MODIFICATION
R -- Defense Threat Reduction Agency / CTR A&AS Support Services
- Notice Date
- 1/7/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541990
— All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Headquarters), DTRA Annex, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MSC 6201, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 22060-6201
- ZIP Code
- 22060-6201
- Solicitation Number
- HDTRA1-10-R-0003
- Point of Contact
- Michael B. Donaldson, Phone: 7037672993, Mark A. Thompson, Phone: 703-767-1760
- E-Mail Address
-
ctraas@dtra.mil, ctraas@dtra.mil
(ctraas@dtra.mil, ctraas@dtra.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- DRAFT SOLICITATION QUESTIONS and ANSWERS Question/Comment 1: Reference Section L.4.3. There is a reference to a form called Attachment L1. This attachment is not included as part of the draft. L-1 is critical to offerors ability to begin the development of our Past Performance section and having the template in advance of the final RFP will allow offerors to take advantage of the time between the draft RFP and final proposal submission to build our Past Performance responses using the Government directed format. Has this document been developed by the Government? If so we would request that the Government release it as soon as possible. Government Response: The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Attachment L-1 is currently being tailored for this solicitation and will be made available on FedBizOps for all interested offerors as soon as it becomes available. Question/Comment 2: Are second-tier subcontractors permitted, and, if so, how will the size status of said 2nd-tier subcontractors affect the attainment of socioeconomic subcontracting goals? Government Response: Second-tier subcontractors are certainly permitted on DTRA contracting opportunities, but for the purpose of the subject solicitation they will not count toward a prime offeror's subcontracting/socio-economic goal. Offerors must note that the stated DTRA subcontracting/socio-economic goals are tied to the prime offeror through its first-tier subcontractors. Question/Comment 3: Reference L.3.3.3.1. requires that ‘all personnel be identified by labor category, a description of the position, skill level associated with the position,' etc. Even using the smallest allowable font, a table providing this information would be extremely lengthy and would take away needed space from the explanation of the technical approach. We recommend that the personnel response required by L.3.3.3.1 be outside the page limits for Volume II. Government Response: The Government will allow unlimited pages for the labor chart required under Section L.3.3.3.1. The final RFP will update Section L.1.2 with the revised page limitations. Question/Comment 4: Reference M.2.3. Evaluation subfactors to Factor 1 are referred to as subfactors A-E and subfactors 1-5. To provide clarity in the required cross-reference matrix that the Offeror provides with the proposal, could the Government define which notation they prefer? Government Response: The Government will revise the subfactors for Factor 1 to reflect subfactors A-E. This revision will be included in the final RFP. Question/Comment 5: Reference SOO 2.1, 2.2, 2.3; L.1.2, (Table 1-2); L.3.3.3.1 (first sentence). Section L asks that the offeror 'express its technical understanding and approaches to performing all technical objectives as delineated in the SOO.' The SOO is a comprehensive document that delineates 31 tasks, many of which require a detailed explanation. Section L also defines additional information requirements to be included in the proposal. For the offeror to provide the government with a description of its capabilities detailed enough to facilitate a thorough evaluation, we recommend that the page limit for the Technical Approach section of the Mission Capability volume be increased. Government Response: The Government will allow a total of 20 pages for technical approach. This change will be reflected in Section L.1.2 in the final RFP. Question/Comment 6: Reference M.2.4.1, L.3.3.2.1. M.2.4.1, last paragraph, states that the commitment to socio-economic goals will be evaluated as part of the Mission Capability volume. However, the corresponding instruction at L.3.3.2.1 does not require this subject be addressed there. Instead, socio-economic goals are covered in Volume I (L.2.12), and offeror's response in that volume may not be seen by the evaluators of Volume II. We suggest that offeror's socio-economic goals be evaluated as part of the evaluation of Volume I. Alternatively, to save space in a severely page limited proposal, would the Government permit a brief cross-reference from the offeror's response to Volume II, directing the evaluator to Volume I? Government Response: Yes, Offerors may cross-reference Volume I as part of their Volume II socio-economic response. See L.1.3.10 that explains cross-references. Question/Comment 7: Reference L.2.7. To allow sufficient time for review and comment, we request that the proposed DD 254 be released in advance of the final RFP. Government Response: The Government will post the DD254 as soon as possible. Question/Comment 8: Reference L.1.2 (Table 1-2). To allow Offerors to provide present and past performance information sufficient to support