W91RUS-17-R-0001_AMENDMENT_0002_160th_AITEL_Support.docx

W91RUS-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMD 02 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION

The following changes are included in this amendment:

Section A.1 - is updated to reflect an extension of the proposal submission due date and remove reference to email submissions.

Section A.2 – is updated to incorporate Questions 73 – 151 and their corresponding responses.

Section C - PWS paragraph 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.3.2 are corrected to reflect correct titles.

Section C – PWS Paragraph 3.5.1.2.b updated to include GCSS-A requirements.

Section C – PWS Paragraph 3.5.2 has been updated to revise/remove minimum experience and hours training.

Section H, Clause 5152.225-5910 has been updated to remove "Error" language

Section I added DFARS Clause 252.222-7002

Section L.3.1.a and b, have been updated to change proposal submission due date and allowable submission options.

Section L.4.2 has been updated to change reference to “cover letter” to “proposal submission letter”

Section L.5.1 has been updated to change the language “indexed and cross-indexed” to “properly referenced back”

Section L.6.1.e table has been updated to address several questions, and to change allowable submission options; the notes to the table have been updated to indicate .DOCX and .XLSX are acceptable file formats; Volume 1 note updated to reflect correct reference.

Section L.7.1.e updated to clarify requirements related to DOD Security Clearance.

Section L.7.1.i updated to remove fourth bullet “Section H” as required for fill-in information and last bullet for DD254

Section L.7.2.a.10.D NOTE 2 updated to remove reference to percentage of proposes value offeror plans to subcontract. Subcontracting goals are based on total contract value.

Section M.1.3.a.1, multiple bullets, reference to Section L have been updated to reflect L.7.2

Section M.1.3.a.2 and 3, references updated to reflect L.7.2

Attachment 09A has been updated to reflect only those CLINs in Section B Schedule

Attachment 05 has been updated to address several questions

Attachments 03 and 07 – the correct versions of these attachments have been updated with this Amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

SECTION A

A.1 GENERAL

The Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG), Huachuca Division contracting center is requesting proposal to fulfill the U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM), 160th Signal Brigade’s requirement for Brigade and Battalion levels of staff support services in the areas of Administrative support, Operations support, Information Systems Engineering Support, and Logistics Support to the 160th Signal Brigade and subordinate commands within the CENTCOM Area of Operation (AOR), which is roughly defined as being located in SWA and Central Asia. The Contractor shall provide all personnel, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other resources necessary to perform these services as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section C and this Request for Proposal (RFP).

The RFP requirements are defined herein. The Government contemplates a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract. Ensure that this RFP is read in its entirety and provide a conforming proposal that addresses all areas. Failure to do so could result in the proposal being determined non-responsive and not evaluated. This requirement, when awarded, will follow and incorporate all applicable USC, CFR, FAR, DFARS and any other applicable Federal, State, or Local Statues, Codes, or Regulations.

The points of contact for this solicitation are the Contracting Specialist, Mr. Joe L. Morris, and the Contracting Officer (KO), Ms. Cheryl M. Todd. Your proposal shall be submitted as set forth in Section L – Instructions to Offerors below and shall be received no later than July 19, 2017 at 3:00 PM EDT.

A.2 QUESTIONS REGARDING DRAFT RFP DOCUMENTS

The Government has completed its final review of the questions received related to the DRAFT RFP documents issued through FEDBIZOPPS on 17 May 2017. The Government’s responses to those questions are provided below. Many of the necessary updates/changes to the solicitation were already been incorporated into the final, but a few additional updates/changes have occurred as a result of final reviews.

Question 1: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2.A.9, p. 244; The Draft RFP has reduced the overall page count for the Mission Support response from 75 pages in the previous RFP to 60 pages. Due to space limitations, will the Government permit Offerors to provide Small Business Participation Information, which will take several pages to address, in an Appendix that is excluded from the page count?

ANSWER 1: The Small Business Participation Plan has been assigned a page limitation of 10 pages (See table at L.6.1.e); this required information will be considered an Appendix and will not be included or counted against the page limitation for the Mission Support factor proposals.

Question 2: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1 e, p. 240; The Draft RFP limits Volume 2 to a maximum of 60 pages. Due to the volume of technical information necessary to adequately respond to the RFP requirement, will the Government consider increasing the Volume 2 page limit to 75 pages?

ANSWER 2: The page limitation will remain 60 pages. To assist offerors with concerns of space, the small business participation plan required information has been assigned a separate page limitation (see response to Question 1 above).

Question 3: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2.B, p. 246; The RFP states, “The Offeror shall describe, in detail, the proposed technical approach for performing each of the technical requirements as set forth in the PWS.” However, the two numbered items, “Offeror’s Capability to Staff the Effort” and “Description of Labor Categories” do not seem to require Offerors to provide a detailed technical approach. Should Offerors include a separate section addressing the PWS in addition to responding to the two numbered items?

