Draft RFP Q and A.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Management and Operation of Y-12 and Pantex Sites Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 89233220RNA000002

Draft RFP Questions & Answers

Answers to relevant questions received in response to NNSA Draft RFP are included below. NNSA has attempted to group questions by subject matter, including: Contents/Format of RFP/Proposals; Technical and Management Criteria – Generally; Past Performance Submission/Criterion; Site Organization and Key Personnel Submissions/Criterion; Small Business Issues; Price/Cost; Scope of Work; Labor Issues;

and Conflicts of Interest. Some questions submitted by prospective offerors related to multiple topics;

accordingly, prospective offerors should carefully read all responses in this document and not simply rely on topic headings. Finally, please note the answers are provided for the convenience of Offerors, and are not binding upon the Government. Notwithstanding the answers provided below, potential Offerors should refer to the final RFP released by NNSA.

Contents/Format of RFP/Proposals

1. RFP CONTENTS Reviewing the DRFP issues on 24 August we noticed that there are some documents missing:

All of the RFP sections other than J, L, and M An Excel file in the format you would like comments back to you

Note. The absence of some of these critical sections, especially Sections B, (Supplies or Services and Price/Cost), H (Special Contract Requirements), and I (Contract Clauses), are of particular concern. There are clauses within these sections that are required for industry to perform its due diligence, provide feedback, and often determine a bid or no bid conditions. Industry cannot wait until the final RFP to conduct this diligence, request clarification, and submit a compliant and compelling proposal under this constrained environment.

Please consider publishing the missing RFP Sections so that industry can provide meaningful feedback and endeavor to provide the best responses to this solicitation.

ANSWER: NNSA does not intend to release other sections of the RFP as “drafts” for comment prior to issuance of the RFP. Relevant documents will be released with the RFP, and Offerors will have an opportunity to ask further questions concerning the RFP.

2. Also, recognizing the short turn-around before site visits, will you be issuing B, H, K, G sections in order that the One-on-One’s might be properly informed?

ANSWER: See response to #1 above.

3. The Section L-31 is missing the Attachment Samples, inclusive of the expected Key Personnel commitment (yrs). Could you please publish the expected Key Personnel commitment time?

ANSWER: Section L attachments are incorporated in the RFP. Key Personnel commitment time is stated as 3 years under B-4 KEY PERSONNEL REPLACEMENT, and “Sec L Attachment G - Letter of Commitment.”

4. Transmittal Letter, Missing sections of the DRFP, industry input timeline, limited the response pages, page 1

Comment. The DRFP excluded critical section of an RFP: Sections B, (Supplies or Services and Price/Cost), H (Special Contract Requirements), and I (Contract Clauses). The absence of these critical sections are of grave concern. There are clauses within these sections that are required for industry to perform its due diligence, provide feedback, and often determine a bid or no bid conditions. Industry cannot wait until the final RFP to conduct this diligence, request clarification, and submit a compliant and compelling proposal under this constrained environment. Limited the response time to two weeks. Limited the response to three (3) pages.

Additionally, there are references to Section H-20. The current contract Section H does not extend that far, therefore using the current contract is not an accurate guide.

Recommendation. Please consider issuing a second RFI and publishing the missing RFP Sections so that industry can provide meaningful feedback and endeavor to provide the best responses to this solicitation and extend the review period in order for industry to provide feedback and extend the page count of the response.

ANSWER: Please refer to response to #1 above.

5. [REDACTED] reviewed sections L and M of the draft RFP and believe that the instructions are clear. To streamline the procurement, we offer 2 items for consideration. Both of these suggestions are to streamline the process and no changes are required to submit a compliant proposal.

i. We recommend that NNSA consider deleting the cross reference matrix (section L-11 and section L, attachment D). Cross reference matrices are generally associated with large complex proposals.

ii. We recommend that NNSA consider placing past performance information forms, resumes and letters of commitment in an appendix to the volume to place the page counted sections together.

ANSWER: The cross reference matrices are incorporated for ease of Government proposal review. Offerors shall arrange their proposals in accordance with the RFP instructions.

6. Would NNSA consider providing a draft past performance information form? In recent years, many agencies have made significant changes to past performance information requirements relating to affiliate information, as a result of GAO ruling in Language Select LLP, dba United Language Group B-415097, B-415097.2: Nov 14, 2017.

ANSWER: The past performance information form (PPIF) is provided with the RFP under Section L, Attachment E. Information related to affiliate past performance information is requested under Item 12b, if applicable.

7. Does NNSA plan to issue a full draft RFP? Will bidders have an opportunity to review and comment on the other sections of the RFP prior to the final RFP?

ANSWER: Please refer to the response to question #1 above.

8. The site visit includes sessions at both Y-12 and Pantex. Does NNSA envision different information presented at each site or are there 2 sessions with the same information to provide greater access by potential bidders?

