402 SMXG - Software Engineering and IT Support Services

The purpose of this amendment is to post FA8571-14-R-0002-0005 and questions and answers from interested parties.

FA8571-14-R-0002-0005 extends the proposal due date to Wednesday 21-May-2014 at 4:30pm EST.

Question 8:        Question:  Based on the answer to #5 "Salaries proposed in the Salary Attachment spreadsheet are average estimates. As average estimates, actual employees hired to perform under contract may have salaries more than or less than the average estimate."  If a company proposes a Firm Fixed Price (in the Price Volume) lower than the salaries reflected in the salary attachment, will that price be deemed "Unrealistically Low"? 

Answer 8:            Yes, if a company proposes a unit price in the Price Volume lower than the salaries reflected in the salary attachment, they will be deemed unrealistically low. In addition, as indicated in L-900 paragraph D, proposals containing unit prices that appear to be unburdened, that do not include indirect costs and profit in addition to covering direct salary costs, will not be considered for award. To review for this, the government will be looking at the average direct estimated annual salaries in the Salary Attachment converted to an 1880 hourly rate to identify if the Price Volume contains additional dollars for indirect cost and profit elements on top of the direct labor 1880 rate to comprise each unit price proposed.

Question 9:        Reference question number 6 of the Q&A posted on FBO, the Government states that "In order for an offeror's proposed total compensation plan to be determined realistic, an offeror's proposed average estimated salaries are to be no lower than the average estimated salaries of government equivalent positions."  However, the revised section M-900 states "Any proposed labor categories reflecting a salary lower than the government's estimate, as stated in the below table, will be determined unrealistically low and the corresponding price volume will not be evaluated for award."  Can the Government clarify whether each individual labor category and corresponding level must meet the minimum listed in the table or if it is only the average of each type of labor category (all levels) that must meet the minimum? Using the draftsmen for example, would the below scenario be deemed acceptable or non-acceptable?  In this scenario the Draftsman I labor category is under the GS salary estimate; however, the average salary between the Draftsman I and Draftsman II is $32,500 which is above the GS Salary estimate.

CLIN        Category                 GS Equiv                GS Salary               Offeror Bid Salary

0012        Draftsman I             GS-1021-4-5           $32,037                   $30,000

0013        Draftsman II            GS-1021-4-5           $32,037                   $35,000

Answer 9:            Each individual labor category and corresponding level must meet the minimum listed in the table. The Draftsman scenario above will be determined unrealistically low.

Question 10:      Can you please clarify if fringe benefits are to be added to the comp plan by all contractors or only by joint venture?

Answer 10:         If the joint venture is populated (a joint venture in which the employees are employed by the joint venture itself and not by any individual joint venture partner) then a single compensation plan is required. If the joint venture is unpopulated, each individual joint venture partner must submit its own total compensation plan to include salaries and fringe benefits.

Question 11:      Can the Government extend the proposal due date until at least 3 days after all questions are answered and clarified by the Government so that offerors have time to make changes in their proposals to reflect the latest clarifications?

Answer 11:         Questions related to this RFP shall be submitted by Friday 16-May-2014 at 12:00 noon EST to be considered timely. Questions submitted after this date and time will not be considered. The proposal due date is extended until Wednesday 21-May-2014 at 4:30pm EST in accordance with FA8571-14-R-0002-0005.

Acknowledge the amendment 0005 by completing blocks 8 and 15 of the SF 30 amendment facepage and filling in block 14 of the SF 33 facepage for proposal submission. Block 14 of the SF 33 facepage will require sharing of AMENDMENT NO. and DATE blocks as there are currently 5 amendments and only 4 blocks.

The purpose of this amendment notice is to answer questions from interested parties as follows:  
 

Question 5:        Q&A #1 reads    Any proposed labor categories reflecting a salary lower than the government's estimate will be determined unrealistically low and the corresponding price volume will not be evaluated for award.     And Q&A #2 reads "The proposed salaries are average estimates and do not necessarily define the exact amount paid to each individual employed under the contract." Please provide clarification.

Answer 5:            Salaries proposed in the Salary Attachment spreadsheet are average estimates. As average estimates, actual employees hired to perform under contract may have salaries more than or less than the average estimate.

Question 6:        Could you please clarify Answer #2 from the 14 May 14 update?  Is the Govt saying that the salaries in the revised M-900 are the average of the GS salaries for those positions, or the average of the salaries of the contractors currently in those positions?  If an average was used to develop the M-900 table, how can a proposed salary that falls below under that in the M-900 table be considered unrealistic when there are salaries already existing below that average value? 

Answer 6:            The salaries in the revised M-900 are the average estimates of the GS salaries for those positions. In order for an offeror's proposed total compensation plan to be determined realistic, an offeror's proposed average estimated salaries are to be no lower than the average estimated salaries of government equivalent positions.

Question 7:        Amendment 4 changes the instructions to indicate unit prices instead of hourly rates.  The spreadsheets are locked, so we are unable to edit those descriptions ourselves.  Will the Govt be providing updated spreadsheets to complete for our revised submittal or should we continue to use the versions provided previously?

Answer 7:            The "Hourly Fully Burdened Labor Rates Proposed" as listed in the Price Volume Template are the same as the "Unit Prices" listed in the SF 33. The Unit Prices proposed on the SF 33 and the "Hourly Fully Burdened Labor Rates Proposed" on the Price Volume Template must match, as they are the same. L-900 paragraph D. Volume III, Cost/Price defines "unit prices" as "(hourly fully burdened labor rates proposed)".  A solicitation amendment to revise the Price Volume Template for this reason is not anticipated. Proposals should be submitted using the current version as issued.

The purpose of this amendment notice is to answer questions from interested parties as follows:

Question 1:        Per direction provided in Amendment 006 (marked as 004 on SF30), proposals submitted with salaries lower than government estimates will be determined low and the corresponding price volume will not be evaluated for award. Government salaries are inclusive of G&A (Fringe) and Overhead.  Depending on corporate practices, non-government salaries are not inclusive of benefits (medical, dental, vision) that are paid by company and not employee, incentives, cost of doing business, communication equipment, insurance, etc. and therefore salaries may be slightly lower to compensate for additional benefits provided.  If this buildup is clearly stated in Volume II: Total Compensation Plan, will proposal be included for evaluation?

Answer 1:            Government salaries are not inclusive of G&A (Fringe) and Overhead. Any proposed labor categories reflecting a salary lower than the government's estimate will be determined unrealistically low and the corresponding price volume will not be evaluated for award.

Question 2:        Reference document titled "LM_SMXG_-_Draft_(amendment).  Regarding the values shown in the table beginning on the bottom of page 4, specifically the column titled "GS Salary", the Government has provided rates based upon a GS Equivalent.   In many cases there are several levels of granularity, i.e. Software Engineer I - V, however, the GS Salary and GS Equiv are the same for every level.   It is rather unrealistic to expect that the pay rate for a Level II is exactly the same as it is for a Level V.   Is it the Government's expectation that rate provided represent the contractor's estimate for those positions?   Does the Government expect that the "estimate" provided represent a minimum amount that must be paid for that position after award?

