Q&As_LM_89303019RLM000002_Amendment_0003.pdf

Number Section/Attachment Question/Comment Government Response

1 Section L.19. Factor 4 Past Performance, page 99, paragraph 2:

states that “Along with the narrative, the prime contractor should request a minimum of three (3) PPQs…” and that the Government will “evaluate the first three (3) PPQs received…”

a. Are we correct in assuming that multiple PPQs can be requested for the same Contract, Task Order, or BPA Call, but from different relevant points of contact in order to obtain the required 3 PPQs?

Not correct to assume that. The Offeror should request one PPQ per contract/TO. Also, please see response to question 4b.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 4, Past Performance)

Factor 4, Past Performance states that Contracts, Task Orders or Calls within contracts for services provided within the three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation will be considered. We respectfully request that the Government consider allowing bidders to use contracts with services provided within the prior five years.

No.

Section L.20 DOE-L- 2012 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume III-Price.

last paragraph (page 101) states that "Historically, LMS has been serviced by approximately 470 LMS contractor personnel..." Can you confirm that the contractor personnel range is between approximately 350 (from contract beginning) and 470 now?

Please see Section L.20, last paragraph.

RFP Factor 4, page 99, states: “PPQs are requested for the prime contractor as well as teaming partner(s) and major subcontractors.”

4a. What is the definition of teaming partners in this case? Is it as defined in FAR 9.6, including joint ventures and prime/subcontractor relationships?

4b. We assume that a bidder can mention a subcontractor that is not a major subcontractor in the proposal, but they do not need to submit PPQs. Is that correct?

a. A teaming partner might or might not be a subcontractor and see response to question 11.

b. Please see Factor 4.

(M.4. Factor 4 Past Performance, page 105, paragraph 1).

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s likelihood of successful performance in fulfilling requirements that are relevant as similar in scope and size, and complexity of this requirement.

a. Very few SB hold multiple $100M ($20.5 x 5 years) contracts simultaneously. May a Prime or Lead Joint Venturer satisfy the requirement with one large citation similar in size, scope, and complexity?

b. Would the requirement be satisfied with the inclusion of other additional citations below the $20.5M threshold?

a. $20.5M value remains unchanged. The government will evaluate each PPQ based on Factor 4 and past performance ratings.

b. See response to question above, 5a.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal (b)

FACTOR 4 PAST

PERFORMANCE

on Page 99)

The RFP states: “Major subcontractors are subcontractors that will cost at least ten percent (10%) of the work under the LMS requirement.” We assume this means 10% of labor cost. Is this correct? Please see response to question 4b.

PPQ, Factor 4

a. For purposes of past performance submission, if a small business joint venture is submitting a proposal as a prime, and where the joint venture has no past performance together as a joint venture, are the joint venture member firms (“venturers”) collectively viewed as the “Offeror” and responsible for a total of 3 past performance references, or is the joint venture lead responsible for 3 past performance references, and the other venturer(s) and any major subcontractors responsible for 2 each?

b.Or is the requirement driven by the number of returned PPQs?

a. Please see revisions to Section L.19, Factor 4

b. Please see response to question above, 7a

(4. L.19. Factor 4 Past Performance, page 99, paragraph 1)

L.19. Factor 4 Past Performance, page 99, paragraph 1: requires that prime entities submit past performance “in the management of contracts in which the scope, size, and complexity of the work is relevant and similar to the scope, size, and complexity of this requirement. Size is defined as the dollar value ($20.5M or greater a year) and associated contract duration (at least three years of performance).”

Further, the section states, “To the best of the Offeror’s ability, provide a narrative no longer than five pages explaining the relevancy of each project chosen for a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).”

Given the size and complexity of this contract, it is understandable for these requirements to apply to past performance that the PRIME contractor or Managing Partner of a joint venture submits, as those firms will be responsible for overall management of any resulting contract and associated tasking. However, Major Subcontractors or non-managing members of a joint venture are selected for their technical expertise. This linkage to the SOW will be explained in the Teaming Arrangements and the intro to the Past Performance citation. Their ability to perform defined technical work is more relevant and critical for determination of performance risk than their ability to manage large federal contracts.

We respectfully request that these guidelines (size, scope, and complexity) be removed for non-managing members of a joint venture and any major subcontractors, leaving relevancy to a portion of the SOW to be the major focus.

No.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 4, Past Performance)

Regarding Factor 4 Past Performance: “The Offeror shall submit its past performance in the management of contracts in which the scope, size and complexity of the work is relevant and similar to the scope, size and complexity of this requirement. Size is defined as the dollar value ($20.5M or greater a year).” Many contractors have contracts with very high value ceiling (hundreds of millions), but they perform a very small percentage of that ceiling. This is very common particularly with multiple award contracts, but also with some single award contracts. There are many contractors that only actually perform a few million dollars of work under multi-hundred-million-dollar ceiling contracts. Since having a very high value ceiling in a contract does not really make a contract relevant to the size of LM contract, we assume that “value” in this statement refers to actual value of work performed and not just the contract value ceiling. Is that correct?

Please see response to question 7.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 4, Past Performance)

Regarding Factor 4 Past Performance: “Contracts, Task Orders or Calls within contracts for services provided within the three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation (this includes Contracts, Task Orders or Calls currently being performed)”. One of our contracts is performed using tasks, but the tasks are not called Task Orders, but Task Assignments, which are very similar to task orders in that they are tracked separately, each task has separate value ceiling specified in the contract, and they are managed separately and funding tracked separately under the contract. We assume that those tasks qualify to submit PPQs for them. Is that correct?

Please see response to question 4b. Also, please see response to question 97.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 4, Past Performance)

Regarding Factor 4 Past Performance: “PPQs are requested for the prime contractor as well as the teaming partner(s) and major subcontractors.” Under the current contract, teaming partner is defined as a subcontractor or joint venture partner that is part of the integrated team performing the contract, that employs incumbent on-site staff, has their labor DPLH tracked as part of the team, and has an initial teaming agreement with a meaningful role in the performance of the team approach (regardless of subcontract value). Subcontractors are defined as subcontractors that did not have a teaming agreement with specific critical role in the proposal or that provide independent services or ODCs. Is DOE retaining this same definition for teaming partner vs. subcontractor in Factor 4?

Please see response to question 4a and 9.

For the purposes of this procurement, “subcontractor, teaming partner, and teaming agreement" are defined as follows:

Subcontractor: Any person, other than the prime contractor, who offers to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials, equipment, or services of any kind under a prime contract or subcontract entered into in connection with such prime contract, and any person who offers to furnish or furnishes general supplies to the prime contractor or higher tier subcontractor.

Teaming partner: a subcontractor or joint venture partner that is part of an integrated team performing the contract.

Teaming agreement: An agreement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor, or

(2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more companies to have them as subcontractors under a specified government contract or acquisition program.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal (b)

FACTOR 4 PAST

PERFORMANCE

on Page 99)

Factor 4 Past Performance page 99, states: “PPQs are requested for the prime contractor as well as the teaming partner(s) and major subcontractors.” Section L defines what a major subcontractor is, but it does not define what a teaming partner

is. Is DOE defining a teaming partner as a joint venture or LLC partner? i.e., one not in a prime-subcontractor relationship?

If not, what is the difference between a teaming partner and a subcontractor?

Please see response to question 4a and 11.

(L.19. Factor 4 Past Performance, page 99, paragraphs 1 & 2)

Paragraph 1 states that “The Offeror shall submit its past performance in the management of contracts in which the scope, size, and complexity of the work is relevant and similar to the scope, size and complexity of this requirement. Size is defined as the dollar value ($20.5M or greater a year) and associated contract duration (at least three years of performance).”

Additionally, Paragraph 2 states that “Along with the narrative, the prime contractor should request a minimum of three

(3) PPQs from third party clients, and the major subcontractors and/or teaming partner(s) each should request a minimum of two (2) PPQs from third party clients.”

The LMS Contract is a Small Business Set-Aside with a size standard of 750 employee. We are aware of no small business that has 3 contracts valued at over $100M (i.e. $20.5M/year over 5 years). We strongly suggest that DOE consider increasing competition on this contract by reducing the contract size and or number requirement.

No.