ANSWER: Due to the amount of interest in this acquisition and COVID-related social distancing, the Government had to execute more site visit sessions in order to accommodate all interested parties safely. The same information was provided to all attendees during each site visit session and was also distributed publically on FedConnect, beta.sam.gov, and the NNSA RFP Website.

9. Discussions/Orals. L-15 states: “The Government reserves the right to engage in discussions with the proposed site manager and other key personnel as deemed appropriate.” Are these oral discussions referring to the weaknesses and deficiencies as presented earlier, or does the Government intend to hold additional discussions involving hypothetical questions (i.e., sample tasks) or other format?

Per L-14, NNSA intends to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions. Section L-12, however, states, “The Government reserves the right to request additional supporting information other than certified cost and pricing data if necessary to clarify the Government’s understanding of an offeror’s cost/price proposal. Such requests for additional information shall be considered “clarifications” as defined by FAR 15.306(a) and shall not be treated as “discussions” prior to the establishment of the competitive range.” Seeking supplemental cost/price information as “clarifications” is inconsistent with FAR 15.306, which states that clarifications may occur only when award without discussions is contemplated, and are for the purpose of clarifying certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Since NNSA states that they intend to conduct discussions, to ensure compliance with FAR 15.306, we recommend that all references to “clarifications” be removed.

ANSWER: The Government does not intend to include hypothetical questions during discussions. Contrary to the assertions above, the Government may (if it chooses) seek clarifications.

10. Site Visits and One-on-One Meetings. While Industry appreciates the opportunity for a site visit, we have concerns about participation in light of the current pandemic environment, particularly with travel to two separate locations and the need for confined spaces, such as buses for the tour.

As an alternative, we have participated in virtual tours (e.g., WebEx) and presentations (such as the site plan and facility-by-facility discussion) that have been proven quite successful on other recent DOE procurements. Allowing “attendees” to submit technical questions prior to the presentation will give the government time to prepare in advance. Regarding one-on-one meetings, we highly recommend that the government releases the remainder of the RFP so it can be considered during the discussion. In particular, Sections H, B, and L-31 Attachments would likely benefit the most from discussion in addition to what has already been released. These sections are also essential for planning, as certain items, like the duration of key personnel commitments, are important considerations.

ANSWER: Please refer to response to #1 above.

11. Announcement Y-12-Pantex IPT Process - Will the entire RFP be released as a draft before the final RFP? Allowing offerors to comment prior to the final RFP would be in the interest of both the Government and offeror.

ANSWER: Please refer to response to question #1 above.

12. Issue a Full Draft Solicitation to provide Industry the full view of what the NNSA Acquisition Strategy. This will provide Industry the ability to review, analyze, and make the necessary preparations to ensure a robust Competition.

ANSWER: Please refer to response to question #1 above.

13. General. Historically, One-on-One meetings with Industry after the Draft RFP have resulted in more clarity in the final RFP and provided industry and DOE with a perspective that is difficult to convey in a limited 3-page response. We suggest that NNSA conduct 1-hour industry one-on-one meetings to gather additional feedback and context to the draft review process.

ANSWER: The Government conducted one-on-one meetings with all interested parties on September 28-29, 2020.

14. "H Clause" COMMENT: The documents do not reference the "H" Clause for Business Systems but Sec J Appendix A does comment on 'business systems are efficiently and effectively operated and maintained'

ANSWER: The Draft RFP did not provide all RFP documents. Please refer to RFP Section B-H – Part I Schedule under H-11 ACCOUNTABILITY.

15. L-12 (b) SOW Technical inclusion - Will the oral discussions be teleconferenced using zoom-like technology? Or, could in fact, the orals be done by teleconference, correspondence/email?

ANSWER: The discussion method/platform has yet to be determined.

16. L-15 Orals - Details & Expectations - Section L-15 states that "Information discussed or presented during the Oral discussion will not be considered to be included in the Offeror's proposal". This is confusing since the Government earlier states during Oral discussions it intends to have an interactive dialogue with the Offeror to allow the Government to ask questions and discuss significant weakness, deficiencies and other aspects of an Offeror's proposal that could be altered to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award. Please clarify?

ANSWER: Information discussed or presented during the discussions will not be considered to be included in the Offeror's proposal unless specifically included in their final proposal revision submitted.

17. L-15 Orals Expectations - How long after oral will the final updated proposal be due?

ANSWER: Final Proposal Revision (FPR) timelines cannot be released at this time as they are dependent upon other milestones being met prior and may be altered to meet schedule requirements.

18. L-15 Orals Expectations - Does the 365-day commitment mean that the Contract transition will begin within 365 days and no later than the end of the 3rd qtr? ('22)?