ANSWER 3: Offerors shall describe, in detail, their proposed technical approach for performing the technical requirements of the acquisition. Offerors’ technical approaches should include the information requested in the numbered items of Section L.7.2.B in whatever manner the offeror deems most appropriate to provide clear, concise information that demonstrates “an understanding of the requirement to provide support for the identified services…” The table at numbered item 2 of this section should also be included with the required information completed. Technical approach should address “How” the offeror intends to perform the required services and explain staffing and labor categories such that it is clear the offeror understands the requirement and can adequately “plan, organize, implement, sustain, and adapt to changing environments…”

Question 4: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.A.2, p. 248; With regard to submission of Section J, Attachment 05 (PART B), the RFP states, “This information is required for the Offeror and team members as well as any intended subcontractor(s) proposed on this effort.” In the same section, it says, “For each subcontractor/team member/joint venture no more than three (3) referenced contracts each should be provided (each) that are relevant in type and magnitude.” However, Section L.6.1.e appears to indicate that Offerors should only submit past performance information for Major Sub-Contractors. Should Offerors submit past performance information for all subcontractors, or just major subcontractors?

ANSWER 4: Offerors are required to submit past performance information on major subcontractors. Major subcontractor for purposes of this acquisition is defined as subcontractor(s) proposed to provide 25% or more of the work for this effort.

Question 5: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e (Volume 4), p. 240; Please clarify the meaning of “List of Reference Contracts”. Is “List of Reference Contracts” the same information required in Section L.7.4.A.1, List of Past Performance References?

ANSWER 5: Section L.7.4.A.1, “List of Past Performance References” has been changed to “List of Reference Contracts”; this is PART A of Attachment 5. L.6.1.e has been updated as well to adhere to the same naming convention.

Question 6: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e (Volume 4), p. 240; If this is the same information, can Offerors provide additional information within the 2-page limit for this section, since filling out Part A of the Past Performance Information Summary will take perhaps ½ page?

ANSWER 6: Attachment 5 has been updated to reflect changes to the format for required information.

Question 7: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e (Volume 4), p. 240; Please clarify the meaning of “Past Performance Information Document (PPID)”. Is the PPID the same information required in Section L.7.4.A.2 (which requires us to fill out Part B of the Past Performance Information Summary)?

ANSWER 7: Attachment 5, Past Performance Information Document (PPID) has been renamed to Past Performance Information Summary (PPIS); it contains Part A, the List of References as well as Part B and is the same information required by L.7.4.A.1 and L.7.4.A.2. Paragraph L.6.1.e has also been updated to reference Attachment 5 and clarify the requirement.

Question 8: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e (Volume 4), p. 240; For major sub-contractors, the PPID page limit is two pages, while it is three pages for the Prime Contractor. Is this correct, or should both be three pages? Section L.6.1.a states, “All proposal worksheets shall be completed and submitted in the format provided by the Government.” Following these instructions for submission of Attachment 05, Part B, will leave very little room for content if the limit is just two pages.

ANSWER 8: L.6.1.e has been updated to reflect a limitation of three (3) pages for both Prime Offerors and major subcontractors for the PPIS, PART B information.

Question 9: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.A.2 (2nd bullet), p. 248; The instructions in this bullet state, “For example, if a Prime Offeror proposes a subcontractor to perform Telecommunications Support functions with 20 personnel, that subcontractor must provide a contract reference to demonstrate Telecommunications Support experience with 20 personnel.” While it is imperative that Offerors and their subcontractors have highly relevant experience, requiring them to demonstrate that they have provided the same or greater number of relevant resources is highly restrictive and strongly favors the incumbent contractor. We request that the Government not prevent Offerors and subcontractors who have significant experience, but perhaps not as many personnel providing the service, from competing.

Q: Will the Government reword the requirement as follows: “For example, if a Prime Offeror proposes a subcontractor to perform Telecommunications Support functions with 20 personnel, that subcontractor must provide a contract reference to demonstrate comparable Telecommunications Support experience, including the number of personnel providing the support.” It would then be up to the Government, in its role as evaluator, to determine the relevance of the cited experience.

ANSWER 9: This paragraph has been updated.

Question 10: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2.A.5, p. 244; We request that the Government permit Offerors to provide their Phase-In Approach as an Appendix, limited to 10 pages and excluded from the page count. This will provide a level playing field for all Offerors. Because the incumbent contractor’s phase-in activities will be less extensive and require less room to describe compared to a new awardee, the inclusion of the Phase-In Approach within the page count will give the incumbent several extra pages in which to describe the other parts of its Mission Support approach.

ANSWER 10: The Government will allow the Phase-In approach as an appendix to the Mission Support volume with a page limitation of five (5) pages; this appendix will not be counted against the sixty (60) pages limitation for the Mission Support volume. Section L.6.1.e has been updated to reflect the Phase-In Approach as Appendix 1 to Volume 2.

Question 11: Solicitation Reference: 4.1.1.2, p. 177; The Draft RFP has two instances of Section 4.1.1.2. Will the Government renumber these for the Final RFP?

ANSWER 11: The PWS has been updated to remove the duplication of paragraph 4.1.1.2.

Question 12: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e, page 241; Major sub-contractor is described as 25% of work. Is that 25% of FTEs or dollars?

ANSWER 12: Major subcontractor is described as any subcontractor proposed to perform 25% of the work required for this effort. Offerors’ should provide information that will best describe their past performance that is relevant to the work they are proposed to perform in type and magnitude.