a thorough evaluation, we request that the pages allowed for each reference be increased. Government Response: The Government will allow 4 pages per reference for Attachment L-1, as defined in Section L.4.3 and the table in L.1.2. The final RFP will be revised to reflect the changes to page allowance. Question/Comment 9: Reference SOO 2.3.6. SOO paragraph 2.3.6 describes specific capabilities required in the biological threat reduction program area. Specifically the requirement statement reads "Provide the capability to support the areas of...veterinary and public health system design and associated fields of study." Should the phrase 'associated fields of study' be interpreted to imply that capabilities are limited only to veterinary and public health systems? Government Response: The SOO paragraph 2.3.6 has been updated and revised to state: "Provide the capability to support the areas of disease surveillance, detection and diagnostics; laboratory operations; biological safety and security, infectious disease medicine, epidemiology, research development and oversight, to include human and veterinary user requirements; associated fields of study for veterinary and public health system designs, which would be beneficial to the Biological Threat Reduction Program." Question/Comment 10: Reference L.2.13. Paragraph b requires a statement in Volume I concerning OCI. Further, Section L.3.3.2.1 Management Plan also requires an OCI mitigation statement in Volume II. How do these requirements differ? Government Response: The OCI requirement in L.3.3.2.1 will be deleted. The Final RFP will reflect the change. Question/Comment 11: Reference L.3.3.5. Can the government provide relative time frames for the scenario to aid offerors in pricing the scenario? Government Response: The Sample Scenario will not be priced. Question/Comment 12: Reference M.2.4.1. One of the elements required to satisfy this factor is a OCI Mitigation Plan, vice statement as referred to in Sections L.2.13 and L.3.3.2.1. Is the use of the terminology Plan and Statement the same? If not, can the Government provide guidance on what is expected in the OCI Plan? Government Response: Please note that the Government will revise the OCI provision in the final RFP. Solicitation provisions L.3.3.2.1 and M.2.4.1 will be deleted. The remaining OCI provision, L.2.13, will require an offeror's statement as to whether an OCI (as defined in section FAR 9.5 "Organization and Consultant Conflicts of Interest") exists and whether a mitigation plan may be required. The offeror may elect to submit a mitigation plan with their proposal (offer) but, if there is an OCI, the Contracting Officer will require a mitigation plan prior to contract award. Question/Comment 13: Reference M.1.1 and M.2.2.1. Section M.1.1 states that Mission Capability has four (4) subfactors. Section M.2.2.1 shows five (5) subfactors listed under the Mission Capability factor. Are offerors correct in assuming that there are five (5) Mission Capability subfactors? Government Response: Section M.1.1 will be revised to reflect 5 subfactors. Question/Comment 14: Reference H, 52-234-4 Earned Value Management System (Jul 2009). Does DTRA intend to require the monthly submittal of full Contract Performance Reports as generated from a validated Earned Value Management System (EVMS)? Although the intended contract type is cost-reimbursable, the nature of the work appears to be overwhelmingly of the Level of Effort (LOE) type. The application of EVM on work that is LOE in nature typically is impractical and inefficient. If DTRA intends to tailor the EVMS requirement, what is the anticipated extent of the tailoring? Government Response: The EVMS requirement will be completely removed from the solicitation. Question/Comment 15: Reference L.2.13, L.3.3.2.1 (last bullet). The last paragraph in L.3.3.2.1 of the draft RFP implies that should a real or perceived OCI be identified and disclosed the Government may consider mitigation strategies to permit a contractor or subcontractor to continue the delivery of service provided the mitigation strategies are determined by the Contracting Officer to be adequate for the circumstance. Does this also apply to contractors and subcontractors providing services under the CTRIC and BTRIC contract vehicles? Government Response: See RFP clause H.6. Question/Comment 16: Reference Section H.6. In reference to paragraph H.6 which states "the Contractor and its subcontractors are precluded from participating directly or indirectly as contractors or subcontractors on any other contracts which provide support to Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate of DTRA..." Is it correct to assume directly or indirectly means as a prime contractor or subcontractor at any tier and/or to perform as a contractor or subcontractor whereby the procuring agency is other than the CTR Directorate but the CTR Directorate is the end user or a 3rd party benefiting organization? Government Response: The intent of this clause is to limit the A&AS contractor from performing as a contractor of other procurements where CTR is the requiring activity (i.e. the organization generating the requirement or the "end user") The clause will be amended to read as follows: "The contractor and its subcontractors are precluded from participating, directly