Answer 2:            Category titles have been established to designate separate labor categories related to Clearance Levels and/or Education & Experience required and do not necessarily indicate seniority. The table provided in the revised L-900 paragraph 1. C. represents the government's estimate of the average GS equivalent and corresponding salary for a civil servant performing the same or similar function. Offerors are to propose estimated unburdened average salaries per labor category which shall be submitted using the Salary Attachment spreadsheet as part of their Total Compensation Plan. The proposed salaries are average estimates and do not necessarily define the exact amount paid to each individual employed under the contract.

Question 3:        Reference document titled "LM_SMXG_-_Draft_(amendment), page 4, Section C., second paragraph.  The Government has added as the last sentence "This table is applicable to the basic and option years".   Is it the Government's expectation that salary estimates for contract periods beyond the Base Year not be escalated?   If a contractor elects to not escalate rates in the Option Years, will this be viewed as "unrealistically low" for those periods?  

Answer 3:            Contractors are not required to escalate average estimated salaries. If a contractor elects to not escalate average estimated salaries in the Option Years, they will not be viewed as "unrealistically low" so long as the average salaries proposed are not lower than the government estimate.

Question 4:        Are you opening this procurement up to and accepting Proposals from firms that did not submit on the first round, or are you only accepting proposals from firms that met your previous deadline/ RFP closing date?

Answer 4:            The revised proposal due date of 19-May-2014 is open to both firms that have submitted previous proposals and to firms which have not submitted previous proposals.

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment is to revise RFP sections L-900 & M-900 and extend the proposal due date and time to 19 May 2014 at 4:30pm EST. In order to comply with this amendment, offerors must submit new proposals in full. Proposals submitted before this amendment will not be considered.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

This amendment number and date should be acknowledged in block 14 of the SF 33 face page.

The solicitation amendment FA8571-14-R-0002-0004 and a tracked changes version of sections L-900 & M-900 are attached. The tracked changes version is included for convenience only; the official version is stated in FA8571-14-R-0002-0004.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting Volume II.

In accordance with L-900 paragraph C. Volume II, Total Compensation Plan, "If an unpopulated joint venture is formed, each individual joint venture partner must submit its own total compensation plan."

Each partner's total compensation plan may be submitted as a separate attachment, each complying with the 10 page limit individually. However, the unpopulated joint venture shall submit a single Salary Attachment spreadsheet containing the average salaries anticipated per labor category. Multiple Salary Attachment spreadsheets may not be submitted.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting proposal Volumes.

The proposal due date remains 30-April-2014.

Each prime offeror must submit a total compensation plan. Only multiple total compensation plans are required for each joint venture partner. Multiple total compensation plans are not required for subcontractors or teaming partners.

Can offerors test AMRDEC SAFE to make sure that we know what we are doing? Potential offerors may send a test transmission to me, benjamin.walker@robins.af.mil, through AMRDEC SAFE prior to proposal submission. The document submitted as a test must indicate that this is for test purposes and who to contact to confirm receipt.

Does the individual who is signing the proposal have to send the volumes, or can a different individual send the volumes?

The signing individual and the transmitting individual do not have to be the same person.

Guidance on how the solicitation should be filled out by a non-populated joint venture with two participating corporations:

Q1 - Should the JV name be in section 15 on the SF33, or should both participants be here?

A1 - Section 15 of the SF33 should be completed with the Joint Venture's information. Individual JV participant information is not required in this section.

Q2 - Should officers from both participating corporations sign in section 16 of the SF33?

A2 - Section 16 of the SF33 should be signed by an individual authorized to bind the joint venture or by authorized representatives from each joint venture participant.

Q3 -Should amendments be signed by officers from both participating corporations?

A3 - Amendments may be signed by an individual authorized to bind the joint venture or by authorized representatives from each joint venture participant.

Q4 - Should the size standards and other clauses be filled out to reflect both participants?

A4 - Yes, size standards and other clauses be filled out to reflect both participants. Each JV participant shall submit separate Section K's.


   

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting proposal Volumes.

A total of 3 Section Ks should be submitted for a JV offeror. One Section K submission for the JV and one Section K for both JV participants.

The Price Volume Template requires the offerors CAGE Code and if an 8(a) JV, each participant's CAGE Code. In order to avoid duplication, a JV will not be required to list each participant's CAGE Code on the SF33 also. A1 of the previous FBO amendment is revised to reflect this guidance.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting proposal Volumes.

The proposal due date remains 30-April-2014.

Each prime offeror must submit a total compensation plan. Only multiple total compensation plans are required for each joint venture partner. Multiple total compensation plans are not required for subcontractors or teaming partners.

Can offerors test AMRDEC SAFE to make sure that we know what we are doing? Potential offerors may send a test transmission to me, benjamin.walker@robins.af.mil, through AMRDEC SAFE prior to proposal submission. The document submitted as a test must indicate that this is for test purposes and who to contact to confirm receipt.

Does the individual who is signing the proposal have to send the volumes, or can a different individual send the volumes?

The signing individual and the transmitting individual do not have to be the same person.

Guidance on how the solicitation should be filled out by a non-populated joint venture with two participating corporations:

Q1 - Should the JV name be in section 15 on the SF33, or should both participants be here?

A1 - Section 15 of the SF33 should be signed in the Joint Venture name and provide the CAGE codes of each JV participant.

Q2 - Should officers from both participating corporations sign in section 16 of the SF33?

A2 - Section 16 of the SF33 should be signed by an individual authorized to bind the joint venture or by authorized representatives from each joint venture participant.

Q3 -Should amendments be signed by officers from both participating corporations?

A3 - Amendments may be signed by an individual authorized to bind the joint venture or by authorized representatives from each joint venture participant.

Q4 - Should the size standards and other clauses be filled out to reflect both participants?

A4 - Yes, size standards and other clauses be filled out to reflect both participants. Each JV participant shall submit separate Section K's.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting Volume II.

In accordance with L-900 paragraph C. Volume II, Total Compensation Plan, "If an unpopulated joint venture is formed, each individual joint venture partner must submit its own total compensation plan."

Each partner's total compensation plan may be submitted as a separate attachment, each complying with the 10 page limit individually. However, the unpopulated joint venture shall submit a single Salary Attachment spreadsheet containing the average salaries anticipated per labor category. Multiple Salary Attachment spreadsheets may not be submitted.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting Volume I.

Offerors are to complete block 14 of the Standard Form 33 facepage providing acknowledgment of amendments 0001, 0002, and 0003 dated 31-Mar-2014, 10-Apr-2014, and 22-Apr-2014 respectively. Offerors are to sign and submit each Standard Form 30 facepage of amendments 0001, 0002, and 0003 with their Volume I.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement for submitting Volume I.

In accordance with Section L, Subsection B, first paragraph (pg. 119), offerors are instructed to include in Volume I "the completed and signed RFP" with filled-in sections and the proposed prices for CLINS.  Offerors are required to submit the entire government-provided solicitation with the appropriate sections completed.

Offerors should submit the "Price Volume Template.xls" and the "Salary Attachment Template for Total Compensation Plan.xls" in Excel format as separate files relating to Volumes II and III.

Offerors may submit their proposal documents  as follows:

Volume I - Cover Letter

Volume I - Completed RFP

Volume I - VPP

Volume II - Total Compensation Plan (10 page limit)

Volume II - Salary Attachment Spreadsheet.xls

Volume III - Price Volume Template.xls

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment is to answer questions from interested parties, incorporate amendment FA8571-14-R-0002-0003, and Appendix C dated 22-April-2014.

RFP QUESTION 19:           Will the government please confirm that each volume (total of 3) should be uploaded separately to https://safe.amrdec.army.mil?

Should our cover letter be uploaded separately or as part of Volume 1?

RFP ANSWER 19:              I confirm that each volume should be uploaded separately to https://safe.amrdec.army.mil.

The cover letter will be considered an element of Volume I, but may be uploaded as a separate document.

RFP QUESTION 20:           The Salary Attachment for Total Compensation Plan has a column estimating the Average Hourly Wage Rate for 1880 hours/year.   Would the Government please clarify the purpose of the 1880 hour computation since the Hourly Wage Rate for a Salaried Employee is always determined by dividing the Annual Salary by 2080 hours (Personal Time Off and Holiday hours are paid from the Fringe Pool at the computed 2080 hour wage rate)? 

RFP ANSWER 20:              The Contractor will only be authorized to invoice at the unit prices (rates) specified in the contract for the quantity of actual hours performed. 1880 hours/year is the estimated number of hours that a full time equivalent (FTE) will actually be performing under a one year task order, not including holidays and leave. See RFP Question & Answer 22 below.

RFP QUESTION 21:           Related to the Price Volume Template. Should all bidders be using Fringe rates that reflect 1880 of productive hours per year? 

RFP ANSWER 21:              See answer 20 above. The Price Volume Template will require proposal of a fully burdened/loaded rate.

RFP QUESTION 22:           Related to the Total Compensation Plan. Will bidders that use less than 120 hours (3 weeks) of Personal Time Off (PTO)/vacation/leave) in their Compensation Plan be rejected as non-compliant with your requirement to use 1880 productive hours a year since their prices will be artificially lower that those who are providing the requested Fringe benefit of 120 hours plus the 10 US Holidays (1880 hour man year equivalent)?

RFP ANSWER 22:              A Total Compensation Plan providing at least 120 hours of leave available per year in addition to the 10 US Federal holidays would be considered realistic and reasonable for contributing to the attraction and retention of competent professional service employees. Total Compensation Plans providing fewer than 120 hours of additional leave may deem your proposal unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories impairing ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees IAW FAR 52.222-46.

RFP QUESTION 23:           The SOW suggests that the "Contractor Safety Plan shall address in detail the items listed in the Contract Appendix C, Part II through Part IV as applicable" 

Appendix C has two (2) section III's and omits a section IV. Can it reasonably be assumed the second section III should be section IV?

RFP ANSWER 23:             The Appendix C dated 22-April-2014 corrects the second Part III by revising it to Part IV. The Appendix C dated 22-April-2014 is released with this Solicitation Amendment.

RFP QUESTION 24:           Can you please confirm the FTE count?

RFP ANSWER 24:             The estimated quantity is 63 FTEs.

RFP QUESTION 25:           Is there a requirement for a hard copy submittal. From the way the solicitation is stated, we are uncertain if the AMRDEC SAFE electronic/online submission with corresponding notification email is the only submission, as there appears to be no specified hard copy count, production requirements, or delivery location.

RFP ANSWER 25:             There is no requirement for a hard copy submittal. The AMRDEC SAFE electronic/online submission with corresponding notification email is the only method of submission, so long as the system is functional. If you are unable to submit your proposal using AMRDEC SAFE, please contact Benjamin Walker at 478-926-9508 or benjamin.walker@robins.af.mil.

RFP QUESTION 26:           Please confirm the proposal due date of 30-April-2014.

RFP ANSWER 26:             I confirm that the proposal due date is 30-April-2014, as specified in RFP Amendment FA8571-14-R-0002-0001.

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment is to answer questions from interested parties, incorporate amendment FA8571-14-R-0002-0002, and SMXG SOW dated 10-April-2014.

RFP QUESTION 12:           Do individuals need to come in holding specified certifications in labor categories?

RFP ANSWER 12:                              Yes. The expectation is that they will come in with the certifications in-hand. 

RFP QUESTION 13:           Do the current bridge contracts provide the same number of FTEs as this effort? If not, what is the current level of FTE support to the Government?

RFP ANSWER 13:              The specific labor categories, quantities, and unit prices are not releasable under FOIA exemption code 5 USC 552(b)(4).

RFP QUESTION 14:           The SCA FAR clause is referenced, however an SCA wage table was not provided.  Does SCA apply to this effort?  Does SCA apply to the incumbent bridge contract?

RFP ANSWER 14:              SCA will not apply to this contract action. Professional employees are determined to be exempt from SCA IAW 29 CFR 541.300(a). Solicitation Amendment FA8571-14-R-0002-0002 hereby removes FAR Clause 52.222-41.

RFP QUESTION 15:           Would the Government consider adding a Program Manager labor category to the matrix?  For an effort of this size/complexity a full time PM is needed to manage contractor staff.

RFP ANSWER 15:              No. The requirement does not call for a permanent on-site program manager. All program management functions should be allocated indirectly.

RFP QUESTION 16:           Will the Government please clarify how the labor categories were developed?   For example, a Software Engineer I. II, III, IV, V typically reflect increasing years of experience/responsibility/management responsibilities and accompanying salary.  That does not appear to be the case based on the supplied descriptions.  It appears in some cases the only distinction between labor categories is the clearance requirement.

RFP ANSWER 16:              Category titles have been established to designate separate labor categories related to Clearance Levels and/or Education & Experience required and do not necessarily indicate seniority.

RFP QUESTION 17:           Will the Government allow for a transition period?

RFP ANSWER 17:              A 30-day transition period from 1-June-2014 through 30-June-2014 is anticipated if contract award is made by 31-May-2014.

RFP QUESTION 18:           Is it anticipated that performance will be required outside the stated normal duty hours (0600 to 1800, Monday through Friday)?

RFP ANSWER 18:              Yes, it may be required in order to ensure timely completion of work or as required to support an activation or exercise of contingency plans IAW SOW paragraph 3.10. SOW paragraphs 3.10.2 and 3.10.4 have been amended in the SMXG SOW dated 10-April-2014.

IAW the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and 29 CFR 541, Subpart D - Professional Employees and Subpart E - Computer Employees, positions under this contract are exempt from receiving overtime pay if they are:

29 CFR 541, Subpart D - Professional Employees:

"541.300 General rule for professional employees.

(a) The term "employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity" in section 13(a)(1) of the Act shall mean any employee:

(1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week (or $380 per week, if employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal Government), exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities; and

(2) Whose primary duty is the performance of work:

(i) Requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction; or

(ii) Requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.

(b) The term "salary basis" is defined at §541.602; "fee basis" is defined at §541.605; "board, lodging or other facilities" is defined at §541.606; and "primary duty" is defined at §541.700."

 OR

29 CFR 541, Subpart E - Computer Employees:

"541.400 General rule for computer employees.

