subcontracting plan and any subsequent updates to the plan to the COR within 30 days of initiation or changes.” However, Section L, Submission Instructions, 1.

Introduction, states “As this requirement is a Small Business set aside, there are no subcontracting goals and a subcontracting plan is not required.”

Will the Government please confirm a subcontracting plan is not required?

The Performance Work Statement, Section 2.4 has been updated to remove this sentence. A subcontracting plan is not required.

Q59

RFP, page 75, Section L, Submission Instructions

3.c. Content Requirement – states “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section and the Narrative discussion”.

Will the Government please exclude the Summary Section from page count as is done for the Table of Contents?

The Summary Section counts toward page count.

Q60

RFP, page 82, Section L, Past Performance

Section 3 - Subcontracts. This section appears to be intended for a different area of the proposal as it does not seem to have any relevancy to past performance. Recommend removal of this section from Factor 4 and

This section is intended to be in the Past Performance volume. This section is included to ensure the subcontractor past performance being cited in the proposal is relevant to the work the company may moving it to Factor 1, Subfactor 1b, Management Approach, paragraph E.

If this section is intended to be part of the Factor 4, will the Government please clarify how this is applicable to the past performance citations?

perform under this contract. The solicitation remains unchanged.

Q61

RFP, page 82, Section L, Past Performance

Section 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire, the first sentence currently reads “For all contracts identified above in Volume 2, Section 1, Contract Descriptions…”.

Will the government please clarify that the sentence shown above should read “for all contractors identified above in Volume 4, Section 1, Contract Descriptions… “

Please see revised Section L, Volume 4:

Factor 4 – Past Performance.

Q62

RFP, page 82, Section L, Past Performance

Section 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire refers to the questionnaire being sent to the Government contracting activity and the Government technical representative responsible for the contract. If the contract reference is for work performed as a subcontractor, the Government contracting activity will typically not complete the questionnaire as there is no privity of contract with the subcontractor organization.

Will the Government please revise the requirement for questionnaire submissions when work was performed as a subcontractor to be sent only to a Government technical representative who is aware of the subcontractor work efforts?

Please see revised Section L, Volume 4:

Factor 4 – Past Performance, Past Performance Questionnaire.

Q63

Solicitation Attachment 7 –

AECSS LOE

Spreadsheet, Direct Labor Rate Tab

Will the Government please clarify what is required to be entered in the green shaded column labeled “Cost Realism Basis for Rate Proposed”?

Offerors shall identify what was used to establish the realism of the proposed rate.

Further detail should be included in the cost narrative.

Q64

RFP, page 85, Section L Cost/Price

Indirect Rates states “If formal agreements do not exist, offerors/subcontractors shall provide their forward pricing indirect expense rate forecast for each indirect rate, to include expense pool by expense account as well as allocation base details. Offerors shall also provide three years’ historical pool and base detail (same information as provided for forecasted rates) for each indirect expense.”

Will the Government please confirm that if formal agreements DO exist, three year’s historical pool and base detail is NOT required for each indirect expense?

Three years of historical pool and base information is required regardless of whether or not the offeror has any formal agreements.

Q65 RFP, page 95, Section M (Also

Solicitation Attachment 7 identifies each of 91 labor categories/levels presented in the

No, the Government is not willing to reduce the number of labor categories.

Attachment 7 and Section L solicitation and requires a direct labor rate, along with substantiating documentation for each rate. Solicitation Instructions in Section L state that the rates provided will be used to evaluate the overall pricing, as well as determine cost realism.

While the labor category descriptions present the generic requirements for education and experience, the actual salaries negotiated for contractor personnel may vary depending on the type of commodity being supported. For example, there may be a significant difference in market competitive salaries for a Systems Engineer II supporting requirements for a tactical vehicle system as compared to a Systems Engineer II supporting requirements for a complex communication, cyber and software system.

This is particularly evident with the shortage of qualified, cleared, candidates available in the market today.

We understand the Government’s desire to ensure that a prospective contractor has the ability to understand how to appropriately identify cost-effective candidates and provide cost proposals that are accurate based on standard accounting practices and systems. We also understand the Government’s desire to ensure that a prospective awardee is cost-conscious and understands the needs of the Government as stipulated in future task orders.

Therefore, respectfully request consideration of a change in this requirement to better align with the evaluation purposes as shown in the solicitation and to remove a significant burden on small business offerors to provide the Government with substantive documentation for 91 labor categories.