Question 13: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4, p. 248; L.7.4 (first bullet under section A) states “The list of references is due one (1) week prior to proposal delivery due date…” Whereas, PART A states “The List of References (PART A only) is due there (3) days before proposal due date…”

Q: Should Part A in the Past Performance Information Summary, which says “…is due there (3) days…” be “…is due three (3) days…”?

Q: Please confirm if PART A is due one week or three days prior to proposal? And if one week, is this a full week or a business week?

ANSWER 13: L.7.4.a.1 has been updated to reflect “The list of references is due is due three (3) days prior to the proposal delivery due date and time…” Attachment 5 PPIS PART A has been updated to correct typographical error and state three (3) days.

Question 14: Solicitation Reference: Past Performance Information Summary, PART B; Can the instructions at the top of page one and instructions for Sections b., c., and d. be deleted to ensure not counting against page limitations?

ANSWER 14: Past Performance Information Summary, PART B has been updated. All instructions have been moved to the one page so as not to count against page limitations. It should also be noted, any instructions may be deleted and not included as part of Offerors’ submissions provided that format and content are adhered to.

Question 15: Solicitation Reference: General; Will the government allow Offerors to submit a 2-page Executive Summary in volume 2 that does not count toward page count?

ANSWER 15: No, if Offorers choose to include a two page executive summary, it will count towards the total page count of 60.

Question 16: Solicitation Reference: Attachment 08 – Government Provided Housing and Section B.5 (k) – Pricing of Labor Rates and Other Direct Costs/Page 3; Section B.5 (k) states, “The Offeror shall propose housing expenses where Government-furnished housing is not provided. The Offeror must clearly delineate the approach used in providing housing to their employees to include occupancy levels, assignment, adequacy, and any other needed housing resources”. However, Attachment 08 shows Kuwait and Qatar as not having Government-furnished housing but notes, “in the event that Government-furnished housing is not available at some locations upon contract award, the awardee will have an opportunity to submit a proposal for housing”. Could the Government please clarify if their note in Attachment 08 is referring to housing not being available at contract award in Afghanistan and the Offeror would then be given an opportunity to propose alternate housing?

ANSWER 16: The note currently references Afghanistan only; Attachment 8 has been updated to clarify Government Furnished housing locations. If after contract award, Government Furnished housing is not available at some locations within the country, the contract awardee will have the opportunity to propose alternate housing.

Question 17: Solicitation Reference: Section L.6.1 – Proposal Submission and L.7.1 – Volume 1 – General Item (j), p. 239 and 243; Section L.6.1 states, “Each Offeror shall provide (1) Master CD-ROM or DVD which includes all four (4) volumes of the proposal as specified in the table at L.6.1.E of this section”. However, Section L.7.1 (j), states, “Documents with original signatures shall be submitted as part of the hard copy document submission”. Could you please clarify if only (1) Master CD-ROM or DVD is required or will hard copies also need to be submitted?

ANSWER 17: The sentence “Documents with original signatures shall be submitted as part of the hard copy document submission” has been removed. Please submit, PDF versions of the signed documents as part of the electronic CD/DVD submissions for Volume 1.

Question 18: Solicitation Reference: Section C, Performance Work Statement, 4.8.3, p. 122; Section 4.8.3 states, in part, “…The Government will provide any Chemical Defensive Equipment, clothing and training for contractor employees which is determined necessary by the Theater Commander.” Can you provide an itemization of the Chemical Defensive Equipment and clothing that will be issued for each AOR, to include NSNs, in order for Offeror to determine applicable export requirements?

ANSWER 18: The equipment is issued at CRC. The Requiring Activity does not control what CRC issues to contractors and what they do not. PWS paragraph 4.8.3 has been updated to reflect that the items issued during deployment processing at CRC may change at any time dependent on theater requirements and Theater Commander directives. Please see the Fort Bliss, Texas CRC website for current deployment and equipment information at: http://www.bliss.army.mil/CRC/.

Question 19: Solicitation Reference: Section I – Contract Clauses, p. 201 and p. 210; This Section contains 252.225-7040-Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States (Oct 2015) and 252.225-7995-Contractor Personnel Performing In the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility (Deviation 2015-O0009)(Jan 2015). Can you identify what, if any, specific USCENTCOM AOR, registrations, certifications, etc. are required for each contractor (e.g. JCCS/JCXS, Theater Business Clearance (TBC), etc.)

ANSWER 19: In accordance with these clauses, Offerors’ will be required to utilize and adhere to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) business rules. It is strongly recommended that Offerors’ review the websites and request additional information on the registration and requirements for JCCS/JCXS (https://www.jccs.gov/jccscoe/ or https://www.jccs.gov/olvrcac/bta_olvr_help_desk.aspx).

Question 20: Solicitation Reference: Section M.1.3 (c) (1), p. 256; This section mentions “all items identified in Section L., paragraph 7.8.3 will be used to evaluate this factor.” There is no section 7.8.3. Does the Government mean paragraph 7.3 versus 7.8.3?

ANSWER 20: This reference has been updated to reflect paragraph L.7.4.