L.19. Factor 4 Past Performance, page 99, paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 states “Offerors, new entities, or joint ventures without recent or prior relevant experience will be rated as “Neutral” at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.”

a. Does this statement mean that if companies form joint ventures, but the joint ventures haven’t already performed contracts that meet the scope, size and complexity requirements will automatically be given a Neutral score?

b. If the answer to question (a) is “Yes”, under what circumstances would an offeror receive a score of “Little Confidence”?

a. Please see response to question 5. Also, please see factor 5, section M. If a joint venture does not have past performance together as a joint venture, DOE will consider each member’s past performance individually, assuming it is relevant.

b. Please see ratings and definitions for past performance in the RFP.

14 PPQ, Factor 4 Would DOE consider increasing the time frame for past performance projects to five years? Please see response to question 2.

15 PPQ, Factor 4 If the prime offeror is a Joint Venture, how many past performance projects should be submitted to DOE? Please see response to question 7.

16 (Page 99, Factor 4, Past Performance) Would DOE consider increasing the time frame for past performance projects to five years? Please see response to question 2.

17 (Page 99, Factor 4, Past Performance) If the prime offeror is a Joint Venture, how many past performance projects should be submitted to DOE? Please see response to question 7.

Factor 4

“To the best of the Offeror’s ability, provide a narrative no longer than five pages explaining the relevancy of each project chosen for a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).” Please confirm that the 5 pages explaining the relevancy of each project chosen for a PPQ shall include information from the Offeror, as well as all major subcontractors and all team partners.

How the contractor chooses to best address this requirement is the contractor’s business decision.

(Factor 4 - Past Performance) Factor

“The Offeror shall submit its past performance in the management of contracts in which the scope, size, and complexity of the work is relevant and similar to the scope, size and complexity of this requirement. Size is defined as the dollar value ($20.5M or greater a year…” Please confirm the size requirement of $20.5M or greater per year and duration of at least 3 years refers only to Offeror’s past performance. This section does not distinguish between prime Offeror past performance and major subcontractor past performance. Given that major subcontractors are defined as greater than or equal to 10%, would the government consider relaxing the defined size for major subcontractors to be commensurate with their role? We recommend that major subcontractors past performance size be defined as $7.5M or greater a year and at least 3 years in contract duration.

Please see response to question 7.

20 (Factor 4, Past Performance.)

Size is defined as the dollar value ($20.5M or greater a year) and a contract duration of at least three years of performance. Does the $20.5M standard apply to the prime contractor's past performance projects/contracts or do teaming partners and major subcontractor's projects/contracts also must meet this dollar value.

Please see response to question 7.

(L.17 (e) (1) Table on Page 91 and L.19

DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal (b)

FACTOR 4 PAST

PERFORMANCE

on Page 108.)

Volume II Past Performance section of the Vol II Technical Volume table still states:

Total 5 pages Copies of PPQ submissions as provided to third party clients with project details and contact information.

(No more than 5 pages for the rationale for all project selections.)

The Final RFP deleted similar language “The prime contract must submit copies of the PPQ submissions as provided to third party clients with project details and contact information for this criterion” after the second paragraph under

FACTOR 4.

Does DOE want us to submit copies of the PPQ portion containing project details and contact information as part of FACTOR 4 (not to be included in the Page Count)?

Please see revision at Table L.17(e)(1) Volume II – Technical Proposal Factor Past Performance. Please see response to question 7.

(L.17 e 1. Past Performance narrative 91)

Is the "no more than a 5-page narrative on the rationale for all project selections" stated in the table on page 91 the same requirement as "no more than a 5-page narrative for relevancy of each project chosen for a PPQ" stated on page 99? Please see response to question 21.

Factor 4

The following sentence appears under Factor 4: "To the best of the Offeror’s ability, provide a narrative no longer than five pages explaining the relevancy of each project chosen for a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)." Are explanations longer than 5 pages acceptable? Is this limitation applicable to "each project", or for all of the projects chosen for PPQs? In the case of joint ventures, does this limitation apply to the JV as a whole, or to each member of the JV? Please clarify.

Are explanations longer than 5 pages acceptable?