Will the Government please consider reducing the number of labor categories that need to be priced in Solicitation Attachment 7 to approximately 10 labor categories?

Q66

RFP, page 95, Section M, Cost/Price

The Offeror is cautioned that the variance from proposed rates will be used as a performance metric for the awardee and used as input for the award of additional contracts/task orders as well as for past performance reviews issued under CPARS.”

Section M has been revised. The Offeror is cautioned that the variance from proposed rates MAY be used as a performance metric for the awardee and used as input for the award of additional contracts/task orders as well as for past performance reviews issued under

CPARS

Will the Government please clarify this Note? Is it the Government’s intention that the rates proposed for evaluation purposes at the IDIQ level will be compared to future rates proposed under solicited Task Orders and variances/deviations (which may be due to market conditions or specific commodity area or functional unique needs) may lead to negative CPARs?

Will the Government please reconsider using the proposed rates as a metric for the awardee and as input for future task orders given there may be no relevancy since the proposed rates are being provided to demonstrate an understanding of a basic requirement and commodity within AEC support?

Q67

RFP, page 84, Section L, Cost/Price

Solicitation Attachment 7 includes a column for Prime (P) or Subcontractor (S) pricing.

The solicitation indicates that the pricing worksheet is for evaluation purposes of the prime offeror’s rates and understanding of the Government requirements. Further, per solicitation instructions, the offeror is responsible for evaluating the cost realism of their subcontractors and providing such with documentation at the Task Order level when proposing subcontractors.

Will the Government please confirm that subcontractors are not required to provide pricing at the IDIQ level in response to this solicitation?

Offerors are required to provide subcontractor cost and pricing information in response to this solicitation.

Q68

Attachment 2, Labor Category Qualifications

Reference Attachment 2 – AECSS Labor Category Qualifications: The Computer Programming Specialist labor categories are written broad and include the specific statement “May program websites”.

However, the qualifications for the Computer Programming Specialist require expert-level skills with web publishing and graphics software. Additionally, the qualifications require knowledge of one or more programming languages, plus working knowledge of SAS programming with specialized emphasis. Additionally, the qualifications require working knowledge of IBM/MVS, UNIX, MS_DOS, Windows, Lan, AND Word Perfect.

Will the Government please reconsider requiring this significant combination of specialized experience at the IDIQ level, especially given many of the systems and

Attachment 2 has been updated.

software are not widely used? Instead, please consider using the specialized qualifications at the task order level.

Q69

Attachment 2, Labor Category Qualifications

Reference Attachment 2 – AECSS Labor Category Qualifications: Most labor categories specify clearance levels, including a large number that specify a requirement for TS/SCI security clearances. As an example, all General Engineer labor category levels require a TS/SCI, which may or may not be applicable at the Task Order level.

Will the Government please consider removing the specific clearance requirements in the labor category descriptions at the IDIQ level, insert a requirement for a minimum of Secret clearance for all contractor personnel supporting any awarded Task Orders, and identify higher level clearances at the Task Order level as needed when soliciting Task Order proposals?

Attachment 2 has been revised.

Q70

Solicitation Attachment 6 – OCI Certification

The OCI statement included in the attachment, as well as in the Solicitation body (page 14 of 95), states that participation in contracts that provide engineering or technical support to DoD developers or program offices responsible for developing such systems may constitute an OCI.

However, current AEC contracts define OCI in accordance with Title 10, US Code, Section 2399 and DOD/Army policy which prohibits persons employed by the contractor for the system being developed from participating in the operational test and evaluation of a system. Will the Government please review the language set forth in the attachment concerning technical support provided to a program office in an advisory capacity (such as providing SETA support) to remove this type of support from being considered an OCI since a contractor in this role is unable to make authoritative decisions as to the development of a product or system being developed for the Government?

The OCI requirements in the current Solicitation will not be changed.

Q71

Solicitation Attachment 6 – OCI Certification

Since OCI determination is made at the system level, to be supported under a task order, will the Government consider moving the requirement for OCI certifications (Solicitation Attachment 6) to the task order level?

No. OCI certifications must be submitted and will be evaluated with the base contract awards to ensure a pool of qualified contractors are available to support task order requirements.

Q72

RFP, page 85, Section L, Cost/Price

The solicitation indicates plug numbers for ODCs, other than travel, and requires an approved purchasing system, or completion of a purchasing system review document.

Will the Government please review this

Offeror’s are required to provide evidence showing they have an approved purchasing system or shall provide a completed Solicitation Attachment 5 (Purchasing System Review Form) requirement to determine its necessity and consider removing it if there are no ODC requirements?

documenting compliance with the requirements of DFARS Clause 252.244- 7001(c). The Government has provided normalized ODC figures and anticipates ODCs will be used at the task order level.

Q73 RFP, page 85, Section L, Cost/Price

Will the Government please provide historical data on ODC procurements?

No historical information on ODCs will be provided.

Q74

RFP, page 34, Section 5.46 and

CDRL A014,

Transition-Out

Section 5.46 of the PWS states that the Phase-Out Period is "30 calendar days immediately prior to the end of the contract";

CDRL A014 states" Phase-out period (60 calendar days immediately prior to the end of the contract).

Will the Government please clarify the Phase-Out Period should be 30 calendar days or 60 calendar days?

Total transition period is 60 calendar days. 30 calendar days for phase in and 30 calendar days for phase out. Corrected typo in CDRL A014.

Q75

RFP, page 9, Section 2.3, Key Personnel

The current Qualifications for the PM state "Bachelor's Degree in engineering or an applicable discipline in other Physical Sciencies, Mathematics or Computer Science from an accredited college/university and 15 years of applicable program management experience to include cost, schedule and performance of a contractor; or a Master's Degree in engineering or an applicable discipline in other Physical Sciences, Mathematics, or Computer Science from an accredited college/university and 13 years program management experience to include cost, schedule and performance of a contract...."

Will the Government consider amending the qualifications for the PM to allow a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree from a US War College or Military University in areas such as Strategic Studies and Campaign Plans where the candidate has significant and relevant experience in Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation as a senior military officer and managing cost, schedule and performance of an overall mission or program?

No, the qualifications for the PM will remain as stated in the RFP.

Q76

RFP, page 7, Section 1.3 Task Order Structure

Integrated Survivability is one of the 5 task orders. Survivability Evaluation Directorate is currently supported by a small business as a separate contract vehicle since Dec 6, 2018 for a 5-year contract. Can the government please clarify that Survivability task order is going to be included in the AEC IDIQ and be recompeted early?

The survivability evaluation directorate support requirements will be included in the AEC IDIQ scope of work, however, the Government has not determined when or if that support will move under the AEC IDIQ.

Q77 RFP, page 9, Section 2.3

There is a requirement for an ONSITE Program Manager for all task orders

The Government will allow PM’s to work off-site in Contractor facilities

Contract Admin & Mgmt performed at either APG or Redstone.

Typically, a Program Manager would be responsible for managing all of the Prime's task orders, which would require administrative coordination with employees and subcontracting firms regarding corporate-sensitive information. Such activities are usually not permitted using GFE and Government networks, thereby hindering the PM's ability to function on site.

Would the option of having a local-to-APG PM suffice? If the position remains onsite, will there be a separate line of funding to cover administration costs (justifying and securing a full-time, onsite position)? And if so, then will there be such a position for each active prime?

located in the vicinity of APG or Redstone Arsenal

Paragraph 2.3 of the Statement of Work revised.

Q78

RFP, page 12, Section 2.6 Location & Hours of Work

Who approves the telework agreement for contractor employees?

Telework for contractor staff may be allowed, but will be approved on a case by case basis through the COR for a period of time that does not conflict with mission accomplishment. Telework is not guaranteed.

Q79

RFP, page 34,

5.46 Transition

(also Volume 3 - Factor 3:Transition Plan)

Page 34 states "provide a tour of the facilities if applicable, and explain procedures for day-to-day operations. The joint inventory of GFP must be completed within thirty days of the end of the transition period." Volume 3:

Factor 3 – Transition Plan. Subparagraph b (we are required to write to) states “Processes to Transition-In/Out of Government facilities, to include acceptance/return of GFP, material, and accountability.”

In the technical requirements there is no discussion of requiring to operate or maintain GFP or discussion of facilities. What day to day operation would an analyst be required to perform? (This portion of the PWS appears to be an artifact from, perhaps, an OTC contract.)

All GFP requirements are included in

5.42 of the PWS and CDRL A012.

Q80

RFP, page 79, Section L - Volume 2 - Factor 2:Experience

Is it the government’s intent not to count all past performance under the current AEC Omnibus contract task orders towards experience in the nineteen competency areas? As currently worded, 3 years in the last 5 years are required to count towards the 19 competency areas. Some of the task orders released under the current AEC Omnibus contract were for only two years (a base year and an option year). Only a few of the TOs issued under the current Omnibus contract were held by any prime contractor for a minimum of three years. As a result, The Factor 2 submission requirements are unchanged. All recent and relevant work that has been performed for 3 years within the last 5 years will be considered as stated in Factor 2.

many of the TOs previously executed or currently being executed will not be eligible towards Factor 2.

Q81

RFP, page 80, Section L - Volume 2 - Factor 2:Experience

Specifies offerors are to demonstrate experience in "at least 3 of the following 4 methodology disciplines." However, there are 5 disciplines listed, not 4. Please clarify the required number of disciplines that must be addressed out of the 5 listed.

Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 2:

Experience is revised to correct this error.

Q82

RFP, Section L - Volume 4: Factor 4 - Past Performance

The instructions for the Past Performance Volume describe how the volume should be split into sections, and what data is required for each section. However, the instructions also state that past performance data should be provided “on Solicitation Attachment 3.”

1. The data required by Attachment 3 does not match the data required by the Instructions. Please clarify the apparently contradictory requirements.

2. Attachment 3 is an Excel spreadsheet, but this Volume is subject to page limits. How are Excel spreadsheets to be counted against the volume page limit?

3. Is Attachment 3 a separate submission, distinct from the other requirements of this Volume? Or is it meant to be incorporated in some way? If so, how?

See the answer to Q38.

Q83

RFP, Vol 4 - Attachment 3

How are the Attachment 3 forms to be incorporated into the submission? Do they constitute the response for Section 1 - Contract Descriptions? If so, the fields in the form contained in Attachment 3 do not match the information requested in Section 1

- Contract Descriptions. Is using the forms alone sufficient, or should offerors augment the forms as necessary to provide the additional listed data in the submission instructions for Section 1? Additionally, Attachment 3 is an Excel spreadsheet. Are the Attachment 3 forms meant to be copied into the Word document, or provided as a separate file?

See answer to Q38.

Q84

RFP, Section L - Volume 5: Factor 5 - Cost/Price

The following statement appears in the RFP:

“Offeror and subcontractor proposals will be evaluated based on the cost/price reasonableness and realism criteria contained in FAR 15.404-1.” This is the only mention of subcontractor pricing proposals in the instructions. Please confirm – are separate subcontractor pricing volumes required? If so, and given the proprietary nature of the data in this volume, by what mechanism

Offerors and subcontractors are required to submit all required documents listed in the solicitation in support of its cost proposal. Subcontractors can submit proposals directly to the Government.

should these packages be electronically delivered to the Government in a way that remains sealed to the Prime Offeror?

Q85 RFP, Attachment

7, AECSS LOE

Regarding the "OT Worksheet" tab, are OT rates applicable to this contract?

1.5 times the regular rate.

Q86

RFP, Attachment

7, AECSS LOE,

Instructions Tab

On the Instruction of the Attachment 7 AECSSS LOE Spreadsheet, it is said 1920 hours per FTE. However, in the Attachment 7 Labor Cost Detail and OT worksheet, it used Annual Productive Hours of 1880. Can the government please clarify which one we should use: 1920 or 1880 hours for a single

FTE.

See answer to Q45.

Q87

Labor Categories There are numerous LCATs that require TS/SCI. Can you verify that these are true requirements or are they specific to particular task orders? Also, do you mean that these personnel hold TS clearances and are SCI eligible? An analyst would not hold a SCI billet unless he/she is currently supporting a program with that requirement.

Attachment 2 has been updated.

Q88

General Comment

Recommend that evaluations should be obtained from subcontractors regarding prime offeror's ability to manage, coordinate, and facilitate working relationship.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Evaluation will remain as it is stated.

Q89

Volume 2, Factor 2 Experience, Request for clarification: Years of Experience. Many of the task orders issued between 2014 - 2017 were of short duration and under 24 months.

Recommend the government adjust the years of experience from three (3) years to one (1) year to allow current AEC prime contractors the opportunity to use their awarded work as experience.

Section L, Volume 2, Factor 2:

Experience remains unchanged.

Q90

Volume 2- Factor 2, Pages 7, 18, 36, 79

Language Clarity. PWS 1.2 Scope. The Government states AEC "commodity directorates." PWS 1.3 is Task Order Structure and includes five (5) Support Service Areas: a. Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Evaluation, b. Combatant Command Cybersecurity Task Force, c. Integrated Survivability Evaluation, d. Integrated Suitability Evaluation, Methodology and Training and Professional Development, and

e. Effectiveness Evaluation for Fires, CBRN, C4ISR and Mounted Systems. PWS 4.

Performance Requirements states "TOs may be issued for combined commodity areas or may cover individual commodity areas outlined in paragraph 1.3" Again, PWS 8.0 Deliverables states "... figures identify CDRLs required per TO/commodity area."

See Attachment 2 for commodity specialized experience clarification as well as section 1.3 of the PWS.

Section L Volume 2 Factor 2: Experience states "At Least six (6) competency are demonstrated under Factor 2 (Experience) are required to have been performed by the prime contractor. Then, listed in "B" the Government introduces the term "integrated survivability disciplines."

To provide clarity, which will support offerors responding to the solicitation, recommend the Government define and then clarity what they mean by commodity area (PWS 1.2), TO (PWS 1.3), commodity areas (PWS 4. and PWS 8.0) , competency areas (Section L) and disciplines (Section L).

Q91

Volume 2- Factor 2, Experience, Request for clarification: Years of Experience. It is not clear what the Government means by a "minimum of 3 years (occurring within the past 5 years) of experience providing evaluation services contract support…" Does the Government mean 1 year across each of the competency areas totaling 3 years of experience; i.e., 1 year in BMDS, 1 year in ADA Systems, 1 year in C4ISR totally 3 years of experience?

To provide clarity and enable offerors to use all AEC awarded TO work, recommend the Government define 3 years experience within a TO area as the total experience of all work performed within a designated competency areas. This approach ensures all AEC awarded work will be permitted for both Experience and Past Performance.

See revisions to Section L, Volume 2- Factor 2: Experience. To clarify, there are 5 competency area group listings.

Under each competency area group, the offeror must demonstrate a minimum number of the competency areas listed (e.g. 5 of 6 or 6 of 8). For each competency area demonstrated, the prime offeror and/or its major subcontractor(s) must collectively demonstrate that they have a minimum of 3 years (occurring within the past 5 years). Thus, in demonstrating experience under the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS (PWS Section 1.3.a.) the offeror must demonstrate three years of experience performing BMDS work."

Q92

Volume 2 – Factor 2: A, page

This paragraph states: "The offeror shall demonstrate that they have a minimum 3 years (occurring within the past 5 years) of experience providing evaluation services contract support in at least 5 of the following 6 competency areas. *Note that 1 (one) of the 5 minimum competency areas demonstrated must be in Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) (PWS Section 1.3.a)." This appears to restrict evaluation of an Acceptable rating for the Experience factor to the incumbent Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) task order awardee. This is a significant change to the Experience factor competency areas from the draft RFP.

Is it the intent of the Government to limit an Acceptable rating in the Experience factor to only one potential offerer? Recommend the Government modify this requirement to

Volume 2, Factor 2: Experience remains unchanged. It is not the Government’s intent to limit competition.

provide fair competition for all potential offerors.

Q93

Volume 2 – Factor 2: A, page

This paragraph states: "The offeror shall demonstrate that they have a minimum 3 years (occurring within the past 5 years) of experience providing evaluation services contract support in at least 5 of the following 6 competency areas. *Note that 1 (one) of the 5 minimum competency areas demonstrated must be in Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) (PWS Section 1.3.a)." The requirement of having a minimum of 3 years (occurring within the past 5 years) can have unattended consequences based on the timing of contracts. For example, in one of the competency areas we have been performing work for over 25 continuous years, but do not have a contract that meets this requirement because of the timing of when contracts have been awarded.

Recommend the Government change the Experience requirement to a contract occurring within the last 5 years.

Volume 2, Factor 2: Experience remains unchanged.

Q94

DD 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification

Safeguarding Classified; This requirement and other elements of the DD 254 appears to be at odds with requirements for work to be performed at Government Site.

Attachment 3 - DD254 is revised.

Q95

Volume 4: Factor 4-Past Performance, The first paragraph indicates that "References for past performance shall be provided on Solicitation Attachment 3 (Contract References Form)

1) Request guidance on how this Attachment should…