ANSWER: L-16 OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD states “The minimum offer acceptance period is 365 calendar days after the required date for receipt of Offers.” The Government expects to make an award within 365 days after the receipt of proposals. This language does not mention contract transition. Contract transition is expected to be 4 months prior to the estimated start date of the contract.

19. L-15 IPT Process - What is the RFP Due Date?

ANSWER: All Offers and Proposal Information are due at the time (all times are Eastern) and date identified on the Standard Form (SF) 33 under block 9.

20. L-15 Oral Process - By releasing the draft RFP in sections, is NNSA planning on shortening the final RFP response time?

ANSWER: No; the Government does not intend to shorten the RFP response time.

21. L-15 IPT Process - When will the proposal debrief occur?

ANSWER: Proposal de-brief timelines cannot be released at this time as they are dependent upon other milestones being met.

22. L-16 IPT Process - When is the expected award date? Clarification Process for purpose of final award.

ANSWER: The Government requires the Offeror proposals to be valid for up to 365 days and the Government intends to make an award prior to the expiration of proposals, and without extending the current contract.

23. L-9 IPT Process - To clarify the timing, what is the IPT process for the purpose of getting to a final award?

ANSWER: The Government does not plan to share the individual steps “for the purpose of getting to a final award.” Please see response to #22 above.

24. L-9 IPT Process - How much time is NNSA planning to allow offerors to respond to the final

RFP?

ANSWER: Currently, proposals are due date on January 04, 2021 which equates to approximately 56 days.

25. Announcement Y-12-Pantex IPT Process - Will the entire RFP be released as a draft before the final RFP? Allowing offerors to respond with comments before the final RFP and before the one-on-one’s would be in the interest of both the Government and Offeror?

ANSWER: See response to #1 above.

26. Announcement Y-12-Pantex IPT Process - Should offerors expect other sections of the RFP, such as section B, H, I, and J details and K, to be released for comment and prior to the One-on-Ones?

ANSWER: Please refer to response under #1 above.

27. L - 30 IPT Process - Is submittal of intent to bid ten days prior to the due date of the RFP a requirement for the RFP? If so, why the requirement?

ANSWER: The submittal of intent to bid ten days prior to the due date of the RFP is not a requirement in order to bid. The Government has requested prospective offerors submit this information as it is helpful to provide the Government advanced notice of interested Offerors prior to the proposal due date.

28. L-12(b) Sharing in Savings - Please clarify whether the oral discussion that will not provide for written exchange means in this pandemic environment that the Oral discussions will take place in person, in the same room with all the necessary PPE and two weeks quarantining and rigorous testing required?

ANSWER: See response to #15 above.

29. L-12(b) SOW Inclusion or Incentive Fee - If there will be Orals, when / within how many days of the RFP due date?

ANSWER: NNSA notes that there will not be oral presentations under this RFP. The timing and method/platform for discussions has not yet been determined.

30. L-15 Orals - Details & Expectations - Wouldn't it make more sense for the Government to transmit any weaknesses and deficiencies in writing to each Offeror during the debrief, then allow them to respond though final enhancement to their offer (BAFO)? Holding orals, benefits neither the government nor Offeror. Creates an unnecessary exposure of teams and unnecessary costs in prep and travel.

ANSWER: In accordance with FAR 15, the Government will provide all required information to all Offerors in the competitive range prior to conducting oral discussions with each Offeror. The timing and method/platform for discussions has not yet been determined.

31. L-15 Orals Expectations - Given the Industry one-on-one schedule and without the complete draft

RFP posted, we request that the one-on-one, be delayed until the other parts of importance (B, H, J &K) are released. And, then the one & one's be kept confidential as business sensitive?

ANSWER: The one-on-one discussions were held on September 28-29, 2020.

32. L-9 IPT Process - Can you explain the NNSA IPT evaluation process for developing its assessment of the strengths and weaknesses?

ANSWER: The Government has provided sufficient relevant information related to evaluation methodologies under RFP Section M.

33. L-9 IPT Process - When will the final evaluation be submitted to the SSA?

ANSWER: The Government does not plan to share individual milestone dates. .

34. L – 2 Application of Fee - The "Hybrid Cost-Plus performance-based Award Fee, Cost-Plus

Fixed Fee, and Firm-Fixed-Price" is unclear as to which and or what responsibilities the Government will apply to each area of the cost-plus performance base; Cost-Plus Fixed Fee and Firm-Fixed-Price" applies? Is the Government planning on releasing Section B of the RFP soon?

ANSWER: Section B will be included with the release of the RFP.

35. Section L-15: In order for Offerors to ensure all government concerns are properly addressed and folded into final proposal revisions, it is recommended that the government provide “details of the record” (video, audio, or written) to the Offeror within two business days of the Oral Discussions.