Question 21: Solicitation Reference: 3.3.2.1.n, p. 109; RFP states the contractor shall “Support the Government with their security assessments of proposed and CENTRIX installation sites to ensure security shortfalls are identified and corrected prior to SIPRNET installation/activation.” Is the CENTRIX software still applicable to mission requirements?

ANSWER 21: Yes, CENTRIX is still applicable to mission requirements.

Question 22: Solicitation Reference: 3.2.5.5.d, p. 105; RFP states the Contractor shall have the following current general knowledge and work experience: Communications Security (COMSEC). A general knowledge of COMSEC is considered to be what?

ANSWER 22: Refer to the Solicitation Reference: 3.2.5.1f and 3.2.5.1.g; additionally, this sentence has been updated to add applicable Army Regulation reference, AR 380-40.

Question 23: Solicitation Reference: PWS 4.6.1, p. 118 and PWS 4.11.2, p. 124; PWS requirement 4.6.1 states that Interim SECRET security clearances will be authorized for use on a temporary basis however, 4.11.2 requires all personnel to have a SECRET security clearance at the contract performance start date. Does 4.11.2 include Interim SECRET clearances?

ANSWER 23: Interim SECRET Clearances will be accepted; however, if at the completion of the investigation a SECRET Clearance is not granted, then the contractor can no longer provide the services as they will no longer have the proper Security Clearance. In accordance with Section H.25(b), any costs arising as a result of the individual’s not being able to obtain a clearance, including returning the individual to his/her point of origin, shall be borne by the Offeror.

Question 24: Solicitation Reference: Attachment 7 Government Estimated Staffing; The positions identified in the table total 58 however, the roll-up at the bottom of page two shows a total of 61 positions. The discrepancy in numbers appears to be in the positions assigned to Qatar. The roll-up also identifies some different locations from those in the table. Please clarify positions and locations.

ANSWER 24: The attachment has been corrected.

Question 25: Solicitation Reference: Numerous Sections; Are Offerors required to respond to all PWS requirements or just those addressed in Section L? For example, there are many requirements in PWS Section 4 that require an acknowledgement or a response, but are not called for in Section L. For example, how should Offerors indicate their compliance with PWS sections 4.6.2.1, 4.6.2.2, 4.6.2.4, 4.11.1, 4.11.4, 4.11.5, 4.11.6, 4.11.9, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5, 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.8.5, 4.8.6, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 5.1, and 5.1.1?

ANSWER 25: Offerors should respond in accordance with section L of the solicitation. In these instances, compliance can be indicated in any manner the Offeror deems appropriate.

Question 26: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2 (A) (9)(a), p. 244; The “Type of Business” defined in (a), lists “Small” as well as a “Small Non-Disadvantaged Business”. IAW FAR 19.1202 and DFARS 215.304, the socio-economic size of “Small Non-Disadvantaged Business” is not listed or defined in those clauses. Will the Government confirm if a Small Non-Disadvantaged Business falls under the socio-economic classification of Small Business only for this section? If that is not the correct understanding, will the Government provide clarification regarding what determines the “Small Non-Disadvantaged Business” socio-economic category?

ANSWER 26: This portion of the RFP has been updated. However, the “Small Non-Disadvantaged Business” has been changed to reflect “Small Business”. Reference to FAR 19.1202 has been removed as this subpart is reserved in the FAR.

Question 27: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2 (A) (9)(c), p. 245; The table provided lists a socio-economic category of “Small Non-Disadvantaged” for calculation of the % of Total Contract Value. IAW FAR 52.219-9, FAR 19.1202 and DFARS 215.304, the socio-economic category of Small Non-Disadvantaged is not defined to assist with calculating the requested percentage. Will the Government provide guidance on calculating the % of Total Contract Value for the Small Non-Disadvantaged category or confirm if that percentage would be based on the sum of all Small Business categories minus Small Disadvantaged?

ANSWER 27: See response to question 26 above.

Question 28: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2 (A) (9) note 3, p. 245, M.1.2 (e), p. 253, p. 253; The RFP states in bold letters in both locations that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan “required to be submitted by large business only” is followed by a statement in the next sentence also in bold, reading “Do not submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with your proposal.” Will the Government provide clarification if a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be submitted by a large business in response to this solicitation?

ANSWER 28: The following sentence in note 3 states “Only the successful Offeror, if large business, will be required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan after contract award in accordance with PWS and proposal submitted.” The only required submittal for the solicitation is the Small Business Participation information required by this section. The plan required by FAR 52.219-9 is only required by the successful offeror, if a large business.

Question 29: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1, p. 239; The RFP states “The font type is Arial, color black, and print shall have a minimum font size of 12 points.” Studies show that sans serif fonts such as Arial are good for graphics, but difficult to read for large narratives. Will the government allow for the option of using Times New Roman, color black, minimum font size 12 points?

ANSWER 29: No, the required font type will remain Arial, color black, minimum size of 12 points.

Question 30: Solicitation Reference: Performance Work Statement, p 122; CRC currently deploys contractor personnel with full a compliment of Personal Protective Equipment (ballistic plates, vest and helmet) a gas mask and canister, a chemical protective clothing set and a chemical detection and decontamination kit). These items are all export controlled under the EAR or ITAR. As export licensing (or the use of licensing exemptions) are required for the export of these items to SWA, please confirm that all offerors must be registered with the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as of the date of proposal submittal to be eligible for contract award. It is recommended that to ensure performance without delay that offerors be required to demonstrate their in-place systems for export regulation compliance for these items and to confirm that as required under the ITAR that the offeror has already secured the required DSP-73 licensing for the export of the chemical agent detector paper and decontamination kit (for which no export license exemption exists).

ANSWER 30: In accordance with the guidance found at DFARS PGI 225.7901-2(D) and (E), contracting officers should not answer any questions related to the implementation or compliance with the ITAR. Please refer to DFARS Clause 252.225-7048 incorporated by reference in Section I Contract Clauses below. Additional information regarding ITAR compliance may be obtained at http://www.pmddtc.state.gove/compliance/index.html, or by consulting the Department of State.

Question 31: Solicitation Reference: H.31 Small Business Subcontracting Goals, p. 182; As all the work will be performed outside of the US, in accordance with the enabling provision found at FAR 19.708(a)(2), FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns should not apply to this solicitation.

ANSWER 31: While not required, based on the market research the procuring contracting officer has determined that there are small business opportunities available on this requirement, and that small businesses should be afforded the opportunity to participate to the maximum extent practicable and therefore is including the requirement in this acquisition.

Question 32: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4, Volume 4 – Past Performance (Factor), p. 248; Would the government please define 'major subcontractor' so offeror may correctly submit past performance information as required.

ANSWER 32: Major Subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor proposed to perform 25% or more of the work. In this paragraph, we are describing the prime’s past performance. 25% or more of the work or contract dollars.

Question 33: Solicitation Reference: Section I, p. 193; Would the government remove FAR clauses 52.222-59, 52.222-60, and 52.222-61 due to a recent Congressional Review Act signed in March 2017 blocking the enforcement of the rule's reporting requirements.

ANSWER 33: These clauses have been removed; however, it should be noted that these sections are being reviewed by the FAR committee and are subject to change or re-incorporation upon further action of the committee.

Question 34: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1, p. 239; Will the Government permit the use of font color other than black for use in formatting, specifically for section titles?

ANSWER 34: No, please see Government response to question 29.

Question 35: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.a, p. 239; Will the Government please clarify what the “section” information to be included on each page of the proposal is, regarding the requirement to include “date, solicitation number, volume number and section” on each page of the proposal?

ANSWER 35: L.6.1.a has been updated to change “section” to “volume title”, for example, Volume 1, General.

Question 36: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e; p. 240; Will the Government please confirm the referenced “Past Performance Information Document (PPID)” and Attachment 05 “Past Performance Information Summary” are the same document?

ANSWER 36: Yes, they are the same. The title in L.6.1.e for Past Performance Information Document (PPID) has been updated to Past Performance Information Summary (PPIS), consistent with Attachment 5.

Question 37: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e; L.7.4; Draft Attach_06; Draft Attach _05, Multiple pages; With respect to Past Performance, the relationships between these requirements are somewhat confusing. Will the Government please ensure consistency of titles for documents, sections, attachments, etc. across these sections?

ANSWER 37: Yes, documents have been renamed to ensure consistency.

Question 38: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e, p. 240; Will the Government please clarify the page limit for the past performance information and what is to be provided? The referenced section provides a two page limit per reference for the list of reference contracts, and a three page limit per referenced contract for the PPID. Does the three page limit per referenced contract apply to Part B of the past performance information summary, Attachment 05 – and the two page limit per reference apply to Part A? If Part A – a two page limit per contract seems to contradict the instruction to provide all narrative in Part B. What else is to be provided in Part A?

ANSWER 38: Section L.6.1.e for Volume 4 and Attachments 5 and 6 have been updated. Please see responses above related to Past Performance Information Summary attachments.

Question 39: Solicitation Reference: L.7.1.b, p. 242; In support of the statement of compliance (complete or partial) in the Cover Letter, may bidders provide a detailed Statement of Compliance as an attachment to Volume 1 – General?

ANSWER 39: In accordance with L.7.1.a, Statement of Compliance shall be included in Volume 1 – General

Question 40: Solicitation Reference: L.7.1.e, p. 242; If Offerors’ submit as a team or joint venture, may they provide the evidential documentation as an attachment to Volume 1 – General?

ANSWER 40: Yes; however, offerors are reminded there is no page limitation to Volume 1 – General, so should not be concerned should they incorporate within the body of the volume either.

Question 41: Solicitation Reference: L.7.1.h, p. 226; May Offeror’s submit their DBA insurance documentation as an attachment to Volume 1 – General?

ANSWER 41: Yes; however, offerors are reminded there is no page limitation to Volume 1 – General, so should not be concerned should they incorporate within the body of the volume either.

Question 42: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.A.2; p. 248; Will the Government consider extending the requirement for past performance from contracts in performance during the past three (3) years to contracts in performance during the past five (5) years to permit the inclusion of additional relevant work in type and magnitude by offerors?

ANSWER 42: Due to ongoing and continuous changes in the operating environment, for purposes of recency, the Government requires past performance within three (3) years for a reference to be determined recent.

Question 43: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.A.2, p. 248; Are offerors to provide past performance for each subcontractor or only for subcontractors identified as major subcontractors?

ANSWER 43: Only for subcontractors identified as major subcontractors

Question 44: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.B, p. 249; Is our interpretation of L.7.4.B correct that no response to this section is required IN THE PROPOSAL, as the questionnaires are to be emailed “directly to the contracting office…”?

ANSWER 44: Yes, questionnaires should be provided directly to the contracting office upon completion by reference POCs; however, it is the sole responsibility of the offeror to provide their references with a copy of the PPQ and to ensure the references return the questionnaire to the contracting office.

Question 45: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.B.3, p. 249; Will the contracting office send “confirmation of receipt” emails to Offeror’s when Past Performance Questionnaires are received by the office?

ANSWER 45: The contracting office will not provide confirmation of received questionnaires. This protects the privacy of the companies who choose to respond or not respond.

Question 46: Solicitation Reference: Intro(2.1), p. 100; It is stated that this contract(AITEL) will not perform Operations and Maintenance at Regional Network Operation Security Centers (RNOSC), South West Asia Cyber Center (SWACC), Technical Control Facility (TCF), Satellite Terminals, ETC, and the Operations and Maintenance for the locations and services are done on another contract. However, will the holder of AITEL contract have any oversight of these operations that would not allow them to bid on that contract, i.e., incur an OCI?

ANSWER 46: In accordance with solicitation section H.20 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI), there may be a potential for OCI between this contract and the Operations and Maintenance contracts in the region. Any contract resulting from this solicitation will provide systems and facility engineering support which will include such functions as performing or assisting in technical evaluations and network assessments, engineering and technical direction for network systems for which the contractor would not have overall contractual responsibility for production and operation. OCI clauses are contained in the solicitation and will be included in any resulting contract. See FAR 9.502(b)(3) and (4), FAR 9.505-1(b) and the examples found at FAR 9.508(a) and (e).

Question 47: Solicitation Reference: Intro (2.1), p. 100; Are there any contracts that the holder of the AITEL contract would not be allowed to bid on because of inherit conflicts of interest?

ANSWER 47: See response to question 46 above and solicitation Section H.20.

Question 48: Solicitation Reference: General; Will the government consider making this a small business set-aside opportunity?

ANSWER 48: Based on market research, the Government has determined that the solicitation will be competed on a full and open basis.

Question 49: Solicitation Reference: None; The solicitation talks about first-tier and major subcontractors. First-tier is associated with EEO and Exec Comp reporting and means they will deliver more than $10M per FAR. Major is defined in the solicitation as performing 25% or more of the work (pages 237 and 241 of 257). Are first-tier and major subcontractors defined the same?

ANSWER 49: For this solicitation a major subcontractor is a subcontractor who is proposed to perform 25% or more of the work for this effort.

Question 50: Solicitation Reference: Section L.3.1; L.3.1 indicates proposals are to be hand-carried or mailed; on page 240 and 243 of 257 1 CD or DVD is specified; will the government please confirm that one CD/DVD should be mailed or hand-delivered.

ANSWER 50: Correct, only one CD/DVD should be mailed or hand-delivered in accordance with L.3.1.b

Question 51: Solicitation Reference: L.7.2.A.9, p. 245; Note 1 – Information is requested for each year. Is the 60 day phase-in and the 10 month base each considered a one year period or should the two be combined to be one year?

ANSWER 51: The 60-day phase-in and 10-month base equals a total of one (1) one-year period.

Question 52: Solicitation Reference: H.17, p. 174; H.17.a indicates that qualified incumbent employees (other than managerial or supervisory) who have been employed should be given a right of first refusal of hire. H.17.b.2 states that the awarded prime/sub is not required to offer a right of first refusal to employees who are not service employees under the Service Contract Act. H.27 (Page 180 of 257) states that “this contract has been determined to be exempt from the Service Contract Act.” Does H.17 still apply? Would the Government please specify which, if any employees should be given the right of first refusal by Labor Category and Location?

ANSWER 52: H.17 has been removed and the section renumbered accordingly. This contract is not subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly known as the Service Contract Act of 1965) in accordance with FAR 22.1003-2.

Question 53: Solicitation Reference: General; Please confirm that both Prime Contractors and Major Subcontractors and/or First-tier Subcontractors must provide separate pricing?

ANSWER 53: One pricing volume, which includes total proposed costs, shall be provided by the offeror (Prime). In accordance with Section B.4, offerors shall submit pricing for all CLINs/SLINs as formatted in Schedule B of the solicitation. All proposals shall address in detail how the total costs for each CLIN/SLIN was derived by providing all individual cost elements that comprise the total cost for all CLINs/SLINs. In accordance with Section L.7.3.b, separate worksheets shall be provided for the prime and subcontractors (if applicable), this is within the attachment 09A Cost Workbook for the offerors proposal submission. This paragraph further states that proprietary subcontract labor information (i.e., cost elements such as overhead rates, G&A, etc.) shall be furnished directly to the Contracting Officer by the subcontractor; but subcontractor consolidated labor costs shall be included in CLIN/SLIN build up at the site level. This is typically done to protect subcontractor proprietary information. If the Prime offeror and its subcontractors have agreements in place that allow the subcontractor to provide cost element information to the Prime for submission to the Contracting Office, this is acceptable as well. The only information that should be provided separately by the subcontractor is proprietary cost information that provides necessary details to determine fair and reasonableness of the proposed prices.

Question 54: Solicitation Reference: General; Would the Government please confirm the only Key Personnel is the Program Manager, and that it is up to the vendor to define “mission-essential” personnel.

ANSWER 54: That is correct. The Program Manager is the only contractor personnel that is currently considered Key Personnel.

Question 55: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.A.2, p. 248; What is the distinction between “team members” and “intended subcontractors”?

ANSWER 55: There’s no distinction between team members and intended subcontractors.

Question 56: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4.B; L.7.4.B references PPIRS, but the bullets that follow are related to the PPQ. Why is the PPIRS reference here please?

ANSWER 56: The sentence has been removed.

Question 57: Solicitation Reference: PPQ, Page 1 indicates that name of Prime should be listed on the PPQ for Sub submissions. Where does the Government prefer this to be placed?

ANSWER 57: The Contractors name can be place in Section III of the PPQ.

Question 58: Solicitation Reference: General; Are the summary numbers on page two of the Gov’t Estimated Technical Staffing attachment correct? They do not seem to align with the Table or with the Location, Level, and Type Attachment.

ANSWER 58: This attachment has been updated.

Question 59: Solicitation Reference: Section L.1.3, Page 237; Each Offeror and its subcontractors shall provide their DCAA cognizant field office information as part of the Volume 1 proposal and not at pre-award survey evaluation correct?

ANSWER 59: Correct, it shall be included as part of Volume 1 proposal. Preaward survey is not required

Question 60: Solicitation Reference: Section L.1.3, Page 237; Please confirm that DOD Security Clearance Only applies to the prime Offeror and not their subcontractors.

ANSWER 60: In accordance with L.1.3.c, each Offeror’s level of facility clearance, to include facility clearance of proposed subcontractors, will be verified. DoD Security Clearances applies to the Prime offeror as well as any proposed subcontractors supporting this requirement.

Question 61: Solicitation Reference: Section L.6.1.e, Page 241; “The Past Performance Information Document (PPID) – is limited to the information prescribed in section L.6.1.e. A Major Sub-Contractor is defined as a Sub-Contractor performing 25% of work or more.” Please confirm that PPID and client Past Performance Questionnaires are not required for the Offeror’s subcontractors that are not Major Sub-Contractors?

ANSWER 61: Past performance information is not required for subcontractors not identified as major subcontractors.

Question 62: Solicitation Reference: Section B.5.f, Page 3; The Offeror shall propose DBA Insurance for all employees and subcontractor(s) at every tier for services performed for the phase-in, base period, and all option periods in accordance with FAR 52.228-3,” Is it the prime Offeror’s responsibility to provide DBA insurance for all employees and its subcontractors or must the subcontractors also present their proof of insurance within Volume 1?

ANSWER 62: It is the Prime Offeror’s responsibility to provide proof of DBA insurance for ALL employees, to include subcontractors within Volume 1 of the proposal. Subcontractors should provide proof of insurance to Prime’s for inclusion in the proposal Volume 1.

Question 63: Solicitation Reference: Attachment 8 of the draft RFP states that “Afghanistan All sites – it is anticipated that Government-furnished housing will be provided at all locations.” However in Attachment 9A, it requires pricing for housing in Afghanistan under CLINs x307. Respectfully request the Government clarify the discrepancy between Attachment 8 and Attachment 9A and the need to price the Afghanistan Housing CLINs x307 for the Phase In through Option Period 4.

ANSWER 63: Housing is provided in Afghanistan; it is anticipated that Offerors should initially propose no housing costs for the Afghanistan housing CLINs/SLINs. These CLINs/SLINs are included in the event that housing is not available after contract award, the contract awardee has the opportunity to propose alternate housing solutions and costs.

Question 64: Solicitation Reference: Respectfully request that the Government provide hours by location and labor category, as the omission of this information gives the incumbent an unfair advantage over the rest of the potential companies considering a bid on this RFP.

ANSWER 64: Location, hours, functional categories and PWS paragraph number are provided in Attachment 3 – PWS Appendix C of the Solicitation. Additionally, Attachment 7 provides Government Estimated Technical Staffing for offerors’ use.

Question 65: Solicitation Reference: Past Performance; Solicitation currently requires prime offerors to submit “List of reference contracts not to exceed five (5) but no less than three (3) references.” We suggest “List of reference contracts not to exceed three (3) but no less than two (2) references. Each contract must exceed $30M over a three-year period and have 50 or more FTE’s.” This provides benefit in that only proven providers will be able to meet bar, mitigating performance risk. Competition currently too limited to Large Business Primes.

ANSWER 65: The Government will not change the requirement.

Question 66: Solicitation Reference: Past Performance Major Sub-Contractor; Solicitation currently requires offerors to submit for major sub-contractors “info will be submitted by Offeror; List of reference contracts not to exceed three (3) but not less than two (2) references.” We suggest “Info will be submitted by Offeror; List of major sub-contractor reference contracts not to exceed two (2) but not less than one (1) reference.” This provides benefit in that Small Business will play a meaningful role on the team contributing to headcount allocation.

ANSWER 66: The Government will not change the requirement.

Question 67: Solicitation Reference: Small Business NAICS; Solicitation currently under Administrative Support Services, NAICS 56110. We request the Government Consider changing Small Business NAICS Code to an employee size-based standard NAICS Code vs. a Revenue-based NAICS Code. Employee size of 1500 employees or less. The current NAICS is extremely limiting. Significant small business credit could be achieved by increasing the NAICS to an employee size-based standard that would allow a proven mid-tier organization to Prime.

ANSWER 67: The Government will not change the NAICS designation

Question 68: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1 Proposal Submission, Paragraph e (table), L.7.4 Volume 4 Past Performance (Factor), pages 240 and 248; While L.6.1 requires no more than 3, ,but no less than 2 referenced contracts for MAJOR subcontractors, L.7.4 requires "no more than 3" referenced contracts (each) for EACH subcontractor or team member. Will the Government please confirm that only Major Subcontractors are required to submit past performance references and the required number of references for EACH Major Subcontractor is 1-3 references; and that these are separate from the Prime Offeror's required 3-5 references?

ANSWER 68: Only major subcontractors, which is defined as those proposed to perform 25% or more of the work, are required to provide past performance references. Offerors must provide no less than 2 but no more than 3 references for each major subcontractor. These references are separate from the Prime Offerors 3 to 5 references. Section L.7.4 has been updated.

Question 69: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4 Par A, 2, second bullet and paragraph following bullets; L.7.4 Par A, 2, second bullet and paragraph following bullets, page 248; Please confirm that each past performance contract reference does not have to meet ALL of the relevance factors. This would severely limit the presentation of relevant work and limit competition.

ANSWER 69: Each reference has to be relevant to the proposed effort but not the total effort; it is incumbent upon the Offeror to demonstrate the relevancy of each reference as it relates to type, magnitude, or both.

Question 70: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1 Proposal Submission, first paragraph and L.7.4. A, Volume 4, Past Performance (Factor) and Attachment 5, Parts A and B, pages 239 and 248; Since past performance information is required to be submitted on Attachment 5, Parts A and B, should Offerors adhere to the required font type and size described in L.6.1 (Arial 12; with Arial, Arial Narrow, or Courier 10 for illustrations); or should Offerors maintain the font type and size of Attachment 5 (TNR 9, 10 and Calibri 9)? Recommend retention of font sizes in Attachment 5 to allow enough space to adequately present relevance of referenced contracts.

ANSWER 70: Please retain the font sizes and format contained within Attachment 5.

Question 71: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4 Volume 4 - Past Performance Factor, page 248; Will the Government allow a 2 page introduction to the past performance Volume in order to provide a synopsis of our experience and team?

ANSWER 71: The Government will allow a 2 page introduction to the Past Performance Volume, subject to the font restrictions contained at L.6.1.

Question 72: Solicitation Reference: L.7.4 Volume 4 - Past Performance Factor, Attachment 5, Part A; and PWS Paragraph 3.0 Technical Requirements, PWS 98-117; Attachment 5 Part A; The tasks listed in the Table on Attachment 5, Part A (where Offerors are required to put an X in each task performed under the referenced contract) do not match the tasks in the PWS. Will the Government please revise Attachment 5 Part A so that the table matches the actual PWS tasks?

ANSWER 72: Attachment 5, Part A has been updated.

Question 73: Solicitation Reference: L.6.1.e, page 239; RFP states “Each Offeror shall provide (1) Master CD-ROM or DVD which includes all four (4) volumes of the proposal as specified in the table at L.6.1.e of this section.” As the proposal is to be submitted in electronic format only, would the government allow submission via e-mail instead of hand delivering or mailing a CD-ROM or DVD? This will allow more time for proposal preparation and higher quality proposals.

ANSWER 73: Due to file size, format, and content limitations associated with the Government email systems, it was determined not to be the best method for receipt of electronic proposals for this acquisition. To ensure all offerors have the opportunity to submit their proposals in a timely manner by the proposal submission deadline, proposals shall be mailed, hand-delivered on a CD-ROM or DVD, or by electronic submission using the AMRDEC SAFE File Exchange in accordance with Section L of the solicitation. Section L.3.1.b has been updated to include this information. Please see AMRDEC SAFE File Exchange guide at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Guide.aspx for more information on the site.

Question 74: Solicitation Reference: M.1.3.a.2; Referenced paragraph states for Subfactor 2 - Technical. “All items identified in Section L, paragraph L.7.3.B will be used to evaluate this subfactor”. Did the Government mean L.7.2.b?

ANSWER 74: Yes, paragraph M.1.3.a.2 has been updated to reflect the correct reference.

Question 75: Solicitation Reference: Amendment 0001, Section L.7.1(i), Solicitation Documents; Information required by the Transmittal Letter includes fill-ins, but specifically, Section H. Special Contract Requirements. We have reviewed this Section but do not find any information needed to be filled-in at this stage of the proposal. We acknowledge information will need to be provided in Section H by the Awardee.