or indirectly, as a contractor or subcontractor on any other contracts where the Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is the requiring activity during the period of the A&AS contract or, in case of subcontractors, during the period they are subcontracted to this A&AS effort." Question/Comment 17: In some instances, Offerors may wish to submit Past Performance references for work they have been performing as a subcontractor. In some of these instances the Prime contractor may now be a competitor for this CTR A&AS solicitation. In order to avoid potential conflicts (such as bias) when submitting past performance references for subcontracted work, we assume the Government will allow Offerors to send their Past Performance Questionnaires directly to their Government points of contract instead of vetting them through the prime contractor. Is this assumption acceptable to the Government? Government Response: The subcontractors will send their PPQs directly to the Government POCs (end users), and not to the prime contractor. Question/Comment 18: Reference M2.4.2, Sub factor 2 Technical Approach (bullet 1 and 3) asks for offeror's to demonstrate an approach and process to assign personnel based on labor categories, skill level and qualifications to fulfill the requirements of the SOO. Bullet 2 references a comprehensive plan, it is our assumption that bullets 1 and 3 cover the comprehensive plan. Is our assumption correct or is there additional information that the Government is looking for in this section? If our assumption is correct we would recommend that bullet 2 be deleted as it is redundant. If our assumption is incorrect we request that the Government provide additional guidance/clarification on what additional information you want to have included as part of the comprehensive plan. Government Response: The Government will delete bullet 2 for consistency and clarity. Question/Comment 19: L.3.3.3.1 asks that all personnel be identified by labor category, a description of the position and skill level associated with the position. Since this table will take up a considerable amount of space we recommend that it be excluded from the 15 page limit. By excluding the table from the page count it will allow offerors to provide more detailed technical responses. Government Response: See response to Question 3 (labor chart is now unlimited pages) Question/Comment 20: Reference L.2.13. Pre-award Organization Conflicts of Interest is called out in Volume I. L.3.3.2.1. bullet 8 calls for an OCI mitigation statement. Recommend that L.3.3.2.1 bullet 8 be moved into Volume I to minimize cross referencing between the volumes. Government Response: See Question 12 response. Question/Comment 21: "The government has requested the contractor "provide a document management system and library to support the storage and retrieval of electronic and paper CTR documentation compliant with DoD Records Management procedures..." Does the Government expect that the tool used to support electronic records management is on the JITC PRODUCT REGISTER for DoD 5015.02-STD Records Management Compliance or is the existing Docushare system and paper records management procedures sufficient to meet the records management compliance requirement stated in 2.3.23? Government Response: The Government does not prescribe that the systems currently used for this purpose be maintained/continued by the successful Offeror. The Government requires expertise to: analyze current CT processes and procedures, determine if the current records management software system is optimal, make recommendations regarding potential courses of action to achieve compliance with relevant requirements, support execution of Government approved courses of action, and oversee future compliance. The government has no comment on whether a suitable records management system is on the JITC Product Register. The government will consider the recommendations provided by the contractor. Question/Comment 22: Reference SOO. What is the current level of A&AS effort supporting the CTR? Please provide a list of current A&AS contractor positions filled and unfilled with the following information: the mission area they support; the labor category; whether a security clearance/US citizenship is held or required; the place of their work assignment (on-site, off-site, at another Government agency, overseas at what site); specific language skill required; and current labor rate. Government Response: A response is being generated and will likely be posted by COB 08 Jan 2010. Question/Comment 23: Reference SOO L.3.3.2.1. Program Assistant is a generic but unclear description of a key staff position. Please clarify the role envisioned that a Program Assistant would perform Government Response: There is no SOO reference L.3.3.2.1. Section L.3.3.2.1 of the draft RFP refers to a lead Program Assistant. The government has determined that this is not considered a key staff position, and will be eliminated from the language of the final RFP. However, the current Program Assistant position traditionally has the responsibility for administrative functions performed on-site at DTRA headquarters. These activities include: cable coordination, correspondence assistance, providing quality control of products, travel coordination, task