ANSWER: The discussion method/platform has yet to be determined, and NNSA does not intend to commit to providing “details of the record” within two business days of discussions.

36. CLIN 0004 is not included as a separate tab in the fee table at this time.

ANSWER: The Government did not provide a CLIN 0004 under the Draft RFP as there is no cost/pricing information required under that CLIN prior to contract award.

37. Section L, L-9(g), Volume II and Exec Summary page limit of 20 pages, Page 6

Comments. The proposal is limited to 20 pages. There are no individual Factor limitations – it is up to the Offeror to determine how to spend their 20 pages. If an Executive Summary is included, it counts towards the 20-page limit. In addition, Management Approach should include criteria regarding nuclear weapons manufacturing; integrated production scheduling; supply chain surety;

integration of geographically dispersed sites; and transformation. These would take-up additional valuable and already needed space.

Recommendation. Allow 10-15 additional pages that allow for an Executive Summary pre-amble.

This would allow both the offeror and the SEB/IPT to understand the context and vision of the rest of the proposal for ease of review and assessment.

ANSWER: The Government has determined that the limit of 20 pages is sufficient and additional pages will not be allowed.

38. Section J Contract Financing for Reimbursable Costs - Most M&O contracts have a special financing agreement between the Government, a bank, and the contractor effecting a check’s paid letter of credit drawn against the U.S. Treasury for costs reimbursable under the contract. Such agreements are usually contained in an Appendix to Section J. Will this be the case with this M&O contract?

ANSWER: Yes; a special financing agreement template is attached to the RFP under Section J.

Technical and Management Criteria - Generally

39. L-9 IPT Process TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA - states, "The following criteria are listed with degrees of importance. Criterion 1 is slightly more important than Criterion 2, and each is significantly more important than Criterion 3. The individual items or evaluation considerations within a Technical and Management Criterion are not listed in order of importance and will not be individually weighted, but rather will be considered as a whole in developing an overall adjectival rating for each criterion." This wording is confusing and unclear; would you please clarify?

ANSWER: Individual items or evaluation considerations within a Technical and Management Criterion are not listed in order of importance and will not be individually weighted. For example, under Criterion 2 (the second Technical and Management Criterion) there are multiple aspects of a proposal that will be considered (e.g., organization chart, description of individual roles, responsibilities and lines of authority, resumes, etc.);

none of these sub-items/considerations will be individually weighted.

40. Section M, M-4 Technical and Management Criteria, page 3

Comment. Currently Past Performance (~45-50%) is slightly more important than Org/KP (~35- 40%) and each are significantly more important than SB participation (~20-10%). It can be argued that having the right organizational structure and leadership team in place is a critical factor for success on this contract, have significant successful past performance in management complex management & operating contracts is more than "slightly" more important.

Recommendation. Respectfully recommend that the qualifier of "slightly" to "significantly more important" than Criteria 2.

ANSWER: Please see revised § M.

41. L.11 (b) Criterion 2: Site Organization and Key Personnel Feedback: We were pleased to see that NNSA added a requirement (Clause H-20, Organizational Culture Change) into this section of the RFP. Based on our experience with the site, it is our strong belief that a continued need exists to enhance the culture of the sites to bolster concept of operations while also driving improvements in safety, heightened IT/Cyber posture and driving modernization and transparency across the enterprise. We believe this requirement is significant enough in NNSA’s evaluation for the next site contractor that Organizational Culture Change should be a standalone technical criterion.

Recommendation: Create a new section L response requirement (evaluated above Small Business but equal to Site Organization and Key Personnel) to provide a vision and approach for site modernization and the improvement of the organizational culture. This could be achieved through promoting the current H-20 response requirement to a separate criterion describing how an offeror would address the elements of culture, modernization, continuation of the successful cost savings program, and how it will employ the corporate parents to inject innovation into the enterprise. This ensures that NNSA can discretely discriminate between the various industry teams and ensure that the offeror’s specific strategy and plan are consistent with NNSA’s own vision and goals associated with enterprise success for Y-12/Pantex. Not evaluating this strategy and vision creates a large organizational risk for the NNSA and reduces the value achieved by the procurement.

ANSWER: The Government notes the preference, but declines to alter its solicitation.

42. In Section L-11 (c), add a new Criterion 3: Organizational Culture Change and Modernization Vision and rename current Criterion 3: Small Business Participation to Criterion 4: Small Business Participation:

(1) How the Offeror will lead and implement organizational culture change as described in clause H-20, Organizational Culture Change (provided below for reference) and their vision for modernization of the enterprise. The vision should include the offeror’s overall strategy for achieving modernization, how they will integrate with NNSA/NPO to successfully advance modernization, and their measures of effectiveness, to include specific recommendations for performance evaluation elements (for both modernization and organizational culture change).

Associated with this recommendation, NNSA should consider an increase to the page count for this section, once final page counts are provided.

43. L-9 IPT Process - What is the BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD Per this paragraph, "The

Technical and Management Criteria in M-4 will be adjectivally rated?” What is the rating scale to be used, and how will it be applied? Will the subsequent ratings be open for clarification discussions?

ANSWER: The adjectival rating definitions/scale are not included under the RFP, and will not be provided to the Offerors. The Government does not intend to discuss how the adjectival ratings will be applied.

44. L-9 IPT Process - How can the three criteria have degrees of importance and a comparative ranking and not be individually weighted?

ANSWER: Please see response to question #39.

45. M-2(b) - How can they be listed in ranked order, but not be listed in order of importance? Please clarify.

ANSWER: Please see response to question #39.

46. Section L:

Criterion 1: Past Performance - Given the importance of “H-20 Organizational Culture Change” it is recommended that Criterion 1: Past Performance also require the Offeror to demonstrate within each PPIF how the offeror or teammate’s efforts were able to contribute to accomplishing similar outcomes and objectives as those described in clause H-20 Organizational Culture Change.

Criterion 2: Key Personnel – Given the role each Key Person will play in the success of this program, we also recommend that resumes for Key Personnel also illustrate, where applicable, the individuals’ contributions to helping similar programs accomplish similar outcomes and objectives as those described in clause H-20 Organizational Culture Change.

Criterion 2: Site Organization – It is suggested that the Offeror describe how it will identify and integrate the resources from across its team to accomplish the full scope of work identified in the

PWS as well as to achieve the desired outcomes and objectives as described in clause H-20 Organizational Culture Change. The description should include the rationale behind why companies (Large and Small) were selected, a description of any workshare or swim lane commitments, unique capabilities, and how the collective companies will be applied in order to accomplish the work on this program.

a. Criterion 2: Site Organization and Key Personnel (iii) – In addition to leading and implementing organizational change, it is also suggested that the Offeror identify how they will measure, evaluate and report performance.

b. Criterion 3: Small Business Participation – in addition to describing its approach to using small businesses it is recommended that the Offeror also be required to describe how they will monitor and report performance against proposed small business goals and efforts to ensure the total planned subcontracted dollars and percentages are met or exceeded.

c. Criterion 3: Small Business Participation – in order to demonstrate confidence in the ability to meet Small Business goals it is recommended that Offerors provide copies of Teaming Agreements for all Small Business partners that will be utilized in the execution of this program.

d. Given the size and complexity of this program and the need to successfully transition to a new M&O Prime Contractor, it is recommended that the government include a new Criterion for a Transition Plan that defines the activities, milestones and anticipated outcomes of efforts to transition all work elements outlined in the PWS. In the event the government does not desire a separate Criterion for a Transition Plan then another solution would be to fold relevant elements into Criterion 2: Site Organization and Key Personnel and to require Offerors to differentiate how their Organizational Structure and Key Personnel would be configured for the Post Award Transition Period and for the Execution Phase that follows a Transition Readiness Review and Approval.

ANSWER: The Government notes the preferences, but declines to alter its solicitation.

47. Recommendation: Add a new Section M-4(c) and add the following language.

“(C) Criterion 3: Organizational Culture Change and Modernization Vision

The Government will evaluate the likelihood and degree to which the Offeror’s long-range approach for achieving NNSA’s desires for Organizational Culture Change and their modernization strategy achieves the envisioned outcomes as outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The offeror’s strategy should provide an effective and coherent strategy to ensure that they key elements of the culture and modernization are properly balanced with the day-to-day mission of Y-12/Pantex.

Alternatively, this language could be applied to the current criterion.

48. Section M: The government should consider incorporate language that maps to above recommendations into Section M. For example:

Criterion 1: Past Performance - Given the importance of “H-20 Organizational Culture Change” it is recommended that the government include criteria to evaluate each PPIF to consider or give additional credit for Offerors who demonstrate that their efforts on the contributed to accomplishing similar outcomes and objectives as those described in clause H- 20 Organizational Culture Change.

i. We recommend the Government release their defined evaluation methodology in the RFP to further reduce the number of unqualified bids received and lower the likelihood for protest following award. An example of technical and management volume ratings methodology for Criterion 1:

Ratings Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’ s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort and achieve the desired outcomes and objectives of H-2 Organizational Culture Change.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’ s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort and achieve some of the desired outcomes and objectives of H-2 Organizational Culture Change.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’ s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort or any of the desired outcomes and objectives of H-2 Organizational Culture Change.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Similarly an example of technical and management volume ratings methodology for Criterion 2:

Site Organization and Key Personnel may include:

Ratings Description

BLUE

(OUTSTANDING)

Offeror’ s proposal meets requirements, indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and proposed several innovations that have high likelihood of improving results, realizing efficiencies, enhancing safety and security, and decreasing program risk and costs. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Ability to achieve the majority of the desired outcomes and objectives of H-2 Organizational Culture Changes is considered very high.

PURPLE

(GOOD)

Offeror’ s proposal meets requirements, indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and proposed innovations that have high likelihood of improving results, realizing efficiencies, enhancing safety and security, and decreasing program risk and costs. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Demonstrates ability to achieve many of the desired outcomes and objectives of H- 2 Organizational Culture Changes.

GREEN

(ACCEPTABLE)

Offeror’ s Management and Technical proposal meets requirements, indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and proposed innovations that have high likelihood of improving results, realizing efficiencies, enhancing safety and security, and decreasing program risk and costs. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Demonstrates ability to achieve the some of the desired outcomes and objectives of H-2 Organizational Culture Changes.

YELLOW

(MARGINAL)

Offeror’s Management and Technical proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED

(UNACCEPTABLE)

Offeror’s Management and Technical proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

The government should consider including the following in Section M-4(a): Criterion 1: Past Performance: “…and transitioning capital asset construction projects to full operations. In addition, pursuant to Section 3.1(xi) of Section J, each Offeror should demonstrate past performance in executive-level cross-organizational supply chain management and logistical scheduling through a rigorous and effective process to the development and maintenance of cross-site master production schedules. Finally, each Offeror should specifically demonstrate in detail…”

49. Concern: While the RFP rightly introduces the need for culture change within the organization and key personnel section, the draft RFP does not provide adequate space or breadth to allow offerors to describe a meaningful approach to address the known challenges and for National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to discriminate between these vendor approaches.

Given the significance of this need and the complexity of the ask, we believe it warrants an expanded technical approach section or a separate evaluation criterion.

Past Performance Submission/Criterion

50. Section M, Page 3 M-4 Technical and Management Criterial; (a) Criterion 1: Past Performance

The Government will not apportion past performance under a DOE, NNSA, or other contract differently among parent companies that have teamed for the purposes of said contract. Rather, all parent companies under a contract will be equally credited (positively and negatively) for past performance for that contract. Is it also NNSA’s intent to give equal credit for past performance from a subcontractor as it would for the Offeror?

ANSWER: Relevance of a subcontractor’s past performance will be determined in relation to the work scope the subcontractor is proposed to perform. The Government does not understand what is meant by “equal credit for past performance from a subcontractor.”

How the qualitative assessments of Offeror and subcontractor past performance come together to present an overall picture of the Offeror’s past performance is very much dependent on what the qualitative assessments are in relation to the entity’s proposed responsibility in performing work.

51. Is it acceptable for a pre-named or critical subcontractor to submit a Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ) for work performed for a member of the prime contract bidding team?

Please note that this question on small business participation is anticipatory, in that it is not specifically in response to information in the Draft RFP, but we believe that addressing this question prior to the final RFP is essential to provide actionable information to enable an adequate response to the final RFP. In that spirt we implore that this question be addressed prior to issuance of the final RFP.

ANSWER: Yes. In a circumstance where the relevant past performance was on a subcontract to a member of the proposed prime contractor entity, the Government would accept a PPQ completed by the relevant member of the proposed prime contractor entity.

However, as identified in § M-4(a), the Government may consider the source of the information and context of the data in its evaluation.

52. Background: It is becoming more difficult for small businesses to obtain PPQs for work of similar nature, size, and complexity to the work they are proposed for in the bidder’s proposal and small business subcontracting plan. Three factors are contributing to this dilemma: Top-tier firms often form bidding entities (LLCs) of two, three, of more firms for large complex opportunities such as the Y-12/Pantex contract. A small business entity selected as a pre-named or critical subcontractor may have performed similar work for several of the members of the prime team.

The bidding team members have told us that DOE/NNSA prefers PPQs for work not performed for members of the bidding team. This seams counter intuitive as the quality of the work we perform for members of the bidding team is often the basis of selection as a pre-named or critical subcontractor. It is logical that the bidding team would want only the best performing small businesses to be included in the proposal as the contributions of the small businesses will contribute to the performance on the subject contract. Further, not being able to use work for any member of a two or three-member bidding entity may exclude several examples of work that would be ideal for a PPQ.

Over the past few years DOE/NNSA prime contractors have established policies that they will not provide PPQs for subcontractors. Consolidated Nuclear Services (CNS) has informed us that by policy, they will not provide PPQs for subcontractors. Not being able to obtain a PPQ from the incumbent contractor is a tremendous disadvantage, especially when the work is clearly germane to the subject bid.

The Y-12/Pantex opportunity has attracted the interest from a large number of top-tier firms.

Small businesses are hesitant to request a PPQ from a client that is not part of the Y-12/Pantex bidding team with which they are associated. Small businesses are concerned that they are (a) taking risk that they may not receive a fair review, as it would disadvantage the client’s team proposing on the Y-12/Pantex opportunity and (b) revealing that they are bidding with another top-tier firm may affect future work with the client. While we would hope that all will be treated fairly, it is unfortunately a risk for small businesses on a very important opportunity.

Given these circumstances, a well-qualified small business may be left with no good option to obtain the needed PPQ, despite being a high-performing and well-qualified firm.

Request of NNSA:

We respectfully request that NNSA consider the following actions:

Clearly state that NNSA will accept and indeed encourage PPQs for pre-named small business subcontractors provided by the prime contractor bidder. The prime contractor bidder is accountable for the performance on the eventual contract and has every incentive to select only those subcontractors that will deliver the best value to eventual performance.

Require all current NNSA prime contractors to provide PPQs for their subcontractors in response to requests in support of the government’s procurement process. We would suggest that each bidding team submit the requests for a PPQs from their pre-named subcontractors to NNSA prior to submission of the Y-12 Pantex proposals. NNSA can then send the PPQs to the subject prime contractor and request a timely response to support Y-12 Pantex proposal evaluation.

Consider allowing small businesses to obtain references from government personnel responsible for the work performed for a prime contractor. At many sites the NNSA personnel are aware of the work performed by the small business subcontractors to the site prime contractor. The NNSA personnel may be ideally positioned to provide a reference. Note we call this a reference because the work is not performed directly for the government and the government personnel may not be positioned to provide a complete evaluation.

Consider using CPARS from a small business’ direct work with the government to supplement the PPQs. While the work for the government may not be a strong match with the role that the small business is being proposed for, the CPAR will provide evidence of the ability of the small business to reliably and successfully deliver high quality work.

ANSWER: In a circumstance where the relevant past performance was on a subcontract to a member of the proposed prime contractor entity, the Government would accept a PPQ completed by the relevant member of the proposed prime contractor entity. However, as identified in § M-4(a), the Government may consider the source of the information and context of the data in its evaluation. The Government will not direct its current contractors to fill out PPQs.

53. Section L, L-11() Past Performance Criteria, Page 10

Comments. The essence of this contract have some very specific requirement that demand past performance that clearly demonstrate an ability to perform and experience delivering: advanced manufacturing processes and techniques; integrating disparate sites, both nationally and internationally; integrating production scheduling across sites and contracts; ensuring the security of supply chain components; delivering transformation; and a culture of continuous improvement.

Recommendation. Include as part of the past performance criteria an emphasis on the areas such as: delivering advanced manufacturing processes and techniques; integrating disparate sites, both nationally and internationally; integrating production scheduling across sites and contracts;

ensuring the security of supply chain components; delivering transformation; and a culture of continuous improvement.

54. Section M, M-4(a) Criteria 1: Past Performance, page 3

Comment. In the definition of relevant past performance, the following critical areas are identified: "(i) work on other major weapons systems; (ii) work relating to nonproliferation of nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological weapons and related programs around the world;(iii) work relating to safeguards and security technology programs involving high hazard nuclear materials or other high hazard materials; and (iv) work relating to Capital Asset Projects, Line Item Projects, Major Items of Equipment, and transitioning capital asset construction projects to full operations."

Recommendation. Include as part of the past performance criteria an emphasis on the areas such as: delivering advanced manufacturing processes and techniques; integrating disparate sites, both nationally and internationally; integrating production scheduling across sites and contracts;

ensuring the security of supply chain components; delivering transformation; and a culture of continuous improvement.

55. Past Performance – RFP Section Reference: L-11(a), M-4(a)(1)

Section M, Page 4 states: “(1) Recent Past Performance. In order to be considered recent, a contract or subcontract must have at least nine months of performance within the five years preceding the proposal due date. To the extent that performance evaluations are divisible, the Government will only evaluate performance that occurred within the five-year period preceding the proposal due date.” We understand the benefit of having at least nine months in duration for new contracts so as to provide a basis for evaluating performance. Limiting the evaluation to only within the five-year window, however, will result in practical challenges to bidders creating a response in addition to being overly restrictive. For example, the available window created by 5 years from the due date will be a moving target, subject to change with amendments and extensions, and something that is acceptable today can fall out of the window by the time the Final RFP comes out. Furthermore, M&O contracts are, by their nature, relatively consistent in size and scope over their period of performance, which typically run as long as 10 years. Thus, the length of most relevant contracts – even Pantex/Y-12 itself – are inconsistent with the window. Improvements and innovations made over the course of the contract become inadmissible in this scheme. Similarly, PPQs going to clients do not reflect this limitation. If directed to do so, it would be an onerous request asking an Evaluator to constrain themselves to evaluating 9 months on a 10-year contract.

For the reasons stated above, we recommend making the nine-month duration a minimum requirement for new contracts but removing the limitation on evaluating performance within only 5 years.

ANSWER: The Government has written the past performance criterion to only include evaluation of past performance contracts and timeframes that we believe will provide the most meaningful discrimination among Offerors. Please see revised RFP § L-11(a), § L Attachment F, and § M-4(a).

56. Section M-4 Technical and Management Criteria (a) Criterion 1: Past Performance – Please clarify the first two paragraphs on page Section M, Page 4.

a. The first paragraph indicates "where an Offeror has proposed a team member to perform or be responsible for only specific section of the SOW, the relevance of the entity's past performance contracts will be determined based on the specific actions of the SOW the team member is proposed to perform or be responsible for, as opposed to the entire

SOW."

b. The second paragraph states "The Government will not apportion past performance under a DOE, NNSA, or other contract differently among parent companies that have teamed for the purposes of said contract. Rather, all parent companies under a contract will be equally credited (positively and negatively) for past performance under that contract."

c. An interpretation could be that these two paragraphs appear to be contradictory in nature and could be viewed as “double jeopardy”. On one hand the specific Past Performance of scope to be performed or responsible for from a specific Company is evaluated, but on the other hand all the scope even that outside of what a specific Company performed or was responsible for is evaluated against that Company. For consistency purposes and for instance of where it can be clearly defined, it is recommended that a Company’s specific performance or responsibility in a similar proposed scope area be considered.

ANSWER: The Government does not agree with the interpretation provided, and declines to alter its solicitation. The Government believes the language under (a) discusses how “relevancy” will be applied for each team member, and (b) discusses the evaluation of the quality of the work under the referenced contract.

57. Section M-4 Technical and Management Criteria (a) Criterion 1: Past Performance – Please clarify the first two paragraphs on page Section M, Page 4.

• The second paragraph states “the Government will evaluate the relevance of any analogous past performance such as as (i) work on other major weapons systems; (ii) work relating to nonproliferation of nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological weapons and related programs around the world;(iii) work relating to safeguards and security technology programs involving high hazard nuclear materials or other high hazard materials.”

• Please elaborate on what would be considered analogous to ensure there is more specificity for potential Offerors. This is recommended to ensure there is a common understanding and level playing field for the evaluation.

ANSWER: NNSA believes the language in the RFP is sufficient.

58. Section M, Page 4, M-4, Criterion 1 (1) Recent Past Performance. In order to be considered recent, a contract or subcontract must have at least nine months of performance within the five years preceding the proposal due date. To the extent that performance evaluations are divisible, the Government will only evaluate performance that occurred within the five-year period preceding the proposal due date. Relevant past performance is performance that is similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements in the Statement of Work.

Is there the same 5-year window on Relevant Past Performance as there is on Recent Past Performance?

ANSWER: Past performance must be both “relevant” and “recent” to be considered for evaluation (i.e., the performance must have occurred within the last 5 years and must be similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements in the Statement of Work). See RFP Section M for more information.

59. The evaluation criteria for Criterion1: Past Performance seem to be in conflict. The first paragraph indicates that the offerors in a teaming arrangement will be evaluated based on their performance of their specific scope areas. The second paragraph seems to indicate that teaming partners will be evaluated equally on past performance contracts, regardless of their assigned scope on that contract. In order to provide the Government best value, this industry forms many different teaming arrangements developed according to contract work requirements. Evaluating using the second paragraph may unduly level out the evaluation across all competitors as many serve together on sites across the complex.

It seems that the Government would be best informed by evaluating company past performance in the specific scope areas that will be assigned to the team member for the Management and Operation of Y-12 and Pantex. Will the Government consider deleting paragraph 2 of the Criteria 1 evaluation criteria and consider evaluating Criteria 1 solely on the offeror’s past performance of the scope they will be performing on this contract?

ANSWER: Please refer to the response to question #56.

60. Past Performance Questionnaire. We appreciate NNSA’s efforts to broaden the applicability of past performance questionnaire (PPQ) questions to the broader set of elements desired in the RFP. However, given the breadth of teammates that may support this RFP, there are elements that may not apply to a particular teammate, given their scope of work envisioned under the SOW.

We suggest that NNSA clarify that those areas not relevant to teammate scope can be marked as N/A or left blank, without penalty to the teammate in the PPQ review/evaluation. This should include clarification in the instructions to the preparer to ensure there is clarity around their ability to leave sections blank that are not directly relevant.

ANSWER: Please see revised Past Performance Questionnaire Form attached to the RFP.

61. L-11(a) IPT Process - With regard to Past Performance (last five…