(a) Computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers or other similarly skilled workers in the computer field are eligible for exemption as professionals under section 13(a)(1) of the Act and under section 13(a)(17) of the Act. Because job titles vary widely and change quickly in the computer industry, job titles are not determinative of the applicability of this exemption.

(b) The section 13(a)(1) exemption applies to any computer employee compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week (or $380 per week, if employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal Government), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities, and the section 13(a)(17) exemption applies to any computer employee compensated on an hourly basis at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour. In addition, under either section 13(a)(1) or section 13(a)(17) of the Act, the exemptions apply only to computer employees whose primary duty consists of:

(1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;

(2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;

(3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or

(4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.

(c) The term "salary basis" is defined at § 541.602; "fee basis" is defined at § 541.605; "board, lodging or other facilities" is defined at § 541.606; and "primary duty" is defined at § 541.700."

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment is to answer questions from interested parties.

RFP QUESTION 1:             Can you update offerors with a deadline for questions?

RFP ANSWER 1:                                Questions received after 20-April-2014 may not be considered.

RFP QUESTION 2:             The Labor categories Software Engineer (SE) 2 and SE 3 have a minimum of 2 and 1 years' experience respectively noted as being required.  Also SE 4 and 5 only have 2 years.  As most increased levels of labor categories typically indicate seniority, can the number of years' experience be verified for these?

RFP ANSWER 2:                                Minimum years of experience as listed in the Labor Matrix are hereby verified. Category titles have been established to designate separate labor categories related to Clearance Levels and/or Education & Experience required and do not necessarily indicate seniority.

RFP QUESTION 3:             For those labor categories that specify "Security+ or other 8570 certification" is this meant to be other 8570 certifications meeting IAT Level II or above, as this is what Security+ meets? 

RFP ANSWER 3:                                Security + CE or higher (CISSP) fills this requirement for DoD 8570.  As of right now, personnel, contractor or civilian must hold this industry certification.  Network + is below the standard.  CISSP is above the standard.  Starting after Dec 31, 2014, to fulfill the "DoD 8570 Computing Environment" requirement, system administrators will be required to have some type of training certification (non-official) in the main operating system for which they administer.  i.e. they can have completed a Fed VTE or other CBT in say "Solaris 8 or higher" or "Windows Server".

RFP QUESTION 4:             The TCIR/DART information to be provided in Volume 1 has a limit of 4 pages.  Is this total for the prime and any subcontractors, or for each company as a part of our response?

RFP ANSWER 4:                                TCIR/DART information is no more than four pages for each prime, joint venture, and subcontractor.

RFP QUESTION 5:             With regards to Volume II, the Total Compensation Plan, offerors are to provide information in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. Upon reading this FAR, it states:

"Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure."

In order to provide such surveys or studies, should the offeror include this information in an Appendix? If not, will the included survey count against the 10 page limitation?

RFP ANSWER 5:                                Contractor may reference where the information came from in the Compensation Plan without submitting documents.

RFP QUESTION 6:             I am working with a small 8a firm and we are interested in bidding on the above cited solicitation.  Can you tell me who the current incumbent for this work is?

RFP ANSWER 6:                                Current Incumbent:  Peerless Technologies Corporation.

RFP QUESTION 7:             Can you please clarify if the Top Secret facility clearance is required at time of proposal submission or time of award?

RFP ANSWER 7:                                The Top Secret facility clearance is required at time of proposal submission.

RFP QUESTION 8:             Just for clarification, a JV coming for an 8(a) firm who has a secret clearance and a JV participant who is not an 8(a) but has a top secret clearance, this is acceptable, correct?

RFP ANSWER 8:                                Yes, so long as the 8(a) participant of the JV performs a significant portion of the contract. The Joint Venture entity will be considered the prime contractor, responsible for performance at the TS/SCI level and below, and will be required to obtain personnel security clearances at the appropriate levels for performance. A currently cleared contractor may sponsor an uncleared company for a facility clearance. IAW DoD 5220.22-M (NISPOM). The 8(a) participant (or the total of all 8(a) participants involved in the Joint Venture) must perform a significant portion of the contract. Since significant portions of this contract will require both Secret and Top Secret/SCI personnel clearances, the 8(a) participant within the joint venture must have clearance at or above the Secret Level at time of award in order to perform a significant portion of this contract upon award. IAW SBA SOP 80 05 3A.

RFP QUESTION 9:             From one of the previous Q&As, it looked like the award date is anticipated to be May 30th. Is that still the case, or is there a potential for that date to change?

RFP ANSWER 9:                                30-May-2014 is the anticipated award date for this contract.

RFP QUESTION 10:           FBO.gov states the solicitation number as: F3QCCL3282A001.

The "Standard Form 30" states the solicitation number to be: FA8571-14-R-0002.

Could you please identify which one we should use on the cover sheet for each volume?

RFP ANSWER 10:              Use FA8571‐14‐R‐0002, as listed on the SF 30.

RFP QUESTION 11:           Per Section L, Page 119:

"Air Force Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirements are applicable to this acquisition as work on an Air Force installation will be required by contractor employees working 1,000 hours or more in any calendar quarter and the employees are not directly supervised by the Air Force installation. As part of Volume I, for each of the past three (3) calendar years ending with the calendar year immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, submit your Total Case Incidence Rates (TCIR) and Day Away, Restricted, and or Transfer Case Rates (DART) for the Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) code or North American Industrial Classification Systems (NAICS) code for the applicable industry as identified on the face page of this solicitation. If TCIR/DART rates are not maintained, submit comparable insurance rates or compensation injury rates.  This VPP information shall be no more than 4 pages. Note: This VPP information pertains to the offeror.  If an unpopulated joint venture is formed (a joint venture in which the employees are employed by the joint venture partners and not the joint venture itself), each joint venture partner must submit these rates. Any proposed subcontractor with employees working 1,000 or more hours in any calendar quarter on an Air Force installation whose subcontractor employees are not directly supervised by the Air Force installation must submit these rates as well. For information on TCIR/DART rates, visit the following VPP site: http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/index.html"

We do not maintain DART or TCIR rates.  For the statement, "submit comparable insurance rates or compensation injury rates", does this mean to submit/provide a one page "Certificate of Liability Insurance" along with the proposal? If so, who, with what address should we use as the Certificate Holder (if this is the case)?

RFP ANSWER 11:              If the contractor does not maintain DART or TCIR rates, may submit actual Workers Compensation Rates or the type of Insurance Rates (insurance pool or no fault insurance of workers).

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment is to correct block 9 of the facepage, establishing the proposal due date of 30 April 2014 at 4:30pm Eastern.

The required response date/time has changed from 31-Mar-2014 04:30 PM to 30-Apr-2014 04:30 PM.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

The purpose of this synopsis amendment is to respond to questions from interested parties.

Question 1:        Can you provide an update on when you anticipate releasing the RFP for the 402 SMXG Software Engineering and IT Support Services effort?

Answer 1:            The anticipated RFP release date is 31 March 2014.

Question 2:       Would the government consider releasing sections L and M of the RFP for the vendors to review to better evaluate our bid capabilities?

Answer 2:            Sections L and M will be released with the RFP, which is expected to be released on 31 March 2014.

Question 3:       Is the period of performance still anticipated to begin on 1 Jul 14?

Answer 3:            Yes.

Question 4:       Will candidate/key personnel resumes be required with our response?

Answer 4:            Resumes are not a required element of the proposal. Resumes may be requested by the Government for contractor personnel performing on Task Orders under contract.

The purpose of this synopsis amendment is to respond to questions from interested parties.

QUESTION 1:

Appears to be 29 TS-SCI positions - but the number noted on the DD254 is 27 TS-SCI positions.

Is there a "disconnect" or error?

ANSWER 1:

The final copy will be revised accordingly.

QUESTION 2:

As there was not a PM in the identified labor categories, is there an expectation to have a full time PM on site or will another position be identified as the site lead, with the expectation of off-site PM support from the contractor?

ANSWER 2:

A direct Program Manager position will not be included in the labor matrix.

QUESTION 3:

Were the contracts for Peerless Technologies Corporation and KNWEBS, Inc direct or competitive awards?  Were these contracts follow on to previous efforts prior to 2013?  If so, can you provide the contract numbers for any previous efforts that these were consolidated into?

ANSWER 3:

They were direct awards, follow-ons to prior contracts.

Prior TPS Contract number: GS04T12DBC0015

Prior ISR Contract number: GS-35F-045T - Order GST0413DB0024

Current TPS Contract number: FA8571-13-C-0021

Current ISR Contract number: FA8571-14-C-0006

QUESTION 4:

I've reached out to a couple of firms who specialize in clearances and their feedback to me has been to team with a prime who can sponsor the facilities clearance based on the work. The solicitation was written, it appears to make the process small businesses go through to obtain the facilities clearance not a possibility.

Can you provide additional clarification on this?

ANSWER 4:

A currently cleared contractor may sponsor an uncleared company for a facility clearance. IAW DoD

5220.22-M (NISPOM). The government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award.

QUESTION 5:

Has a timeline been established for when the RFP will be released?

ANSWER 5:

The RFP release date remains to be determined.

QUESTION 6:

In reference to the subject SN, there are a number of labor categories that by the descriptions do not directly relate to the tasks identified in the draft PWS.  Will the government consider adding the PWS/task references to the respective labor categories in the labor matrix?

ANSWER 6:

All labor categories on the Labor Matrix have associated PWS/task references.

QUESTION 7:

I am inquiring as to when responses are due.  Information available on fbo indicates February 20; however, there seems to be some unclear information about the response date listed in the Q&As.

ANSWER 7:

There is no response due date for the Synopsis.

QUESTION 8:

Is there a Past performance requirement?

ANSWER 8:

Offerors will not be required to submit past performance information.

This Synopsis amendment is being issued to provide additional information in response to questions from interested parties.

 

•1.   1.    This contract action is a follow-on action to two (2) SMXG workloads under separate interim contract actions as follows:

402 SMXG Test Program Set (TPS)

Contract Number:           FA8571-13-C-0021

Contractor:         Peerless Technologies Corporation

Award Date:       28-Aug-2013

End Date:            31-Mar-2014 (Basic 7 month POP), 30-Jun-2014 (Option I, 3 month POP)

Action Value:     $1,994,639.74 

402 SMXG Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconniassance (ISR) - prior GSA order

Contract Number:           GS-35F-0445T

Task Order Number:       GST0413DB0024

Contractor:         KNWEBS / CSI

Award Date:       11-Jan-2013

End Date:            10-Jan-2014

Action Value:     $3,839,659.20

402 SMXG Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconniassance (ISR) - following interim contract

Contract Number:           FA8571-14-C-0006

Contracor:  Peerless Technologies Corporation

Award Date:       11-Jan-2014

End Date:            30-Jun-2014

Action Value:     $1,555,595.52

•2.   2.    The RFP release date and the available response time for this requirement remains to be determined.

•3.    3.  The prime contractor is required to possess a Top Secret facility clearance in order to propose on this requirement.  A combination of a prime contractor with Secret clearance and a subcontractor with a Top Secret clearance is NOT sufficient for eligibility. Related to this requirement, the government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award.

•4.    4.   Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is not required in order to propose.

•5.    5.   Proposals submitted may NOT take exception to the estimated hours in the Labor Matrix. The Labor Matrix in the RFP will be used to determine the TEP. Individual task orders will determine the actual hours to be performed.

•6.     6.  In order for offerors to comply with FAR 52.222-46, estimated salary ranges per labor category may be submitted.  Offerors are NOT required to break out salaries into cost and profit.

•7.     7.  The labor rates proposed per category from the resulting awardee will be included in the basic contract and used for ordering accordingly.

8. Information related to 8(a) Joint Venture eligibility will be contained in a future Synopsis amendment.

For additional questions or concerns, please email benjamin.walker@robins.af.mil.

Synopsis Amendment 6:

The purpose of this synopsis amendment is to respond to questions from interested parties.

Question 1.        Is the Government intending to make a single award or multiple awards?

Answer 1.            The Government intends to make a single award.

Question 2.        We are a Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) that holds a TS Facility Clearance and intends to engage in a Joint Venture with an 8a company that does NOT hold any facility Clearance.  The resulting Joint Venture will be the prime contractor.  Given that the facility clearance is held by the WOSB-JV member and not the 8a-JV member, is the Joint Venture eligible to bid?

Answer 2.            The 8(a) participant (or the total of all 8(a) participants involved in the Joint Venture) must perform a significant portion of the contract. Since significant portions of this contract will require both Secret and Top Secret/SCI personnel clearances, the 8(a) participant within the joint venture must

have clearance at or above the Secret Level at time of proposal in order to perform a significant portion of this contract upon award. IAW SBA SOP 80 05 3A.

Question 3.        If the Joint Venture is eligible to bid, does the Joint Venture have to be an SBA approved?

Answer 3.            The JV is eligible to propose on the requirement, however the SBA approval of the joint venture before award of the contract is required. The Joint Venture applicants must submit all required information to the managing 8(a) participant's servicing District Office as soon as possible,but no fewer than 20 working days prior to the scheduled date for contract award. Incomplete packages will be returned to the participant without action. The managing participant is the managing partner or lead venturer. The JVA must be approved by SBA prior to the award of an 8(a) contract to the Joint Venture. Failure to obtain SBA approval of the JVA prior to award of the contract will result in SBA's request that the buying activity terminate the award to the Joint Venture. SBA must approve in advance all proposed amendments, modifications, or extensions to a JVA. Guidance is in accordance with SBA SOP 80 05 3.

Question 4.        Can the final RFP state that the Winning Contractor must have TS Facility Clearance at time of the "Contract Start Date" versus the proposal submission suspense date?

Answer 4.            No, the facility clearance is required at the time of proposal submission.

Question 5.        Based on the pre-solicitation requirements, we assume that the Government is requesting a cost/price proposal to be submitted by the extended response date of 20 February 2014.  Is that accurate?

Answer 5.            No proposal due date has been established yet. The RFP has not been released and a proposal due date has not been determined. The 20-Feb-2014 date was selected to prevent this Synopsis notice from expiring.

Question 6.        What is the Government's purpose/intent in soliciting cost proposals as part of the pre-solicitation? Does the Government intend to review cost proposals and then release a formal RFQ?

Answer 6.            See Answer 5.

Question 7.        The most recent amendment included posting the DD Form 254.  Is the Government requiring contractors to submit the completed DD Form 254 together with their cost proposal?

Answer 7.            No. Offerors are not required to submit a completed DD Form 254 with their cost proposal.

Question 8.        The Government did not provide the expected level of effort for the 6 month option.  We assume that the Government is only requiring the fully burdened hourly rate for the additional 6 month option and that the total evaluated price be calculated using the base year and 4 option years.  Is that correct?

Answer 8.            A price volume template will be provided with the RFP for the offeror to complete and submit as their price proposal. The price volume template, which will be used to determine the total evaluated price, will include all periods, the basic period, option periods, and the 6 month option to extend services. The offeror may propose various rates per period. Hours for the 6 month option to extend services will be provided in the price volume template.

Question 9.        Do any of the labor categories on the current contract(s) fall under the Service Contract Act?

Answer 9.            The Service Contract Act will apply to this contract. Please see 29 CFR 541.605 for possible exemptions.

Question 10.      Do any of the labor categories in the solicitation fall under the Service Contract Act? For example Technical Writer or Draftsman?

Answer 10.         The application of the Service Contract Act depends on conditions beyond job title alone. For example, as a general rule, professional employees must be paid on a salary or fee basis and be compensated at a rate not less than $455 per week, whose primary duty is the performance of work, require knowledge in a field of science, etc. Please see 29 CFR 541.605 for possible exemptions.

Question 11.      Will there be an SF30 released changing the response date to 20 Feb that needs to be returned?

Answer 11.         The RFP release date and the date for responding to the RFP remains to be determined.

Question 12.      We are 8(a) small business that intends to engage in a Joint Venture with a Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) that holds a TS Facility Clearance.  The resulting Joint Venture will be the prime contractor.  Given that the facility clearance is held by the WOSB-JV member and not the 8a-JV member, is the Joint Venture eligible to bid?

Answer 12.         If the 8(a) participant within the JV has clearance at or above the Secret Level, then the JV's proposal will be eligible. If the 8(a) participant has no clearance, then they will not be able to perform a significant portion of the contract upon award.

Question 13.      If the Joint Venture is eligible to bid, does the Joint Venture have to be an SBA approved?

Answer 13.         The SBA must approve the joint venture before award of the contract.

Question 14.      Is the intent to award this contract to Peerless Technologies?

Answer 14.         This contract action is Competitive 8(a) and will not be directed to a sole source.

Question 15.      Perhaps there is a target date to release the final RFP (or maybe there will be a draft RFP)?

Answer 15.         A target date for the release of the RFP will not be disclosed at this time. The government may or may not issue a draft RFP.

Question 16.      Also, in the option years will there be an increase in the number of CME?

Answer 16.         The annual estimate given in the labor matrix will be used as the basis for option periods. However, actual hours may vary on actual task orders issued.

The purpose of this Synopsis Amendment is to post the revised draft Labor Matrix dated 05-December-2013 and to answer questions from interested parties.

IAW PWS paragraph 3.2.1, Security clearance eligibility requirements are SECRET and TOP SECRET/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

Question 1: Is this a solicitation being issued under the GSA schedules?

Answer 1: No.

Question 2: Is it necessary for the vendors to be GSA approved under the appropriate schedules?

Answer 2: No. This acquisition will not be conducted using GSA schedules.

Question 3: Does the scope involve any offsite work?

Answer 3: The place of performance shall be Robins Air Force Base except in cases of Temporary Duty (TDY).

Question 4: Is the vendor's facility clearance still required even if no offsite work is anticipated?

Answer 4: Yes. A Top Secret Facility Clearance is required to propose on this contract. The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 5220.22-M) requires an appropriate Facility Clearance as an administrative determination that a company is eligible for access to classified infromation or award of a classified contract. As previously stated, the government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award.

Question 5: Is the facility clearance required at the time of proposal submission or could it be obtained later, but before the commencement of the project?

Answer 5: The facility clearance is required at the time of proposal submission. 

Question 6: I understand it will require the prime contractor to hold a Top Secret facility clearance, however, I wasn't clear if the solicitation would require the TS at time of submission, time of award, or if the government is willing to sponsor the TS facility upgrade post award for a company that has a current secret clearance  (or doesn't have a clearance).

Answer 6: The prime contractor is required to possess a Top Secret facility clearance in order to propose on this requirement. A combination of a prime contractor with Secret clearance and a subcontractor with a Top Secret clearance is NOT sufficient for eligibility. Related to this requirement, the government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award.

Question 7: Can a joint venture be established between two 8(a) organizations with only one of them having a TS facility clearance and be eligible?

Answer 7: The Joint Venture entity will be considered the prime contractor, responsible for performance at the TS/SCI level and below, and will be required to obtain personnel security clearances at the appropriate levels for performance. A currently cleared contractor may sponsor an uncleared company for a facility clearance. IAW DoD 5220.22-M (NISPOM).

Question 8: Can an SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture (JV) submit a proposal under this 8(a) set-aside if the JV members holding the 8(a) certification has a Secret FCL and the other SDVOSB partner has a Top Secret FCL? Also, in this scenario, can the partner holding the Top Secret sponsor the partner holding the Secret?

Answer 8: See "Answer 7" above and in addition, the 8(a) participant (or the total of all 8(a) participants involved in the Joint Venture) must perform a significant portion of the contract. Since significant portions of this contract will require both Secret and Top Secret/SCI personnel clearances, the 8(a) participant within the joint venture must have clearance at or above the Secret Level at time of award in order to perform a significant portion of this contract upon award. IAW SBA SOP 80 05 3A.
 

Question 9: Will a Mentor-Protégé agreement satisfy the Top Secret facility clearance requirement, if the 8(a) does not have any clearance?

Answer 9: No, since the 8(a) participant will not be able to perform significant portions of this contract. In order for a Mentor to participate in an 8(a) contract as a prime with its Protege, they must joint venture. The 8(a) participant (or the total of all 8(a) participants involved in the Joint Venture) must perform a significant portion of the contract. Since significant portions of this contract will require both Secret and Top Secret/SCI personnel clearances, the 8(a) participant within the joint venture must have clearance at or above the Secret Level at time of award in order to perform a significant portion of this contract upon award. IAW SBA SOP 80 05 3A.

Question 10: Is it correct that, as long as one of the members of JV members has TS FCL, then the JV is eligible. If JV wins the contract, then the member that has TS can request for a clearance of JV (Please keep in mind that JV Is unpopulated hence there will not be any employees under JV. All employees are under JV members)?

Answer 10: If the 8(a) participant within the JV has clearance at or above the Secret Level, then the JV's proposal will be eligible. If the 8(a) participant has no clearance, then they will not be able to perform a significant portion of the contract upon award. See Answers 8 and 9 above.
 

Question 11: Saw the recent sole source to Peerless Tech on ISR SW services - does this relate to - or tie into - the preSol 402 SMXG SW and IT Support Services. This appears to be a bridge contract, until a defined acq strategy can be firmed. Question is - is it part of the 402 SMXG work, announced under the preSol of Nov 2013?

Answer 11: The ISR Software Services contract in question is an interim contract to support the competitive procurement timeline. The contract number is FA8571-14-C-0006, awarded to Peerless Technologies Corporation on 31-Dec-2013. The interim contract's POP end date is 30-Jun-2014.

 
 

The purpose of this Synopsis Amendment is to post a draft version of the DD 254 and to answer questions from interested parties. The response date has been extended to 20-Feb-2014 to prevent this Presolicitation Synopsis from expiring, the RFP has not yet been released and a proposal due date has not been determined.

Question 1: Are the approximated 43 FTE's on the labor matrix, are they expected to all be on task simultaneously or on an as needed basis?

Answer 1: Further details on Task Orders remain to be determined. The 43 FTE's on the Labor Matrix represent the government's estimated annual requirement. Actual FTEs on Task Orders may differ.

Question 2: The FBO website references "PWS paragraph 3.2.1, Security clearance eligibility requirements are SECRET and TOP SECRET/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)." The PWS refers to an associated DD Form 254. Has a DD Form 254 been released? Question 4 on the website indicates that a NATO Facility Security Clearance Certificate is required; however, the Draft PWS does not mention that a NATO Facility Security Clearance Certificate is required. Is this a NATO contract? We have a DoD TS Facility Clearance. Will we be required to have a NATO Facility Security certificate? If so, will we be required to have the certificate when the proposal is submitted?

Answer 2: The answer to question 4 above has been modified to the following: "Yes. A Top Secret Facility Clearance is required to propose on this contract. The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 5220.22-M) requires an appropriate Facility Clearance as an administrative determination that a company is eligible for access to classified infromation or award of a classified contract. As previously stated, the government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award."

A draft DD Form 254 is incorporated in this Synopsis Amendment.

NATO Facility Clearance will not be required. This contract will involve access to NATO Classified Information, however a NATO Facility Security Clearance Certificate will NOT be required. A NATO Clearance was specified in the answer to question 4 previously in error.

The purpose of this Synopsis Amendment is to post the revised draft Labor Matrix dated 05-December-2013 and to answer questions from interested parties.

IAW PWS paragraph 3.2.1, Security clearance eligibility requirements are SECRET and TOP SECRET/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

Question 1: Is this a solicitation being issued under the GSA schedules?

Answer 1: No.

Question 2: Is it necessary for the vendors to be GSA approved under the appropriate schedules?

Answer 2: No. This acquisition will not be conducted using GSA schedules.

Question 3: Does the scope involve any offsite work?

Answer 3: The place of performance shall be Robins Air Force Base except in cases of Temporary Duty (TDY).

Question 4: Is the vendor's facility clearance still required even if no offsite work is anticipated?

Answer 4: Yes. The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 5220.22-M) states in para 10-704 that a NATO Facility Security Clearance Certificate is required for a contractor to negotiate or perform on a NATO classified contract.

A Classified Contract is any contract requiring access to classified information by a contractor or his or her employees in the performance of the contract. (A contract may be a classified contract even though the contract document is not classified.)

Question 5: Is the facility clearance required at the time of proposal submission or could it be obtained later, but before the commencement of the project?

Answer 5: The facility clearance is required at the time of proposal submission. 

Question 6: I understand it will require the prime contractor to hold a Top Secret facility clearance, however, I wasn't clear if the solicitation would require the TS at time of submission, time of award, or if the government is willing to sponsor the TS facility upgrade post award for a company that has a current secret clearance  (or doesn't have a clearance).

Answer 6: The prime contractor is required to possess a Top Secret facility clearance in order to propose on this requirement. A combination of a prime contractor with Secret clearance and a subcontractor with a Top Secret clearance is NOT sufficient for eligibility. Related to this requirement, the government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award.

Question 7: Can a joint venture be established between two 8(a) organizations with only one of them having a TS facility clearance and be eligible?

Answer 7: The Joint Venture entity will be considered the prime contractor, responsible for performance at the TS/SCI level and below, and will be required to obtain personnel security clearances at the appropriate levels for performance. A currently cleared contractor may sponsor an uncleared company for a facility clearance. IAW DoD 5220.22-M (NISPOM).

Question 8: Can an SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture (JV) submit a proposal under this 8(a) set-aside if the JV members holding the 8(a) certification has a Secret FCL and the other SDVOSB partner has a Top Secret FCL? Also, in this scenario, can the partner holding the Top Secret sponsor the partner holding the Secret?

Answer 8: See "Answer 7" above and in addition, the 8(a) participant (or the total of all 8(a) participants involved in the Joint Venture) must perform a significant portion of the contract. Since significant portions of this contract will require both Secret and Top Secret/SCI personnel clearances, the 8(a) participant within the joint venture must have clearance at or above the Secret Level at time of award in order to perform a significant portion of this contract upon award. IAW SBA SOP 80 05 3A.
 

Question 9: Will a Mentor-Protégé agreement satisfy the Top Secret facility clearance requirement, if the 8(a) does not have any clearance?

Answer 9: No, since the 8(a) participant will not be able to perform significant portions of this contract. In order for a Mentor to participate in an 8(a) contract as a prime with its Protege, they must joint venture. The 8(a) participant (or the total of all 8(a) participants involved in the Joint Venture) must perform a significant portion of the contract. Since significant portions of this contract will require both Secret and Top Secret/SCI personnel clearances, the 8(a) participant within the joint venture must have clearance at or above the Secret Level at time of award in order to perform a significant portion of this contract upon award. IAW SBA SOP 80 05 3A.

Question 10: Is it correct that, as long as one of the members of JV members has TS FCL, then the JV is eligible. If JV wins the contract, then the member that has TS can request for a clearance of JV (Please keep in mind that JV Is unpopulated hence there will not be any employees under JV. All employees are under JV members)?

Answer 10: If the 8(a) participant within the JV has clearance at or above the Secret Level, then the JV's proposal will be eligible. If the 8(a) participant has no clearance, then they will not be able to perform a significant portion of the contract upon award. See Answers 8 and 9 above.
 

Question 11: Saw the recent sole source to Peerless Tech on ISR SW services - does this relate to - or tie into - the preSol 402 SMXG SW and IT Support Services. This appears to be a bridge contract, until a defined acq strategy can be firmed. Question is - is it part of the 402 SMXG work, announced under the preSol of Nov 2013?

Answer 11: The ISR Software Services contract in question is an interim contract to support the competitive procurement timeline. The contract number is FA8571-14-C-0006, awarded to Peerless Technologies Corporation on 31-Dec-2013. The interim contract's POP end date is 30-Jun-2014.

The purpose of this Synopsis Amendment is to post the revised draft Labor Matrix dated 25-November-2013 and to answer questions from interested parties.

Question 1:        Will bidders be required to submit resumes along with a bid for each labor category?

Answer 1:            No, resumes are not required to be submitted with the proposal.  However, the Government has the unilateral right to inspect contractor employee qualifications up to the total number of employees on task orders issued to validate that contractor employees meet the labor category qualifications. The contractor shall comply with Government inspection efforts. This may include the request for and the submission of resumes.

Question 2:        Will the winning bidder be required to hire incumbent personnel?

Answer 2:            No.

Question 3:        Will all of the labor categories you are requesting pricing for be required at one time, OR will task orders be issued throughout the year which might request the labor categories?

Answer 3:            Task Orders may be placed for any quantity and skill mix at any time within each ordering period. The Labor Matrix attachment represents the government's best estimated quantity and skill mix required annually.

Question 4:        What would you like interested contractors to provide in response to this presolicitation?

Answer 4:            Questions or requests for the RFP release notification may be sent to me at benjamin.walker@robins.af.mil.

Question 5:        When do you anticipate RFP release?

Answer 5:            RFP release date remains to be determined.

Question 6:        Do you anticipate contract award prior to May 2014?

Answer 6:            The anticipated contract award date is 30-May-2014.  An 8(a) participant's eligibility for award is based on the proposal due date specified in the RFP IAW 13 CFR 124.507(d).

13 CFR 124.507(d), "A concern that has completed its term of participation in the 8(a) BD program may be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract if it was a Participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of offers contained in the contract solicitation, and if it continues to meet all other applicable eligibility criteria."

The proposal due date remains to be determined. This date will be specified on the RFP.

Question 7:        Is the "Jan 20, 2014 4:30 pm Eastern" response time noted on the FBO posting the anticipated RFP release date? Or is the Government seeking feedback regarding the posted PWS?

Answer 7:            No. This is not the anticipated RFP release date. The Jan 20, 2014 date was selected to prevent this presolicitation synopsis from expiring prematurely.  

Question 8:        Can an SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture (JV) submit a proposal under this 8(a) set-aside if one of the JV members recently graduated from 8(a)?

Answer 8:            As set forth in 13 CFR 124.513(b)(1), an approved Non-Mentor and Protégé 8(a) JV may submit an offer as a small business for a competitive 8(a) procurement so long as each concern under the JV is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement, provided:

1. The size of at least one 8(a) participant to the JV is less than one half the size standard corresponding to the assigned NAICS code; and

2. For a procurement having a revenue based size standard, the procurement exceeds half the size standard corresponding to the assigned NAICS code.

The NAICS code for this effort is 541511 with size standard of $25.5 M.  Half that size standard would be $12.75 M.  The size of the 8(a) participant to the JV would then have to have average annual gross revenue not exceeding $12.75 M.

This Synopsis amendment is being issued to provide additional information in response to questions from interested parties.

 

•1.   1.    This contract action is a follow-on action to two (2) SMXG workloads under separate interim contract actions as follows:

402 SMXG Test Program Set (TPS)

Contract Number:           FA8571-13-C-0021

Contractor:         Peerless Technologies Corporation

Award Date:       28-Aug-2013

End Date:            31-Mar-2014 (Basic 7 month POP), 30-Jun-2014 (Option I, 3 month POP)

Action Value:     $1,415,288.28 (Basic NTE amount under Undefinitized Contract Action. The Option I amount is yet to be determined)

402 SMXG Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconniassance (ISR) - current GSA order

Contract Number:           GS-35F-0445T

Task Order Number:       GST0413DB0024

Contractor:         KNWEBS / CSI

Award Date:       11-Jan-2013

End Date:            10-Jan-2014

Action Value:     $3,839,659.20

402 SMXG Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconniassance (ISR) - following interim contract

Contract Number:           TBD

Contracor:  Peerless Technologies Corporation

Award Date:       11-Jan-2014 (estimated)

End Date:            30-Jun-2014

Action Value:     TBD

•2.   2.    The RFP release date and the available response time for this requirement remains to be determined.

•3.    3.  The prime contractor is required to possess a Top Secret facility clearance in order to propose on this requirement.  A combination of a prime contractor with Secret clearance and a subcontractor with a Top Secret clearance is NOT sufficient for eligibility. Related to this requirement, the government is NOT willing to sponsor the awarded contractor for their Top Secret facility clearance post award.

•4.    4.   Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is not required in order to propose.

•5.    5.   Proposals submitted may NOT take exception to the estimated hours in the Labor Matrix. The Labor Matrix in the RFP will be used to determine the TEP. Individual task orders will determine the actual hours to be performed.

•6.     6.  In order for offerors to comply with FAR 52.222-46, estimated salary ranges per labor category may be submitted.  Offerors are NOT required to break out salaries into cost and profit.

•7.     7.  The labor rates proposed per category from the resulting awardee will be included in the basic contract and used for ordering accordingly.

8. Information related to 8(a) Joint Venture eligibility will be contained in a future Synopsis amendment.

For additional questions or concerns, please email benjamin.walker@robins.af.mil.

This 8(a) competitive Source Selection is intended to procure Engineering and Information Technology (IT) services in support of the 402 Software Maintenance Group (SMXG) for workloads at or below the top secret level. A top secret facility clearance certificate is required. Examples include work types such as product sustainment, product development, lab support, and engineering services in support of Operational Flight Program (OFP), Test Program Set (TPS), and Mission Support (MS) business lines within the Software Maintenance Group. The place of performance shall be Robins Air Force Base except in cases of Temporary Duty (TDY).

A resulting single award Requirements Contract is anticipated to cover this requirement with a 12 month basic ordering period, four 12 month option ordering periods, and a 6 month option to extend services ordering period. The anticipated ordering period including all option periods is estimated to be effective from 01-Jun-2014 through 30-Nov-2019. See the attached Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for a detailed description of anticipated work requirements. See the Draft Labor Matrix attachment for the listing of labor categories and estimated annual hours required.

The contract type for labor will be firm-fixed-price (FFP) with the unit of issue in hours. The contract type for travel will be Cost Reimbursable (CR) with a unit of issue of one lot. Data submissions are not separately priced.

The only intended evaluation factor for award is cost/price. Contractors will not be required to submit a technical volume with their proposal; contractors will be required to submit a cost/price volume and a compensation plan for professional employees, IAW FAR 52.222-46, with their proposal. Employee compensation plans will be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46. To be responsive to the solicitation, the proposal's price volume must meet the required positions, qualifications, and requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The contractor shall comply with the Statement of Work (SOW) throughout performance. Since price is the only evaluation factor, DoD Source Selection Procedures do not apply.

Each offeror's cost/price volume will be evaluated based on the following:  The contract labor rates proposed by the Offeror will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Balance.  A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated, based on all year's labor rates.  Information on each evaluation and how TEP will be calculated is detailed below.

I. Reasonableness:  The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness.  In addition, price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis, other techniques described in FAR Subpart 15.4 will be used.

II. Balanced Pricing:  Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.  Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract labor rates is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques.  Rates within each offeror's response will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to rates proposed for each labor category and year proposed.  Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

III. Total Evaluated Price:  The TEP will be calculated based on multiplying the proposed labor category rate by the estimated hours for that category. Offeror to propose fully burdened labor rates for each labor category.

The Government has the unilateral right to inspect contractor employee qualifications up to the total number of employees on task orders issued to validate that contractor employees meet the labor category qualifications. The contractor shall comply with Government inspection efforts.

This acquisition is being offered for competition limited to eligible 8(a) concerns. Interested 8(a) firms are encouraged to request a copy of the solicitation.