tracking, file management, translation coordination, report coordination, and schedule functions. Question/Comment 24: Reference SOO Paragraph 2.3.28. We assume the level of classification for discussions, meetings and materials handling at the contractor provided facility is Secret. Please confirm. Government Response: That information will be provided on the DD254. Question/Comment 25: Reference SOO Paragraph 2.1.12. CTR interacts with many US Government or non-government agencies in the accomplishment of its mission. Please provide a list of applicable MOUs or MOAs with those agencies. Government Response: CTR has no MOUs or MOAs in place pertaining to its provision of contractor support personnel to organizations outside of CTR. Question/Comment 26: Reference SOO Paragraph 2.3.31. requires "... an orderly, complete transition from the incumbent A&AS contractor, including preservation of and uninterrupted access to all program information stored and maintained in the incumbent's information/document management system." Will the Government provide details of the incumbents existing information/document management system? Can we assume that DTRA will provide "the incumbent's information/document management system" to the new contractor (or is it the intention to have the selected contractor implement a new management system?)? Government Response: The current information/document management system is a Commercial, Off-the-Shelf System, which will be provided to the successful Offeror upon contract award. However, the successful offeror is not obligated to use this software; recommendations to update the CTR IT support infrastructure will be considered. Question/Comment 27: Reference Section L. What is the difference between the "Technical Approach" (Section L.1.2) and the "Technical Plan" (L.3.3.3.1)? There are no other sub-sections called out in the L.3.3.3.1 Technical Approach, and the page limit does not support adequate discussion. We assume Technical Approach and Technical Plan are synonymous in this usage. Please confirm. Government Response: There is no difference. The single Subsections of Management Approach and Technical Approach will be removed to reduce confusion. The final RFP will reflect this change. Question/Comment 28: Reference Section L.4.3. Do Forms L-1 count against the two-page past performance limit? What is the page limit for Forms L-1? Government Response: See response to Question 8. Question/Comment 29: Reference Section L.3.3.2.1 Management Plan. Within the statement in the second paragraph "senior technical experts for all areas shall be identified," The term "all areas" is ambiguous but we presume it to be "each of the CT program areas". Can you provide clarification? Government Response: Depending on the approach taken by the Offeror, all areas could span CT, or could be specific to the divisions of CT. An example could be a technical expert in Systems Engineering, who could oversee all aspects of their expertise throughout CT, whereas an expert in veterinary medicine would likely be specific to the BTRP program area. Question/Comment 30: Reference Section L.3.3.4 Transition Plan. : A transition requires the participation of the outgoing incumbent. Please provide a copy of the incumbent's transition out plan or, if a specific transition out plan does not exist, a statement of transition out activities that the incumbent is contractually obligated to support. Government Response: The incumbent's "transition out plan" was placed on FedBizOps October 8, 2009, and will be transitioned to the final Solicitation announcement. Question/Comment 31: Reference Section L.5.1. Please clarify if information other than cost or pricing data is required. The first two sentences in the last paragraph of L.5.1 are confusing as to what is required now versus potentially some time in the future Government Response: Per the last paragraph in section L.5.1 the offeror is required to provide "information other than cost and pricing data" in response to the Final RFP. The paragraph goes on to state that if, after proposals have been received, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition did not occur and other exceptions do not exist (See FAR 15.403-1 (b)), the offeror may need to provide current, complete, and accurate cost or pricing data. However, until notified by the Contracting Officer, offerors should anticipate providing "information other than cost and pricing data" in their response to the RFP. Question/Comment 32 : Reference Section M Paragraph M.1.1, Basis for Contract Award. The first sentence cites the number of sub-factors for Mission Capability as "four (4)." Elsewhere it is cited as five (5) sub-factors, and five are listed in M.2.2.1. Please confirm the intent is to evaluate the five (5) Mission Capability factors in M.2.2.1. Government Response: See response to Question 13
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DTRA/DTRA01/HDTRA1-10-R-0003/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: The Defense Threat Reduction Center, 8725 John J Kingman Rd., Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, 22020-6201, United States
- Zip Code: 22020-6201
- Zip Code: 22020-6201
- Record
- SN02036978-W 20100109/100107235124-4801cbd939abfed76c4bc763a92dca52 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |