Biometrics Operations and Support Services Unrestricted (BOSS-U) Acquisition, Questions and Responses - 3rd Set

Question # 1
Subject: RFP No. W91QUZ-08-R-0032
Reference: RFP Section L.2.2.3, subparagraph (3), Page 80.
Government Text: Offerors shall provide the above required information for any proposed subcontractor who will perform a portion of the effort.
Reference: RFP Section M.4.3, Paragraph 2, Page 90.
Government Text: The Government will conduct evaluations based on the quality, relevancy and currency of the offerors past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors&.

Question: Many offerors will have teams with several tens of subcontractors, especially small businesses, which would result in both a major effort for offerors to submit and the Government to evaluate. Such a large effort and package would almost certainly be inconsistent with the time allowed and page limits for the Past Performance submission.

Is it the government's intent to collect past performance data via contractor submission and customer questionnaires on all or only major subcontractors?
As an example, major subcontractors could be defined as those which may perform over 20% of contract labor or those deemed critical to contract performance by the offeror.

Response #1
Please refer to changes in Section L.2.2.3 of Amendment A0001 of the RFP.

Question # 2
Subject: RFP No. W91QUZ-08-R-0032
Reference: General Number of Planned Awards
The Government has not provided any indication regarding the anticipated number of planned awards for BOSS-U. This information is important to guide industry decisions on bidding and teaming. Request the Government indicate the planned number of awards for BOSS-U.

Response #2
This number of awardees will be determined after receiving proposals and conducting evaluations. The number of awardees will depend on the number of proposals and the results of the evaluations.

Question # 3
Subject: RFP No. W91QUZ-08-R-0032
Reference: RFP Section L.2.2.3, pages 79-80
The proposal instructions for Past Performance require the offeror to provide references and descriptions for ALL relevant Government contracts (prime and sub), and for any proposed subcontractors who will perform a portion of the effort. We have hundreds of contracts relevant to the BOSS-U PWS, not counting the relevant contracts of our team members. This instruction is inconsistent with the 15 page limit for this section, and is also inconsistent with recent ITEC-4 past performance instructions on similar IDIQ contracts. Request the Government specify a limited number of past performance references be provided, consistent with the page limit for this section. Also, request that the 7 calendar day deadline for submitting the list of references be extended to allow offerors to select their best references after this question has been answered.

Response #3
Please refer to changes in Section L.2.2.3 of Amendment A0001 of the RFP.
The 7 calendar day deadline for submitting the list of past performance references has been extended to 14 days.

Question # 4
Subject: RFP No. W91QUZ-08-R-0032
Reference: RFP Section L__, Paragraph(s) L.2.2.3 (3), Page(s) _80___ and
Reference: RFP Section M__, Paragraph(s) M.4.3___, Page(s) _90___,
The Section L reference requires that offerors submit past performance questionnaires for any subcontractor who will perform a portion of the effort. There are issues raised as a result of this requirement:
(1) Since this is an IDIQ contract with no defined work and teaming
partners can be added after award, it is not possible to determine which subcontractors may perform a portion of the effort. Team members are chosen for their ability to provide products and services that add value to the offer; therefore, it is likely that every team member will perform some portion of the effort requiring at least one and possibly several contract citations (Offerors shall submit a description of all Government
contracts&) for every subcontractor on the team. Given the volume of information required for each citation, large teams with multiple subcontractors will not be able to meet this requirement within the 15-page limit.
(2) The requirement to submit the questionnaires within 7 days of RFP
release leaves insufficient time to identify and evaluate candidate contracts for relevance and prepare customer points of contact to ensure their cooperation in completing and submitting the questionnaires.
(3) The Section M reference twice refers to the past performance of
major subcontractors, which reflects the language used in the draft RFP Section L requiring past performance for subcontractors performing a significant portion of the effort.

Will the Government revise the requirement to read, any subcontractor who will perform a significant portion of the effort, which is the language used in the draft RFP? Or will the government remove the requirement to submit subcontractor past performance.

In order to complete the Date E-Mailed to POC RFP requirement in paragraph L.2.2.3, offerors must task customer POCs with completing the questionnaire prior to submitting the POC list and meet the 7-day deadline (Friday 25 July). To avoid asking our customers to meet a requirement that may change, we request the Government respond as soon as possible before the deadline. If the language will not be changed, will the Government:

Allow additional time to submit the POC list?
Increase or eliminate the page limit?
Clarify the reference to major subcontractors in Section M?

Response # 4
Please refer to changes in Section L.2.2.3 of Amendment A0001 of the RFP.
The 7 calendar day deadline for submitting the list of past performance references has been extended to 14 days.

Questions and Responses 81 through 104

Question: 81 Page: 87 Para.L.3
This section identifies the contractor personnel that will assist the government in the source selection evaluation process and identifies one contractor from Cogent Solutions. The synopsis provided under FedBiz Ops listed two additional companies (EM&I and RTEC Services). Will the government update this section accordingly to identify all contractors supporting their evaluation process?

Response:
Para L.3 of the RFP has been updated to identify contractors that will support the evaluation process.

Question: 82 Page: 88 Para.M.2
M.2 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. b.1. The criteria states that all sub factors are weighted equal, i.e., the sample task responses for sub factors a and d will not outweigh offerors responses to b, c, e and f.

If that is true, then the sample task responses for A and D have the same weight as the responses provided outside of the sample task. Please verify that this is correct.

Response:
The sample Task Orders have been removed.

Question: 83 Page: 88 Para.M.2.b.1
Paragraph M.2(b)(1) refers to the six Functional Categories by name and T number (in parentheses). However the order (or T number) does not match the order or Functional Category number designated in Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.1 through C.2.6.

Suggest that the Functional Category order (and T number) in Paragraph M.2(b)(1) be modified to match the order in Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.2 through C.2.6 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Section L and M have been normalized with Section C concerning order of Functional Categories

Question: 84 Page: 88 Para.M.2.b.1
Paragraph M.2(b)(1)(c) refers to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, and Integration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 refer to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, Implementation, and Integration.

Suggest that the language in Paragraph M.2(b)(1)(c) be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Functional Category titles have been corrected.

Question: 85 Page: 88 Para.M.2.b.1.b
A. RFP Indicates:
Paragraphs M.2(b)(1)(b) refers to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Demonstration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 refer to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Analysis and Demonstration.
B. Constructive Comment:
We suggest that the language in Paragraphs M.2(b)(1)(b) be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Functional Category titles have been corrected.

Question: 86 Page: 89 Para.M.2.c.1.b
This factor discloses the weighting for the evaluation of technical sub-factors within the Technical Factor, but not within the Management Factor. Please provide this information.

Response:
There are no discreet sub-factors under management approach.

Question: 87 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1
Similar issue as L.2.2.1 above, this list of functional areas contains a duplicate and is incomplete. Please clarify the meaning of leaving functional areas off this list.

Response:
With the removal of the sample task orders, the RFP has been modified to call out the six functional task areas.

Question: 88 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1
In Paragraph M.4.1, Advanced Technology Demonstration is listed twice.

Suggest removing the duplicate entry of Advanced Technology Demonstration in Paragraph M.4.1.

Response:
Section M.4.1 has been revised.

Question: 89 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1
Paragraph M.4.1 refers to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, & Integration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 refer to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, Implementation, and Integration.

Suggest that the language in Paragraph M.4.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Section M.4.1 has been revised.

Question: 90 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1
Paragraph M.4.1 refers to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Demonstration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.5 refer to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Analysis and Demonstration.

Suggest that the language in Paragraph M.4.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.5 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Section M.4.1 has been revised.

Question: 91 Page: 91 Para.M.4.3
The first paragraph of this section states, This evaluation will focus on the size, scope and complexity of the efforts, and the relevance to the Functional Categories. An offeror could conceivably have experience that is relevant to the six functional categories, but be unrelated to the BTFs mission. We suggest that you add the words, and to the BTFs mission after the word Categories.

Response:
Section M.4.3 has been modified.

Question: 92 Page: 92 Para.M.4.4
The draft RFP has a minimum subcontracting requirement which includes Historically Black Educational Institutions, however, there are some these Educational Institutions that have will not accept the following clause in their subcontract because it limits fundamental research and conflicts with both National Security Decision Directive 189 and institution Boards of Trustees requirements:

(1) On page 37, Section H.22, paragraph (e) (4), it states: The contractor agrees that it will not distribute reports, data or information of any nature arising from its performance under this contract, except as provided by the task order or as may be directed by the contracting officer.

(2) DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, is incorporated on page 57.

Please advise if the Government would remove or modify these clauses so as not to preclude the Education Institutions from participating as Team members.

Response:
The language in Section H.22 and DFARS clause 252.204-7000 will not be removed.

Question: 93 Page: 92 Para.M.4.5 (c)
What is the Government's method for determining price realism?

Response:
We will not evaluate for price realism. This language will be removed from the RFP.

Question: 94 Page: General Para.TOC
Attachments found in file BOSSUJ1thruJ7.pdf do not correspond to the list in the Table of Contents. The attachment J-3 in the pdf file is Labor Category Table, and attachment J-4 is the Pricing Table. The attachment for the Pricing Model in not found in the pdf file.
Please clarify and reconcile the attachments listed in the Table of Contents with those in the attachment file BOSSUJ1thruJ7.pdf

Response:
List of attachments has been revised.

Question: 95 Page: General Para.
Does the Government anticipate requesting oral presentations?

Response:
There will be no oral presentations.

Question: 97 Page: General Para.
We have heard that task orders may be submitted as soon as the contract is awarded. In order to be fair to RFP respondents such that all will have access to the same information, has any bidders library or other documentation been or can be provided?

Response:
The only information provided is via FedBizOps and the Army Single Face to Industry. Any Task Orders to be issued after award of the contract will be conducted through fair opportunity per FAR 16.505.

Question: 98 Page: J3-1 Para.J - Column 6 Header
Are we correct in assuming this should this read Minimum Experience?

Response:
Correct. The title should read Minimum Experience.

Question: 99 Page: J-6-1 Para.J-6
It is unclear when the contractor is to complete and submit Attachment J-6. Since this will be an IDIQ contract, are we correct in assuming that the completed Attachment J-6 would be submitted with each task order proposal, rather than with the vehicle-level proposal?

Response:
Upon contract award.

Question: 100 Page 35, Para H.17
The referenced provision states that &contractors shall comply with meeting the mandatory small business subcontracting goal of 25% of the total contract value& (emphasis added).

Usually subcontracting goals are stated as a percentage of subcontracted dollars versus total contract value.

Is it the governments intent to mandate that a minimum of 25% of all contract dollars be subcontracted to small businesses or should this be the percentage of subcontracted dollars?

Response:

It will be based on the total dollar value of each awardees Task Orders.

Question: 101 Page: General Para.

In working our response to the subject RFP, it is requested that the government provide further clarification as to the definition of the functional requirements for liaison services and collaboration services. It appears that there are various interpretations among industry as to just what these types of support services entail from a functional and technical perspective. Any further clarification or elaboration that you could provide would assist in the ability to provide concise and relevant proposals.

Response:

Liaison services are defined as those coordination/interfaces between the Requiring Activity and the Stakeholder community. Collaboration services are capabilities allowing multiple geographically dispersed users and group to communicate and share information.

Question: 102 Page: General Para.

In supporting the proposal to the subject Solicitation and addressing the diverse range of capabilities desired under the BOSS program, we considered having participation from academia in the proposal. One obvious qualified source being considered is the Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) of West Virginia University. In conducting our assessment we have found that the Department of Defense Biometric Task Force is an affiliate member of CITeR as are several other DoD organizations and commercial enterprises. The CITeR publicly states that the key to its success is the participation by its affiliates. As such, through the BTFs membership and affiliation with CITeR, by having CITeR proposed as part of any proposed team would literally be creating a situation whereby BTF would be a party participating in a proposal being submitted to and to be evaluated by the BTF. That being the case, we are concerned that having the CITeR join our team or support our proposal effort in any manner would be a clear and unequivocal conflict of interest under FAR Part 9.5.

Will you please provide us with a Conflict of Interest determination in this regard? Further, would a bidders use of this qualification or capability of being a affiliate of CITeR be considered as a legitimate competitive advantage and afford it a higher rating to its proposal in that BTF and DoD would essentially be rating its own capabilities?

Response:

Any determination for Conflict of Interest will be made on a case-by-case basis after receipt of proposals.


Question: 103 Page: General Para.

It is our understanding that West Virginia Universitys CITeR is a non-profit organization formed under the various applicable regulations of the Internal Revenue Service. One fundamental requirement of obtaining and maintaining such favorable regulatory treatment is that any such organization must benefit the broadest community of interest and cannot be partial to any commercial interest(s). Further, by regulation, there can be no inherent advantage to any commercial party or preferential treatment of one commercial interest over another by virtue of a party being a member or not being a member in any such association. Specifically, through the performance of particular services for its member organizations an organization (such as CITeR) disqualifies itself for tax-exemption under the Internal Revenue Code(s).

In discussing CITeRs availability and ability to support any offerors proposal on the BOSS procurement, CITeR has indicated that they would only support the proposal efforts of parties who are members or affiliates of CITeR. We believe that this exclusionary practice is in direct conflict with the regulations which grant the CITeR favorable treatment under IRS regulations.

Will you please clarify this matter?

Response:

Teaming arrangement are at the discretion of individual contractor organizations.

Question: 104 Page: General Para.

Under Section H.17, Small Business Subcontracting Goals (a) A mandatory small business subcontracting goal of 25% of the total contract value is stipulated. It has been our experience developing small business subcontracting plans, that small business subcontracting goals are referenced as a percentage of total subcontract value not total contract value. In addition, goal percentage reporting requirements per the FAR and as outlined on the SF294 and SF295 are listed as a percentage of total subcontract value (dollars). Was the reference to total contract value a typo and should it not be total subcontract value?

Response:

It will be based on the total dollar value of each awardees Task Orders.

Questions and Responses 38 to 80

Question: 38 Page(s): 79, 84 Para.L.1.d, L.2.2.4.2
The Volume 2 page limitations shown on Page 79 do not appear to allow for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as required in Volume 2 per Page 84. Will the Government add pages to the Volume 2 page limitation to allow for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, or should offerors include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume 3?

Response:
A page requirement for the Small Subcontracting Plan has been incorporated into L.1 of the RFP and will be part of the Volume 2 submission requirement.

Question: 39 Page(s) : 78, 91 Para.L.2.2.4, M.4.4

Section K establishes the NAICS code for this acquisition as 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services with a small business size standard of $6.5M. This code would seem more appropriate to the Functional Categories in the BOSS-R acquisition. The Functional Categories in BOSS-U appear to be more closely related to the engineering and R&D activities described in NAICS 541330, Engineering Services (Military Equipment) with a small business size standard of $25M..
" Will the government change the NAICS code to one that reflects the technical nature of the Functional Categories in the BOSS-U Performance Work Statement?
" Does this NAICS code establish the small business size standard for subcontractors to qualify as small businesses per the references in Section L and Section M?
" Are all subcontractors required to have the NAICS 541611 or is it only the Prime that must meet this requirement?

Response:
The NAICS code isnt going to change.
I have been advised by our Small Business Specialist that subs work would be counted toward the 25% goal even if sub does not have NAICS 541611.

Question: 40 Page: 79 Para.L.1
There are no references to a contract master schedule in Section L.2 or Section M. Normally there is not a Contract Master Schedule (CMS) associated with an IDIQ contract.
A) Are we correct in assuming that a CMS is not required for the IDIQ contract?
B) If the Government requires a CMS in the master IDIQ contract, please define what is to be in the CMS and in which section it is to be included.

Response:
A CMS is not required for the ID/IQ master contract. The reference has been removed.

Question: 41 Page: 79 Para.L.1
Is the response to the Sample TOs included in the Part 1 Technical Approach (50) page count?

Response:
Sample Task Orders have been removed. The RFP has been modified to address the Technical Approach to meeting the six functional areas.

Question: 42 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.a
If used, do foldouts count as one page or two?

Response:
Foldout language in L.1.3.a has been changed to read foldouts will count as two pages.

Question: 43 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.c
L.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. Paragraph 3) c).

Please elaborate on the requirement page counts are applicable to proposals in each functional category.

Response:
Language has been removed from L.1.3.c of the RFP.

Question: 44 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d
Please clarify whether the responses to sample task orders are included in the page count for Part 1-Technical Approach. If so, please consider exempting the sample PWS responses from the page limitation or increasing the page limitation.

Response:
Sample task orders have been removed from the RFP.

Question: 45 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d
Please consider increasing the page count for Part 2, Management Approach. The instructions require offerors to address eight crucial management activities, meaning offerors have, on average, less than two pages per topic. While the instructions for each topic imply that offerors should provide a detailed response (e.g., The offeror shall provide a QCP that details how the offeror intends to monitor, inspect, and correct deficiencies&), the page limitation will precludes more than a superficial response. At a minimum, we suggest that you exempt the QCP from the 15-page limit.

Response:
The Part 2 Management Approach page limit has been increased to 25 pages in the RFP. The Management Approach language has been changed.

Question: 46 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d
The Proposal Content table on page 79 limits Part 3, Past Performance, to a maximum number of only five pages. Does this five-page limit apply to each past performance reference submitted, or to all past performance references combined?

Response:
Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d

Question: 47 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d
L.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. Paragraph 3)d) Proposal Content. Reference the page limit for Past Performance (5 Pages).

Question - Would the Government entertain raising the current maximum to a number higher than five?

Existing page allocation of 5 pages will not allow sufficient length for response to demonstrate experience and qualifications for a submission of this complexity and scope. We suggest a maximum of 5 examples for a maximum of 15 pages.

Response:
Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d

Question: 48 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d
L.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. Paragraph 3)d) Proposal Content. Reference the page limit for Technical Approach (50 Pages)

Question - Would the Government provide additional guidance on the length and structure of the two Sample Task submissions within the Technical Approach section?

Response:
The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP

Question: 49 Page(s): 79, 80 Para.L.1.3.d, L.2.2.1

The Sample Task Order responses are required as part of the offerors Part 1 Technical Response proposal section. The Proposal Content table does not provide a specific page limit for these responses. Will the government provide a separate page limit for each Sample Task Order response as part of Attachments J8 and J9 in addition to the 50 pages permitted for this section?

Response:
The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP

Question: 50 Page: 79,
81 Para.L.1.3.d
L.2.2.3.1
Please eliminate the page limit for Part 3, Past Performance. The Government has no way of knowing whether a given offeror will need 5 or 50 pages to provide the information it has requested.

Response:
Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d

Question: 51 Page(s): 79, 82 Para.L.1.d, L.2.2.3
The proposal content table shown on page 79 of the draft RFP shows that the maximum number of pages allowed for Part 3 Past Performance is 5. Please clarify in the final RFP whether the 5 pages are allowed for each individual contractual past performance presented in the proposal or the total number of pages allowed for Volume 2, Part 3 Past Performance. Inasmuch as paragraph L.2.2.3 (3), page 82 requires past performance information, for any proposed subcontractor who will perform a significant portion of the effort, this offeror assumes that 5 pages are allowed for each individual contractual past performance described in the proposal. Please clarify in the final RFP.

Response:
Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d

Question: 52 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1
The lead paragraph in this section says that Volume 1 will consist of three parts but identifies only two parts. Please clarify or correct.

Response:
There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected.

Question: 53 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1
Only two parts are specified. Please clarify the third part.

Response:
There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected.

Question: 54 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1
A. RFP Indicates:
L.2.1 states, This Volume shall consist of three parts, the Executive Summary and a Cross Reference Matrix as detailed below. Neither Part 1 nor 2 will be evaluated and no additional credit will be given.
B. Constructive Comment:
To maintain better alignment with the subsequently named paragraphs, suggest changing the text to indicate two parts instead of three.

Response:
There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected.

Question: 55 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1
L.2.1 states that volume 1 will consist of three parts, but only two parts are identified. Please clarify.

Response:
There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected.

Question: 56 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1.2,
L.2.2.1
Paragraph L.2.1.2 states, Sample Task Orders will be used to evaluate the offerors competency in PWS areas Operations and Maintenance and Program Management Support. Paragraph L.2.2.1 states, The Offeror shall provide a complete and detailed description of its approach to the contract PWS functional areas Advanced Technology Demonstration, Infrastructure Procurement Design, Development, & Integration, Advanced Technology Demonstration, Studies and Analysis, Test and Evaluation, and Sample Task Order PWSs.

The referenced paragraphs appear to indicate that the government does not want offerors to address Operations and Maintenance or Program Management Support in Part 1 of the Technical Proposal except as required to respond to the Sample Task Orders, which will be provided as attachments J8 and J9 in the final RFP release. Is this correct?

It also appears that the reference to Program Management Support in L.2.1.2 correlates to Functional Category 1, Management Support. Services. Is this correct?

If these assumptions are correct, paragraph 2.2.1 should then read as follows, The Offer

Response:
The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP

Question: 57 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Section L contains two subsections labeled L.2.2.1. Please clarify.

Response:
Section L has been correct to change duplicate subsection L.2.2.1.

Question: 58 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Please confirm that responses to Sample Task Order PWSs are included in the 50-page limit for Part 1, Technical Approach.

Response:
Sample task orders have been removed from the RFP.

Question: 59 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Will the sample Task Order PWSs referenced in this section be released in draft form prior to the issuance of the final RFP?

Response:
No, the requirement for offerors to respond to a sample task order has been removed from the RFP.

Question: 60 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Please clarify the meaning of this paragraph. The list of PWS functional areas is incomplete and the Advance Technology Demonstration functional area is duplicated. Does this imply that the areas not included in the list, Functional Area 1: Management Support Services and Functional Area 3: Operations and Maintenance do no require a description of approach but only the response to the sample task orders?

Response:
The RFP has been revised to reference the six functional areas.

Question: 61 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Functional areas Operations and Maintenance and Management Support Services are not addressed in L.2.2.1. Are we correct in assuming all functional areas should be addressed in L.2.2.1, per M.2 and C.1.2?

Response:
Sample task orders have been removed. The RFP has been modified to reflect all functional areas.

Question: 62 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
In Paragraphs L.2.2.1, Advanced Technology Demonstration is listed twice.

Suggest removing the duplicate entry of Advanced Technology Demonstration in Paragraph L.2.2.1.

Response:
Correction has been made to Section L.2.2.1.

Question: 63 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
The first Paragraph L.2.2.1 lists the contents of the Technical Approach; including selected PWS functional areas. However, Functional Category 1 (Management Support Services) and Functional Category 3 (Operations and Maintenance) are not listed as part of the Technical Approach, even though they are listed as Technical evaluation factors as part of M.2(b)(1)(a) and M.2(b)(1)(d), respectively.

Suggest modifying the first Paragraph L.2.2.1 to provide better alignment with Section M.

Response:
Sample task orders have been removed. The RFP has been modified to reflect all functional areas.

Question: 64 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
The paragraph number for Paragraph L.2.2.1 appears twice in the Draft RFP. The first time it is identified as Part 1 Technical Approach. In the following paragraph, it is identified as Part 2 Management Approach.

Suggest re-numbering the second paragraph titled Part 2 Management Approach as L.2.2.2.

Response:
Correction to Section L has been made.

Question: 65 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Paragraphs L.2.2.1 refers to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, and Integration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 refer to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, Implementation, and Integration.

Suggest that the language in Paragraph L.2.2.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Changes have been made to correct Section L.2.2.1.

Question: 66 Page(s): 80, 89 Para.L.2.2.1, M.4.1
It is this offerors understanding that the response to sample task orders (J-8 and J-9) is not part of the 50 page limit for Part 1-Technical Approach, and there is no page limit for response to sample task orders. Please confirm.

Response:
The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP.

Question: 67 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1
Paragraph L.2.2.1 refers to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Demonstration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 refer to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Analysis and Demonstration.

Suggest that the language in Paragraph L.2.2.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 to provide consistency within the RFP.

Response:
Changes have been made to correct Section L.2.2.1.

Question: 68 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1.b
A) Is the Government requesting resumes for Technical Key Personnel for the IDIQ master contract and the percentage of time assigned to the master contract?
B) Are the key technical personnel related only to the Sample TOs?
Please clarify.

Response:
With the exception of the Program Manager, key personnel will only be addressed at the task order level. Sample task orders have been removed.

Question: 69 Page: 81 Para.L.2.2.3
Offerors are required to submit their own past performance, and also past performance for subcontractors who will perform a significant portion of the effort. RFP Page 5 indicates a 5 page limit for the past performance section of Volume 2. We respectfully suggest that 5 pages are not enough to provide the requested information for the prime and potentially multiple subs. Does the Government intend to increase the page limit for this section of Volume 2?

Response:
Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d

Question: 70 Page: 81 Para.L2.2.3
The first paragraph of this section defines relevant as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in Section C of the solicitation. We note, however, that several of the Tasks described in Section C make no mention of biometrics. We suggest that the definition of relevant be revised to say work that involves products/technology that relates to the mission of the BTF and that is similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in Section C of the solicitation.

Response:
Section L.2.2.3 has been modified to read, Relevancy is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in Section C of the solicitation and has been performed for a minimum of (twelve) 12 months.

Question: 71 Page: 81 Para.L2.2.3
Since the RFP has been modified to include the AMS process, please clarify whether offerors are to submit contract descriptions at both the pre-qualification step and in their offers.

Response:
Submit your offer to the RFP in accordance with the RFP instructions.

Question: 72 Page(s): 81, 91 Para.L.2.2.3,M.4.3

The Past Performance response (Volume 2 Part 3) is limited to 5 pages but the referenced section does not provide any guidance regarding the number of contracts and task orders the government requires to ascertain whether an offeror has an acceptable performance history. Further, there is no guidance on how the number of contracts cited will affect the governments evaluation of offerors performance.
(1) With a 5-page limit on this section, citing multiple contracts restricts the ability to describe contract details that strengthen relevance. Will the government explain the relative importance of relevance in the scoring so that offerors may balance their submissions to meet the governments past performance information needs?

Response:
Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d

Question: 73 Page: 82 Para.L.2.2.3.3
How does the Government define a significant portion of the effort? Is it based on a specific percentage?

Response:
Language in L.2.2.3.3 has been modified.

Question: 74 Page: 82 Para.L.2.2.4
The Governments model Small Business Participation Plan indicates that offerors are to provide Percentages based on Dollar Value (top of page 83). Does Dollar Value indicate total contract value or total value of subcontracted work? If total contract value, does the Government define total contract value as a) the IDIQ ceiling, or b) the sample task(s) proposed total value?

Response:
It will be based on the total dollar value of each awardees Task Orders.

Question: 75 Page: 82 Para.L.2.2.4
The last paragraph in the Paragraph L.2.2.4 is numbered as (2); however, there is no paragraph numbered as (1) in the section.

Suggest re-numbering the first paragraph in Paragraph L.2.2.4 as (1).

Response:
Recommended change to L.2.2.4 has been incorporated.

Question: 76 Page: 81 Para.L.2.3, M.4.5
Will the government please clarify the following questions with regards to price evaluation?
" How will the government evaluate the labor rates for each category?
" Will it be an average of the total the levels for each category?
" How will the rates and the Sample Task Orders be weighted.
" Will the government provide a complete list of labor categories required for each Sample Task?

Response:
The Government will evaluate price as stated in Section M. Sample Task Orders have been removed from RFP.

Question: 77 Page: 84 Para.L.2.2.4
A) If the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted separately, is it to be submitted as an appendix?
B) If so is it included in the page count for Volume 2 Tab 4?

Response:
A page requirement for the Small Subcontracting Plan has been incorporated into Section L, Volume 2 submission requirement.

Question: 78 Page: 86 Para.L.2.3.e.6
Paragraph L.2.3(e)(6) states, Pricing for the Price Model, Attachment J-9, shall be based on Government stated labor mix/labor hours and priced using labor rates from Offerors proposed Labor Rate Table.

Attachment J-9 on Page 73 is referenced as Sample Task Order 2 (O&M for Biometrics Identification System. We suggest that Paragraph L.2.3(e)(6) on Page 86 be modified to reference the appropriate Price Model.

Response:
The language in L.2.3 has been modified. Sample Task Orders have been removed.

Question: 79 Page: 87 Para.L.3
Use of Contractor Personnel in Support of the Source Selection Process, requires Offerors to enter into company-to-company Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA),the section reference is ..the following Contractors... but only one is listed. How many companies should be listed in this section, one or three? This section also requires three copies of the NDA. Was this a carry over from the Advisory Multi-Step Notice for the Biometrics Operations and Support Services Unrestricted (BOSS-U) Acquisition or is a copy of the NDA with Cogent Solutions required in each of the three volumes? Finally, I was not able to instructions for the NDA in Section L.1.3. Can you clarify this requirement?

Response:
L.3 has been modified to reflect the contractors who will support the evaluation process and with whom offerors will be required to enter into NDAs.

Question: 80 Page: 87 Para.L.3
The RFP states that offerors are required to submit three copies of the executed Cogent Solutions NDA to the Government. Is this documentation to be submitted as part of the proposal, and if so, in which volume?

Response:
We have revised this requirement in the final RFP.

Questions and Responses 1 through 37

Question: 1 Page: 2 Para.B.3.1
B.3.1 Time and Material Labor Hour/Firm Fixed Labor Rates states:

Program Management Support Costs. Contract-level program management support costs are included as a percentage of each individual labor category rate, and encompass support for contract-level management, reporting requirements (See Section F) and related travel and meeting attendance costs associated with the Contractors program management staff, as it relates to overall management of the BOSS-U. As a result, these program management support costs are allocated across all of the task orders issued under this contract.

Question- How does the Government envision these costs being reimbursed on a cost reimbursable task? Would the Government consider allowing these costs to be bid as an ODC on Cost Reimbursable tasks?

Response:
When proposing labor rates under a Cost Reimbursable Task Order the Contract-Level Program Management cost should be incorporated in the G&A rate used to burden the labor rates.

Question: 2 Page(s): 2, 85 Para.B.3.1.a, L.2.3.e.5
Section B states that hourly rates will be based on a 40-hour work week (ex. 1920 hours per year or in accordance with the Contractors Cost Accounting (CAS) Disclosure Statement), while the Section L reference states the offeror shall &provide hourly rates based upon a 40-hour work week (1920 hours per year). Please clarify if all offerors are to 1) base hourly rates on 1920 hours per year, or 2) develop hourly rates based on their CAS disclosure statement.

Response:
All price proposals should be based on 1920 hours. The RFP language has been revised before release.

Question: 3 Page: 2 Para.B.3.1.a
In the pricing discussion of section B, the RFP details all the labor-related costs to be included in our burdened labor rates (page 2, B.3.1 (a)).

Question- Will the Government provide instructions as to how to price shift differential pay and overtime pay in the ID/IQ submission, so that comparable input is provided by all respondents?

Response:
If required, shift differential and overtime pay will be negotiated at the Task Order level.

Question: 4 Page: 2 Para.B.3.1.a
Paragraph B.3.1(a) cites the following, All hourly rates are based on a 40-hour work week (ex. 1,920 hours per year or in accordance with the Contractors Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement. However, Paragraph L.2.3(e)(5) only cites the following, Contractor shall provide hourly rates based upon a 40-hour work week (1,920 hours per year).

We suggest that the language in Paragraph L.2.3(e)(5) be modified to match the language in Paragraph B.3.1(a) to provide consistency with a contractors CAS Disclosure Statements.

Response:
All price proposals should be based on 1920 hours. The RFP language has been revised before release.

Question: 5 Pages: 2,40 Para.B.3.1, H.29
Attach J4
For the purpose of determining Government site rates, what are the assumed CONUS work locations?

Response:
Washington Capital Region and Clarksburg, West Virginia.

Question: 6 Page(s): 2, 85 Para.B.3.1, L.2.3.e.5
The use of uncompensated overtime is not encouraged.

L The use of uncompensated overtime is not allowed.

Question: Section B does not use the same language on this subject as that found in Section L.
Are we correct in assuming that the use of uncompensated overtime is disallowed?

Response:
Uncompensated overtime will not be allowed under the BOSS-U contract.

Question: 7 Page: 7 Para.C.1.2
There appears to be some functional category overlap between BOSS-U and BOSS-R, specifically in the management support and technology management areas. How will the Government determine which vehicle will be used for task orders falling in the overlapping areas?

Response:
Normal procedures will be followed in accordance with the DFAR, AFAR, FAR and local policies by each Task Order Contracting Officer to determine if the Level of Effort of a TO is suitable for Small Business.

Question: 8 Page: 8 Para.C.2.1
Please clarify scope of the services expected under the bullet transformation.

Response:
Support the transition/transformation of DoD Biometrics capabilities, standards, policies, and architectures.

Question: 9 Page: 8 Para.C.2.1 - C.2.6
All six functional categories contain sub-functional items.

While the sub-functional elements further delineate the elements within a particular functional category, we suggest that clarifying text be added for each sub-function to minimize uncertainty and potential duplication, while ensuring that proposals meet requirements and expectations.
Response:
Comment has been noted.

Question: 10 Page: 9 Para.C.2.2
The list of anticipated activities for Functional Category 2 includes Incidental construction, component/system certification. Are we correct in assuming that these are two separate functional activities?

Response:
Correct, the elements should be under separate bullets. The RFP has been modified to reflect the error.

Question: 11 Page: 12 Para.D.1
D.1 Packing, Packaging, Marking and Storage of Equipment states:

All initial packing, marking and storage incidental to shipping of equipment to be provided under this contract shall be at the Contractors expense.

This ID/IQ may require the shipping of significant amounts of equipment overseas.

Question- Can this requirement be addressed at the Task Order level, to account for these projects?

Response:
Section D.1 has been changed in the RFP to read All initial packing, marking and storage incidental to shipping of equipment to be provided under this contract shall be at the Contractors expense, unless otherwise determined at the Task Order level.

Question: 12 Page: 13 Para.E.1
Will the Government consider tailored acceptance criteria for each task order?

Some examples on the need for flexibility- The 30 days to correct a rejected product may not be in the Governments best interest for fast-moving projects. A systems integration task order should be measured on verifiable interfaces created and utilized. A product should be measured on the degree to which it complies with a relevant specification

Response:
As stated in E.1.c, (c) The Government requires a period not to exceed thirty (30) days after receipt of final deliverable item(s) for inspection and acceptance or rejection, unless otherwise specified in the individual TO.

Question: Section G.2.4
Contractors Program Manager states: The Program Manager shall act as the central point of contact with the Government for all program-wide technical issues, and will represent the Contractor at all post-award status meetings.

Does this apply only to ID/IQ-level (Master Agreement level) status meetings, or to both ID/IQ-level and Task Order-level meetings?

Response:
Section G.2.4 will be clarified in the RFP. It is intended that the Program Manager shall be responsible for all issue resolution, program management, and other contract support including providing comprehensive account support for the BOSS-U contract and all Task Orders issued under the Contract.

Question: 14 Page: 29 Para.H.2
(a) Unless exempted by the Contracting Officer (KO), communications after contract award shall be transmitted via electronic mail (e-mail). This shall include all communication between the Government and the contractor except Classified Information. Return receipt will be used if a commercial application is available.
(b) The format for all communication shall be compatible with the following:
(1) Microsoft Word 2000 (Not to exceed 20 pages or megabyte).
(2) Microsoft Excel 2000 (Not to exceed megabyte).
(3) Microsoft PowerPoint 2000 for presentation slides.
(c) Files larger than 2 megabytes must use alternate means of transmission. (Note: This includes both the text message and the attachment). Large files can be submitted in disk format and mailed with the Contracting Officers approval.

What method of delivery is preferred for electronic files greater than megabyte but smaller than 2 megabytes?
processing, so that Proposals will be developed on a constrained timeline.

Response:
Limitations for size of electronic mail will be called out in Task Orders. Size constraints in H.2.b have been removed.

Question: 15 Page: 30 Para.H.4(b)
Paragraph H.4(b) states the following, The maximum cumulative dollar ceiling value of all contracts in this multiple award procurement is established at $497 maximum. However, the Solicitation Notice posted May 12, 2008 indicates $479M, while Solicitation Notice posted on May 23, 2008 indicates $498M.

Suggest the numbers be aligned to avoid confusion and to best manage expectations.

Response:
The correct contract ceiling value is $497 million

Question: 16 Page: 30 Para.H.4.b
This statement conflicts with the Boss-U Draft Request for Proposal Notice which states The total estimated value for the BOSS-U requirement is $479 Million.
Does the government intend to set the ceiling at $497 million or $479 million?

Response:
The correct contract ceiling value is $497 million

Question: 17 Page: 30 Para.H.4.b
There is a discrepancy between the contract ceiling value listed in the RFP and the value listed in the May 12, 2008 FBO posting. Is the total contract value $497 million or $479 million?

Response:
The correct contract ceiling value is $497 million

Question: 18 Page: 35 Para.H.16
1. Please clarify what cross-teaming is allowable:
a. Is a single contractor allowed to participate on a team under both the Unrestricted and Restricted BOSS solicitations, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor?
b. Specifically, may a large business prime under the Unrestricted solicitation and also be a subcontractor to a small business under the Restricted solicitation?
c. Is a large business allowed to be a subcontractor under both solicitations?
d. May a business prime and sub on multiple teams under the same solicitation?

Response:
a. Yes
b. Yes
c. Yes
d. Yes

Question: 19 Page: 35 Para.H.16
This section states that the contractor is encouraged to have non-exclusive access to multiple products and service providers. However, there is nowhere in the proposal for offerors to describe their corporate resources, including the business relationships they have in place to ensure access to multiple products and service providers. Please indicate where this information should be presented (with appropriate page allowances) and how it will be evaluated.

Response:
It is up to the offerors discretion if and where they may wish to address this in their proposal.


Question: 20 Page: 35 Para.H.16.a
The referenced section states Prime Contractors may subcontract with other Prime Contractors on an individual TO basis; however, the Government reserves the right to prohibit Prime Contractor teaming on an individual TO basis. On what basis might the Government prohibit Prime Contractor teaming?

Response:
Decisions regarding teaming arrangements after award will be made at the Task Order level.

Question: 21 Page: 35 Para.H.16.a
States that Prime Contractors may subcontract with other Prime Contractors on an individual TO basis; however, the Government reserves the right to prohibit Prime Contractor teaming on an individual TO basis. We expect that the Government will have an expeditious process for Task Order processing, so that Proposals will be developed on a constrained timeline.
Question- Will the Government provide a timeframe in which they would notify the contractor for allowing one PRIME contractor to team with another PRIME contractor on Task Orders?

Response:
Due dates for proposal submission is at the discretion of the Task Order Contracting Officer.

Question: 22 Page: 35 Para.H.16.b
The referenced section states The Contractor is also encouraged to have nonexclusive access to multiple product and service providers. This statement appears to encourage subs to team with many prime bidders non-exclusively, which could result in many teams consisting of the same key product and service providers. With little to differentiate the teams from one another, we are unclear what benefit the Government may realize by allowing non-exclusivity to this extent. Could the government explain the purpose/objective of this provision?

Response:
Under an exclusive arrangement the Government may not be able to provide awardees a fair opportunity to compete for Task Order awards.

Question: 23 Page: 35 Para.H.17
The subcontracting goals stated in this section are different than the goals stated in Section M. Please indicate which set of goals is the correct set.

Response:
The goals displayed in section M are correct. This reference will be modified.

Question: 24 Page: 35 Para.H.17
Under section H.17, the mandatory small business contracting goal is listed as 25%. Do the small business subs (of the prime with NAICS 541611 bidding the effort) have to fit under the NAICS code of 541611 to be a part of meeting this goal? For example, if a sub has a NAICS code of 541710, would the subs work be considered as part of the 25% goal?

Response:
I have been advised by our Small Business Specialist that the subs work would be considered as part of the 25% goal.

Question: 25 Page: 35 Para.H.17(b)
Paragraph H.17(b) states, The Small Business Subcontracting Participation Plan reporting will be as required in Section G, Contract Management. This reporting is separate from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement as required for Contractors with a business size designation of large in accordance with Section I, FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alt II and DFARS clause 252.219-7003, Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts). The draft RFP requires specific small business subcontracting goals and cites FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Suggests the RFP be revised to allow DFAR clause 252.219.7004 be substituted for FAR clause 52.219-9.

Response:
Section H.17(b) has been removed, and section H.18 has been revised.

Question: 26 Page: 35 Para.H.20
H.20. Key Personnel states:
No changes in TO Key Personnel will be made unless the Contractor can demonstrate that the qualifications of prospective replacement personnel are equal to or better than the qualifications of the TO Key Personnel being replaced.

This may cause an unanticipated escalation if a position requires a Masters Degree and a contractor fills it with a person with a PhD. All further replacements must have a PhD, even though it may not be necessary for full performance of the work. This may impact timely fills and may not be in the Governments best interes.

Response:
The intent of the Government is to keep highly qualified personnel in key positions. TO Key personnel will be the responsibility of the TO Contracting Officer. Minimum qualifications of Key Personnel will be managed at the Task Order level.

Question: 27 Page(s): 35, 36, 80_ Para.H.20.1/2, L.2.2.1.b
Is the Program Manger considered the only Key Person for the IDIQ master contract?

If not, what are the criteria for being designated Key Personnel on the IDIQ master contract?

Response:
As of now, the Program Manager is the only identified Key Person for the ID/IQ master contract.

Question: 28 Page: 36 Para.H.20
The second paragraph on this page addresses key personnel designations and defines how key personnel are identified under TO responses. Specifically, subparagraph (b) states; Personnel whose resumes were submitted with the TO proposal. With the understanding that TO Statements of Work will vary in management, technical, and staffing requirements and a Contractors response to a TO may require justification of providing appropriate staff experience the referenced subparagraph would dictate that any resume included under a TO response would be declared a key personnel resource. As subparagraph (a) captures the ability for the government to designate key personnel positions for the TO and subparagraph (c) captures the ability for the government and contractor to negotiate key personnel positions, would the government consider deleting subparagraph (b)?

Response:
H.20 has been revised in the RFP.

Question: 29 Page: 42 Para.H.35
In Section H. 35 License Rights, the Government incorporates DFARS 252.227-7020, Rights in Special Works, which requires the contractor to assign copyrights of works first produced under this contract to the Government.

The draft RFP also incorporates DFARS 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data-Noncommercial Items, and 252.227-7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation. These provide the Government unlimited rights to the same IP.

We believe that the Government will want to promote the use of innovative technology in this contract. Past DoD-sponsored studies have indicated that the potential loss of IP rights has deterred companies, especially non-traditional DoD contractors and small businesses, from providing cutting-edge technologies to the Government. It is believed that as a general policy, contractors are permitted to retain ownership (e.g., title) of the IP that they develop or deliver under DoD contracts; and that normally DoD receives only a (nonexclusive) license to use that IP the scope of the license depends on the nature of the data, the relative source of funding for development, and negotiation between the parties. Additionally, the exact nature of the work to be performed under the contract is not fully known at this time and may vary greatly from an IP rights perspective.

Question- Would the Government consider removing the DFARS 252.227-7020, Rights in Special Works, from the Master Agreement and invoke this only when needed, on an individual Task Order basis?

Response:
This clause will remain in Section H.35 of the RFP.

Question: 30 Page: 46 Para.H.43.d.2
H.43 Continued Performance during Support of Crisis Situations, Contingency or Exercise (d)(2) states:

If a Contractor employee departs an area of operations without Contractor permission, the Contractor shall ensure continued performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. If the Contractor replaces an employee who departs without permission, the replacement is at Contractor expense and must be in place within five days or as directed by the KO.

Providing a replacement in place in Iraq or a similar location within five days may not be possible due to CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) timelines, government transportation limitations, etc.

Question- Can the timeliness requirement be addressed at the Task Order level?

Response:
H.43.d..2 Language reads or as directed by the KO. Consequently, the TO KO can make a change as they determine necessary.

Question: 31 Page: 65 Para.H.16
Are we correct in assuming, for purposes of submitting a response to the IDIQ RFP, Prime Contractors may not be on other Prime Contractors teams?

Response:
There is no constraint precluding a Prime contractor being a sub-contractor on another Prime Contractor team.

Question: 32 Page: 71 Para.J-4
On the pricing template, category number 37 repeats the Quality Assurance Specialist as Level III on site and off site two times.

Should the second Quality Assurance Specialist instead be listed as either a level II or a level IV? Please clarify

Response:
Correction has been made to Quality Assurance Specialist Category in J-4 to identify levels as being II and III.

Question: 33 Page: 71 Para.J-4
The Labor Categories and Qualifications Education and Experience Level Matrix contain just one matrix for all labor categories exempt, nonexempt, and management. Level 1 requires only a High School diploma or GED Certification and 1 year of experience. For many of the exempt jobs, the RFP job descriptions start at Level I. It will be nearly impossible to find an Application Systems Analyst with just a High School Diploma and 1 year of experience. Industry expects a Bachelors degree.

Since we are mapping exempt and management categories based on the above logic, please clarify whether you will be updating the matrix in Attachment J-3 to more accurately to reflect industry? This guidance will save future confusion and help level the playing field in case other competitors are following the above matrix exactly as defined.

Response:
Comment has been noted.

Question: 34 Page: 73 Para.J-3
In the attachment J-3, Labor Category Table, there are no levels provided for the Facility Maintenance Tech and Facility Mgr (pages J3-5&6).

Question - If labor rates need to be provided, what is the minimum education and years of experience requirements for these positions?

Response:
A change has been made to J-3 to identify the appropriate qualification levels.

Question: 35 Page: 73 Para.J3-1/12
Section J - List of Attachments on page 73 of the DRFP lists attachment J-3 as Pricing Table. However, the actual attachment provided shows J3-1 as Labor Categories and Qualifications.

Suggest renaming the J3 Pricing Table entry on page 73 to match the J3-1 page, titled Labor Categories and Qualifications.

Response:
Changes have been incorporated to Section J of the RFP.

Question: 36 Page: 73 Para.J4-1/11
Section J - List of Attachments on page 73 of the DRFP lists attachment J4 as Pricing Model. However, the actual attachments provided shows J4-1 as Price Table.

Suggest renaming the J-4 Pricing Model entry on page 73 to match the J4-1 page, titled Price Table.

Response:
Changes have been incorporated to Section J of the RFP.

Question: 37 Page(s): 79, 82 Para.L.1.d, L.2.2.3
The proposal content table shown on page 79 of the draft RFP shows that the maximum number of pages allowed for Part 4 Small Business Participation Plan is 5. Paragraph L.2.2.4 requires the following to be included in Part 4 of the proposal: (1) percentage of subcontracts planned for, (2) ACO rating, SF295 information, etc., and (3) a Small Business Participation Plan containing the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. Please clarify in the final RFP which portions of the material required to be submitted as part of Part 4 Small Business Participation are counted in the allotted 5 pages, or it is recommended the Maximum Number of Pages shown in the Proposal Content table on page 79 for Part 4 be changed to read no limit.

Response:
Page limit for Small Business Participation Plan has been changed to 15 pages.

ADVISORY MULTI-STEP NOTIFICATION


BIOMETRICS OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT SERVICES-UNRESTRICTED (BOSS-U)

Request for Corporate Qualifications

1.0 Description
This Advisory Multi-Step (AMS) requests corporate qualifications from offerors responding to the Biometrics Operations and Support Services-Unrestricted (BOSS-U) acquisition, Request for Proposal W91QUZ-08-R-0032. This pre-solicitation notice requests information from prospective offerors allowing the BTF/ITEC4 evaluation team to determine the likelihood of each respondents ability to provide the services and supplies needed to fulfill the BTFs BOSS-U requirements. Based on an evaluation of each prospective offerors response to this notice, the firm will be notified as to whether they are considered a viable competitor for the BOSS-U contract. Notification of a prospective offerors non viability is advisory, and respondents so notified can submit proposals should they elect to do so.
The authority and basis for conducting the Advisory Multi-Step process is contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.202. The FAR describes the process as follows:

FAR 15.202 - Advisory Multi-Step Process.

(a) The agency may publish a pre-solicitation notice (see 5.204) that provides a general description of the scope or purpose of the acquisition and invites potential offerors to submit information that allows the Government to advise the offerors about their potential to be viable competitors. The pre-solicitation notice should identify the information that must be submitted and the criteria that will be used in making the initial evaluation. Information sought may be limited to a statement of qualifications and other appropriate information (e.g., proposed technical concept, past performance, and limited pricing information). At a minimum, the notice shall contain sufficient information to permit a potential offeror to make an informed decision about whether to participate in the acquisition. This process should not be used for multi-step acquisitions where it would result in offerors being required to submit identical information in response to the notice and in response to the initial step of the acquisition.

(b) The agency shall evaluate all responses in accordance with the criteria stated in the notice, and shall advise each respondent in writing either that it will be invited to participate in the resultant acquisition or, based on the information submitted, that it is unlikely to be a viable competitor. The agency shall advise respondents considered not to be viable competitors of the general basis for that opinion. The agency shall inform all respondents that, notwithstanding the advice provided by the Government in response to their submissions, they may participate in the resultant acquisition.

2.0 Introduction
The BTF, in coordination with the Information Technology, E-Commerce, and Commercial Contracting Center (ITEC4), is seeking qualified offerors to support the DoD Biometrics Program.

The Army is seeking offerors who are willing to partner with the Army to meet its mission. Per DoD Directive 8521.01E the BTF serves to act as the DoD proponent for biometrics, providing biometrics research, technology, and information management support to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commanders, the Military Services, the Defense Agencies, and other DoD Field Activities, as required. As such it:

1) Provides for the standardization of biometric data formats, technical interfaces, conformance methodologies, performance evaluations, and other related areas to permit interoperability, both internal and external to the DoD.
2) Develops and maintain the policy, processes, and procedures for the collection, processing, transmission, archiving, caching, and tagging of biometrics data and associated intelligence.
3) Develops the DoD Biometrics vision and strategy, in concert with the Military Services, Joint Staff, and Office of the Secretary of Defense.
4) Provides a means for unified acquisition and procurement of common biometrics systems and equipment.
5) Administers the DoDs Biometrics governance structure to enable the development and execution of common requirements, standards, architectures, and research and development initiatives to support common and joint requirements.
6) Manages authoritative DoD repositories of biometrics samples and acts as a hub for biometrics data sharing, to include providing for continuity of operations and disaster recovery in accordance with ASD(NII/CIO).
7) Coordinates all Biometrics program activities with identity protection and stakeholder organizations to ensure consistency with DoD identity management principles, directives, and vision.
8) Conducts Biometrics Science and Technology, research and engineering for DoD, and other US Government sponsors in support of the DoD S&T roadmap.
9) Designs, builds, fields, and sustains Biometrics solutions both in CONUS and OCONUS facilities.

The BOSS-U acquisition will be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation. Performance-based contracting (as described in FAR Part 37.6) is the preferred method for acquiring services.
The DoD intends issue multiple awards, for a performance-based, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract. The resulting contract has an estimated value of $498 million, and will have a three year base period with two one-year options. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the BOSS-U acquisition is 541611 (Administrative and General Management) under Sector 54 - Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. The offeror will be required to support up to TOP SECRET security clearance.

3.0 BOSS-U Scope
The scope of this acquisition has been defined in broad terms to support the expansive mission of the Biometrics requirement, but with sufficient detail to allow vendors to ascertain BTF Biometrics program requirements. The Contractor shall provide the full range of biometric services, technical and management expertise, and solution-related enabling products in one or more of the functional categories to meet the mission needs of the BTF. While the requirement identifies six functional categories, the suite of resulting contracts is intended to satisfy the full range of biometric related requirements. With the pace of change it is impossible to anticipate how biometric requirements and individual programs will evolve over the life of the contracts. It is intended that the BOSS-U contract remains current and continues to provide the full range of biometrics capabilities/solutions and emerging technologies throughout its life.

Functional Categories
The Contractor shall furnish the full range of solutions and services necessary to meet requirements of this contract and individual Task Orders (TOs) as related to the functional categories described below. Services and supplies will be provided in support of current and emergent biometrics modalities. All solutions and services must meet BTF, DoD, and commercial policies, standards, and procedures as identified by individual TOs.

Functional Category 1 Management Support Services
The Contractor shall provide, as ordered, the full range of business and technical management services need to support on-going program management and supporting technical activities. Anticipated services under this functional category include but are not limited to:
* Acquisition management support
* Enterprise architecture engineering
* Liaison services
* Logistics engineering
* Organization change management
* Performance management
* Program management office support
* Policy, procedure, guideline, directive and standards development
* Portfolio management
* Quality assurance
* Communications management
* Requirements management
* Resource management
* Risk management
* Budget, finance, cost analysis
* Studies and analysis
* Subject Matter Expert (SME) engineering
* Strategic planning
* Transformation
* Business case development
* Business process re-engineering
* Compliance assessments
* Configuration management.

Functional Category 2 Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, Implementation, and Integration
The Contractor shall provide any and all phases of system/hardware procurement, design, development, integration, and deployment in order to ensure that BTF biometrics solutions will enable their users to meet their mission goals and objectives. Anticipated services under this functional category include development, implementation, integration and procurement of solutions. Anticipated services under this functional category includes but are not limited to:
* Infrastructure engineering design
* Requirements definition and analysis
* Concept planning and development
* Systems design and development
* System Test and Evaluation
* Software/hardware procurement, integration, implementation
* Deployment
* Incidental construction, component/system certification
* Training services

Functional Category 3 Operations and Maintenance
The Contractor shall provide any and all Operations and Maintenance (O&M) solutions, processes, and procedures necessary to sustain systems within the BTF Enterprise at the highest levels of service and availability consistent with cost, schedule, and performance objectives. These solutions, which may be required across the BTF infrastructure include, but are not limited to:
* System operations
* Field support services
* Network and security operations
* Collaboration services
* Infrastructure sustainment
* Technology insertion program
* Technology refresh program
* Life cycle maintenance
* Configuration management
* Training
* Facilities management
* Facility security

Functional Category 4 Studies and Analysis
Contractors will conduct in-depth research on the use of biometrics to address new challenges that have not been addressed previously or by the marketplace. They may be required to develop novel approaches to produce critical solutions to unique identity management problems. They may conduct analytical research into social impacts of biometrics such as privacy laws and their effect on the use of biometrics and other trends and patterns effecting acquisition and deployment of biometrics world wide. Anticipated services under this functional category include but are not limited to:
* Vulnerability assessments
* Technology evaluation
* Deployment and operational deployment analysis
* Architectural studies
* Logistics/supportability examination
* Engineering analysis
* Cost assessments

Functional Category 5 Advanced Technology Analysis and Demonstration
The Contractor shall provide expertise to support the integration of proven newer biometrics technologies into current DoD applications and to support the upgrading of existing application to meet current industry standards. Anticipated services under this functional category include but are not limited to:
* Requirements analysis and validation
* Concept of operations development
* Technology Evaluation
* Proof of Concept system/hardware development, procurement, integration
* Transition to acquisition and fielding planning and support
* Tactics, techniques and procedures coordination and preparation
* Biometrics Transformation/Transition analysis and plans
* Capabilities demonstration and verification
* Cost Effectiveness Evaluation
* Vulnerability Assessment and testing

Functional Category 6 Test and Evaluation
The Contractor shall provide the services and resources needed to support the biometrics test and evaluation planning, conduct, evaluate and documentation as required by applicable Task Orders. These efforts, which may be required across the BTF infrastructure include, but are not limited to:
* Develop test programs, plan, and procedures, reports
* Hardware and software component testing
* Subsystem and software component testing
* System compatibility testing
* Acceptance testing
* Functional testing
* Integration testing
* Full qualification testing
* Field-testing and evaluation
* Environmental tests and stress screening

4.0 Advisory Multi-Step
The AMS is being conducted to allow potential offerors to submit qualifying documentation demonstrating their corporate qualifications that will allow the Government to advise them about their potential to be viable competitors for a specific acquisition. The AMS process is accomplished at minimal cost to the vendors and government by asking the vendors to submit limited information that focuses on the vendors corporate capability and experience. The Government will evaluate all responses in accordance with the published criteria, and advise each offeror in writing whether they will be invited to participate in the resultant acquisition or, based on the information submitted, they are unlikely to be a viable competitor (including a general basis for that opinion). Notwithstanding the advice provided by the government, respondents identified as unlikely to be viable competitors may still participate in the resultant acquisition, as long as they recognize the inherent risks of doing so.

5. Submission Instructions
5.1 Offeror Questions
The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is William L. Giles, 703-325-5770, william.L.giles@us.army.mil. Please contact the above for any questions pertaining to this corporate qualifications request.
5.2 Format for Submissions
Potential offerors are requested to provide the information outlined below. Information beyond that requested is neither desired, nor will it be considered in the assessment.
All page limitations are based on single sided pages, 8 X 11 inch paper, single spaced, Arial or Times New Roman typeface no smaller than 12-point (smaller fonts are acceptable for graphics, figures, tables, footnotes and legends), 1 margins. Costly, complex presentations are neither required nor desired. Offerors will not be reimbursed for the cost of preparation of response to this AMS notice.
5.2.1 Submission Date, Time and Location
Electronic submissions shall be received no later than 4:00 p.m. EST on 12 June 2008 at the following email address william.L.giles@us.army.mil.
5.3 Content Requirements
All submissions must include the information described in Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.3.
The response must be sufficient to permit an assessment of all criteria.
5.3.1 Corporate Capability
Provide a three-page corporate capability statement discussing why your company is well qualified to perform on the BOSS-U acquisition to include topics such as: organizational structure (to include company size, and facility security level); management philosophy (to include methodology for employee recruitment, training, and retention); team management; and geographical scope, to include whether the Company has facilities to support a broad geographical scope (CONUS, OCONUS, and specifically provision of services in Washington Capital Area and Clarksburg, WV). Does respondent posses NAICS Code 541611?
5.3.2 Experience
The respondent shall identify contracts on which they or their team has at least 12 months experience during the past three years. The functional categories as provided in paragraph 3.0 must be addressed in the discussion of past experience. Not all functional categories need to be addressed by a single contract. Each contract identified shall have at least a $500,000 annual dollar value (includes equipment and services). The contracts identified shall demonstrate the respondents performance or responsibility for performance of the functional categories (as further defined by the sub-functional areas) as stated in para 3.0 of this document.
a) For each identified contract, provide the following (this information may be provided in table format): PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED.
* Contract number
* Contract name
* Contract type
* Contract Period of performance
* Performance based (Y or N)
* Contracting Vehicle (i.e. ITES, GSA)
* Customer Agency (i.e. Army, other DoD, other Federal Agency (i.e. DHS, FAA)
* Total dollar value of contract that respondent, to include Team members, were responsible for; includes equipment and services
* Annual dollar value of equipment and services for each year
* Status on contract (prime or subcontractor)
* Geographic scope
* Summary of the contract (include depth and breadth of the work performed to include type of services performed under each functional categories as listed in para 3.0.)
* Customer Points of Contact. (i.e. the program/project manager, contracting officer and a major end-user). Name, phone number, and e-mail address.
b) Page limit for Experience is not to exceed 20 pages.
5.3.3 Company to Company Agreements

Use of Contractor Personnel in Support of the Advisory Multi-Step Evaluation
The Government may utilize Contractor employees in the Advisory Multi-Step Evaluation Process. They may have access to respondents-provided proprietary information provided in the Corporate Qualification submission. Respondents are required to enter into company-to-company agreements with the support Contractors, as provided in FAR 9.505-4(b), in accordance with which the support Contractors agree to protect the respondents proprietary information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary, and to refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Although the Government is not a party to these agreements between the companies, respondents must provide copies of such agreements to the Contracting Officer. The following Contractors will provide support for the evaluation:

Name of Company: Cogent Solutions
POC: Glen Adams
Company Address:
321 Wallace Street, Suite 2
Fredericksburg, VA 22401
Phone: (540) 372-7707
GAdams711@Cogent-2000.com

Name of Company: Engineering, Management & Integration Inc. (EM&I)
POC: James Fitzwilliam
Company Address:
455 Spring Park Place, Suite 350
Herndon, VA 20170
Phone: (703)742-0585
james.fitzwilliam@em-i.com

Name of Company: RTEC SERVICES LLC
POC: Barbara Romiti
Company Address:
8775 Centre Park Drive, #427
Columbia, MD 21045
Phone: 410-480-9830

Offerors shall submit 3 copies of the signed non-disclosure to the Contracting Officer with the Advisory Multi-Step submission.
Support Contractors are prohibited from participation in this acquisition, as an Offeror, or team member or subcontractor to an Offeror, including participation in the resulting contract as a subcontractor or team member.

6. Evaluation of the AMS CQP
The Government will evaluate viability based on an assessment of Corporate Capability and the depth of Experience in the functional categories.

7. Viability Notification
It is the Governments intent to provide advice to each respondent by letter whether or not considered to be a viable competitor. Viability notifications will be sent to respondents in advance of release of RFP.

BOSS-U DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NOTICE

Draft Request for Proposal W91QUZ8BOSSU was posted on 9 May 2008 puruant to the release of Request for Proposal (RFP) W91QUZ-08-R-0032. The Draft RFP can be found on the Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) website, at https://acquisition.army.mil/asfi/. Once at the ASFI website select, Contracting Opportunities Search, and in the Solicitation Number box enter W91QUZ8BOSSU. Scroll to the bottom of the page and select to continue. Double Click on W91QUZ8BOSSU-0000 to gain access to the Draft RFP and attached documents.

The Draft RFP will not be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

This requirement is to provide Biometrics services, supplies, and related hardware/software required to support the DoDs Biometrics program and implement/manage Biometrics solutions.

The Biometrics Task Force (BTF) in coordination with the Army Contracting Agency, Information Technology E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center (ITEC-4) intends to release an RFP for the Biometrics Operations and Support Services - Unrestricted (BOSS-U) requirement on 9 June 2008.

This Draft RFP is for informational purposes only. The Government will not accept offers as a result of this Draft RFP. Potential offerors are encouraged to provide constructive comments to the Draft RFP. In order for comments to be considered, they must be received prior to posting of the RFP. All comments to the Draft RFP should be directed via electronic mail to the Contracting Officer, William L. Giles at william.L.giles@us.army.mil. Offerors will not be reimbursed for submissions of comments.

This Draft RFP doesnt include Sample Task Orders and Price Model to be incorporated in the RFP.

This requirement will be to support the Department of Defenses (DoD) enterprise Biometrics goals. The BOSS-U acquisition will be conducted under full and open competition. Large businesses awarded contracts under BOSS-U will be required to establish and maintain a small business participation program.

A multiple award IDIQ type contract vehicle will be used to allow the flexibility to issue task orders for specific requirements while providing a competitive environment throughout contract performance. The BOSS-U contract will have a three-year base period with two, one-year option periods. The total estimated value for the BOSS-U requirement is $479 Million.

The acquisition will be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. Multiple awards are anticipated under this IDIQ contract vehicle. Individual task orders will be competed among all BOSS-U contract holders in accordance with FAR Part 16. Clauses will be contained in the IDIQ contracts to allow for the issuance of task orders on a FFP and T&M/LH, and Cost Reimbursable basis. The BOSS-U contract will be performance-based.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the BOSS-U acquisition is 541611 (Administrative and General Management) under Sector 54 - Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, with a small business size standard of $6,500,000.00.

All prospective offerors must have a Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE Code) and be actively registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at www.ccr.gov.

This notice serves to amend the Pre-Solicitation Notice issued on 14 March 2008, for solicitation W91QUZ-08-R-0032.

The Biometrics Task Force (BTF) in coordination with the Army Contracting Agency, Information Technology E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center (ITEC-4) intends to release a Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Biometrics Operations and Support Services - Unrestricted (BOSS-U) requirement. The Draft RFP will be posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, as W91QUZ8BOSSU. The Draft RFP is to be released by 9 May 2008.

This requirement will be to support the Department of Defenses (DoD) enterprise Biometrics goals. The scope of this acquisition encompasses all requirements for Biometrics services, supplies, and related hardware/software required to govern the DoDs Biometrics program and implement/manage Biometrics solutions.
The BOSS-U acquisition will be conducted under full and open competition, and provide the means of acquiring the services and supplies needed to support the BTFs Biometrics program. Large businesses awarded contracts under BOSS-U will be required to establish and maintain a small business participation program.
A multiple award IDIQ type contract vehicle will be used to allow the flexibility to issue task orders for specific requirements while providing a competitive environment throughout contract performance. The BOSS-U contract will have a three-year base period with two, one-year option periods. The total estimated value for the BOSS-U requirement is $479 Million.

The acquisition will be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. Several awards will be made to contractors under this multiple award IDIQ contract vehicle. Individual task orders will be competed among all BOSS-U contract holders in accordance with FAR Part 16. Clauses will be contained in the IDIQ contracts to allow for the issuance of task orders on a FFP and T&M/LH, and Cost Reimbursable basis. The BOSS-U contract will be performance-based.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the BOSS-U acquisition is 541611 (Administrative and General Management) under Sector 54 - Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, with a small business size standard of $6,500,000.00.

It is projected that the solicitation will be released approximately thirty days from posting of the Draft RFP. All prospective offerors must have a Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE Code) and be actively registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at www.ccr.gov.

Vendors may access information and documentation regarding the BOSS-U acquisition through the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, http://www.fedbizopps.gov/. If you require assistance with the FBO website please call 877-472-3779 or email fbo.support@gsa.gov.

The Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA) in coordination with the Army Contracting Agency (ACA), Information Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center (ITEC4), intends to release a Draft Request For Proposal (RFP) for the Biome tric Operations and Support Services-Unrestricted (BOSS-U) requirement. This requirement will be to support the Department of Defenses (DoD) enterprise Biometrics goals. The scope of this acquisition encompasses requirements for Biometrics services, sup plies, and related hardware and software required to govern the DoDs Biometrics program and implement/manage Biometrics solutions.

The BOSS-U acquisition will establish a multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract vech icle. The contract will be solicited through full and open competition. Large businesses awarded contracts under BOSS-U will be required to establish and maintain a small business participation program.

It is projected that the functional and sub- functional areas will be as follows:

Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, & Integration
Requirements definition and analysis
Concept planning and development
Systems design and development,
System/Hardware Procurement
I ntegration, implementation, and deployment
Incidental Construction
Component/System Certification
Training

Management Support Services
Acquisition Support
Enterprise Architecture
JCIDS Support
Liaison Services
Logistics En gineering
Organization Change Management
Performance Management
PMO support
Policy, Procedure, Guideline, Directive and Standards Development
Portfolio Management
Quality Assurance
Communications Management
Requirements ManagementResource Management
Risk Management
Budget, Finance, Cost Analysis
Studies and Analysis
Biometrics SME Engineering
Biometrics Strategic Planning
Biometrics Transformation
Business Case Development
Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR)
Compliance Assessment
Configuration Management

Operations and Maintenance
System Operations
Help Desk
Field Support Services
Network and Security Operations
Collaboration Services
Infrastructure sustainment (maintai ning/upgrading of hardware and software)
Technology Insertion Program
Technology Refresh Program
Life Cycle Maintenance
Configuration Management
Training
Facilities Management
Facility Security Management

Studies and AnalysisArchitectures
Logistics/Supportability
Technology
Engineering
Financial
Operations

Advance Technology Demonstration
Requirements analysis and validation
Concept of operations development
Technology Evaluation
Proof of C oncept system/hardware development, procurement, integration
Transition to acquisition and fielding planning and support
Tactics, techniques and procedures coordination and preparation
Biometrics Transformation/Transition analysis and plans
Cap abilities demonstration and verification
Cost Effectiveness Evaluation
Vulnerability Assessment and testing

Test and Evaluation
Develop test programs, plan, and procedures, reports
Hardware and software component testing.
Subsystem a nd software component testing
System compatibility testing
Acceptance testing
Functional testing
Integration testing
Full qualification testing
Field-testing and evaluation
Environmental tests and stress screening

A multiple awa rd ID/IQ type contract vehicle will be used to allow the flexibility to issue task orders for specific requirements while providing a competitive environment throughout contract performance. The BOSS-U contract will have a five-year base period with two, two-year option periods. The total estimated value for the BOSS-U requirement is $1.4 billion.

The acquisition will be conducted under Federal Acquis ition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. Several awards will be made to contractors under this multiple award ID/IQ contract vehicle. The BOSS-U contract will be performance-based. Individual task orders will be competed among all BOS S-U contract holders in accordance with FAR Part 16. Clauses will be contained in the ID/IQ contracts to allow for the issuance of task orders on a FFP and T&M/LH, and Cost Reimbursable basis.

The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code for the BOSS-R acquisition is 541611 (Administrative and General Management) under Sector 54 - Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, with a small business size standard of $6,500,000.00.

NOTE: The Government intends to utiliz e an Advisory Multi-Step process in accordance with FAR 15.202 to allow the Government the opportunity to advise offerors about their potential to be viable competitors. In order to participate in the Advisory Multi-Step process, potential prime contracto rs will respond to the Governments forthcoming request to submit qualifying documentation demonstrating their experience and capabilities.

The Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) is projected to be released on 8 April 2008 along with the Advisory Mult i-Step requirements. Submissions will be due on 7 May 2008. The Government will release viability notifications on 26 May 2008. These dates are subject to change.

All prospective offerors must have a Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE Co de) and be actively registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at www.ccr.gov.

Vendors may access information and documentation regarding the BOSS-U acquisition through the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, http://www.fedbiz opps.gov/, or directly on the Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) website, https://acquisition.army.mil/. To obtain pertinent information updates and notices to the acquisition as it progresses, please go to the ATTACHMENTS link located at the bottom of t he solicitation view page on the ASFI webpage. Each time information is updated on ASFI, the AMENDMENT NUMBER is incremented by one. If you require assistance with the FBO website please call 877-472-3779 or email fbo.support@gsa.gov.

To facili tate subcontracting, vendors seeking to act as subcontractors may provide their company name, POC, email, and phone number, and ask to be listed on the FBO website.

The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is William L. Giles:

Army C ontracting Agency/ITEC4
2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Room 984
Alexandria, VA 22331-1700
Phone: (703) 325-5770
E-mail: william.L.giles@us.arm y.mil:
FAX: (703) 428-9866