Is this limitation applicable to "each project", or for all of the projects chosen for PPQs?

In the case of joint ventures, does this limitation apply to the JV as a whole, or to each member of the JV? Please clarify.

a. No.

b. Please see response to question 21.

c. Please see response to question 21.

24 (L.19 Factor 4: Past Performance Past Performance 99)

Will the Government agree to evaluate the first 3 PPQs received for each member of the JV? Please see response to 4b.

(L.19, M.4 H.19 Factor 4, Past Performance 99, 105)

Per the instructions for Factor 4, the offeror is to submit a minimum of three PPQ’s. Per the evaluation factors in M.4, If a joint venture does not have past performance together as a joint venture, DOE will consider each company’s past performance individually, assuming it is relevant. Since we are bidding as a joint venture (the Offeror), based on the Section M evaluation criteria we assume that each member of the JV can submit 3 PPQs for relevant projects. Is this correct?

Please see response to 4b.

(5. Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 4, Past Performance)

Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 4, Past Performance - This RFP Section states “The Offeror shall submit its past performance in the management of contracts in which the scope, size, and complexity of the work is relevant and similar to the scope, size and complexity of this requirement.” The “Offeror” is defined in RFP Section L.17 as “the single entity submitting the proposal.” Based on the definition of “Offeror,” it is assumed that DOE does not want information from teaming partner(s) or major subcontractor(s) included in this section; however, the following paragraph requests PPQs for the prime contractor as well as the teaming partner(s) and major subcontractor(s). Please clarify if DOE wants Offerors to include narrative describing the relevancy of our teaming partner(s) and major subcontractor(s) projects chosen for a PPQ for evaluation.

Please see response to 4b.

(1. Reference L.19, M.4, Factor 4, Past Performance, pp. 99, 105)

As this is a small business set-aside and few small businesses would have three past performance projects of the magnitude of the LMS contract($20.5M/yr) in the past 3 years, would DOE consider revising the period of relevancy for past performance projects to 5 years prior to the closing date of this solicitation?

See response to question 2.

(2. Section L.18 Factor 4 of the RFP)

Section L.18 Factor 4 of the RFP states, "Contracts, Task Orders or Calls within contracts for services provided within the three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation (this includes Contracts, Task Orders or Calls currently being performed) will be considered when evaluating for Past Performance. ") Regarding past performance, when does the 3 year clock conclude? 1) At the end of the physical contract completion of the Contract, Task Order or Calls – for example completion of field work and submission of final deliverable, or transition to another contractor? or 2) at the end of the contract close-out period (which can be 5-7 years from physical contract completion)?

Please see response to 4b.

Section L.18 Factor 4 of the RFP

Section L.18 Factor 4 of the RFP states, "Contracts, Task Orders or Calls within contracts for services provided within the three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation (this includes Contracts, Task Orders or Calls currently being performed) will be considered when evaluating for Past Performance. ") Regarding past performance, please confirm that the three-year requirement concludes at the end of physical completion of work under the Contract, Task Order or Calls – for example completion of field work and submission of final deliverable, or transition to another contractor (and not at the end of the administrative close-out period [which can be 5-7 years from physical contract completion]?

Please see response to 4b.

(Section L.18 Factor 4 – Regarding Past Performance – We have a contract where we use a staffing services firm to provide much of the project labor in order to keep our head count below the NAICS code under 562910.)

Question – can we take credit for our staffing services labor in the past performance or do we need to identify the staffing services firm as performing a significant element of the contract and not take credit for the work performed by the staffing subcontractor.

Please see factor 5, section M.

(Regarding Small Business Size Standard Certification – We currently certify as a small business under the RFP NAICS of 562910. However we employee a staffing services subcontractor to provide labor on our contracts in order to stay under the labor based 562910 size standard. )

Can DOE provide additional guidance on the whether this is an allowable strategy under SBA regulations given that we provide direction to all of this staff augmentation labor and they are fully integrated into our workforce? For example, if we are required to take credit for these employees, we are over the size standard, so we exclude them from our head count. However, we also claim our projects as relevant past performance, without detailing how much work our staffing subcontractor performs. How will DOE evaluate this past performance? Do we need to acknowledge the level of effort provided by our staffing contractor?

Please see response to question 30.

(Section L.18 Factor 4 – Regarding Past Performance – We have a contract where we use a staffing services firm to provide project labor as a means to manage our total head count within the NAICS code under 562910.)

Question – When describing past performance on a contract where 3rd party labor (i.e. staffing service) is used, does DOE expect us to identify the staffing services firm as performing a significant element of the contract? Please see response to question 30.

Factor 4

(Regarding Small Business Size Standard Certification – We currently certify as a small business under the RFP NAICS of 562910. However, we subcontract a staffing services vendor to provide labor on our contracts (to manage headcount within the labor based 562910 size standard). ) Can DOE detail their interpretation of SBA regulations regarding the use of 3rd party staff augmentation labor and how that labor should be counted in our total headcount (given these 3rd party employees are fully integrated into our workforce and receive direction day to day direction from [prime] supervisors)? For example, if we are required to take credit for these employees, we are over the size standard, so we exclude them from our head count. However, we also claim our projects as relevant past performance, without detailing how much work our staffing subcontractor performs. How will DOE evaluate this past performance? Do we need to acknowledge the level of effort provided by our staffing contractor?

Please see response to question 30.

(L.20. Factor 5 Price, page 100, paragraph 7:

Paragraph 7)

L.20. Factor 5 Price, page 100, paragraph 7: Paragraph 7 states “The prime contractor is responsible for incorporating any subcontractor or teaming partner pricing information into this price factor”. The paragraph goes on to say “In order to preserve proprietary information of the subcontractors, subcontractors may submit their supporting information separate from the prime’s offer in accordance with requirements in the submission requirements of this RFP. It is the Prime Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the subcontractor’s supporting information is submitted on time; and to ensure that the subcontractor’s supporting information matches the price information submitted in the prime offer. If the price information submitted by the team member or subcontractors is different from the prime’s offer, the price proposal may be evaluated as non-responsive and be rejected.”

a. These statements seem to contradict each other. If the prime contractor is responsible for incorporating any subcontractor or teaming partner pricing information into its own price, what would be the purpose of the subcontractor sending pricing information separate from the prime?

b. Furthermore, the pricing matrix included with the RFP does not ask for separate subcontractor pricing information.

What would be the mechanism by which subcontractors submit separate pricing information?

c. We recommend that the Prime Offeror be the sole provider of pricing information.

a. See revisions at Factor 5.

b. Please see response to question above, 34a.

c. Please see response to question above, 34a. Also, See revision to section L.17 (e)(2).

(L.20 Volume III )

The instructions for the Price volume (Volume III) reference “supporting documentation” and/or “supporting information.” It is not entirely clear what the Offeror should provide as supporting documentation for the Prime contractor and for any major subcontractors. Can the Government provide additional instructions/guidance as to what the Offeror should provide?

Please see factor 5. Offerors are encouraged to provide only that information necessary to a comprehensive review and that information which would allow the evaluation team to determine fair price reasonableness.

(18. Reference RFP Section L.20, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume III Price)

Reference RFP Section L.20, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume III Price – Please provide additional, more specific, information on how subcontractor proprietary data is to be submitted separately to DOE. Please see response to question 34.

(Reference RFP Section L.20)

Reference RFP Section L.20– “The narrative on the basis for rates shall be clear, concise and succinct. There is no page limit for this factor however, Offerors are encouraged to provide only that information necessary to a comprehensive review and that information which would allow the evaluation team to determine price reasonableness.” Please provide additional information on the level of detail that you are requesting. For example, given that DOE can issue cost reimbursement Task Orders, is DOE requesting auditable indirect rates as well as forward pricing of those rates?

Task order type will be determined by the government at the TO level depending on the need(s) of the government. See Section L.18, 5) Adequate Accounting System

Factor, 5 (On the previous award decision, the percentage fee became a discriminator and a key factor in the award to the incumbent contractor. )

How will fee be evaluated for this RFP. For example, an Offeror could bid a very low fee on the labor hour category rates and then recapture additional fee/profit on fixed price task orders. To reduce the potential for gaming the fee, will DOE specify a percent fee to use for our labor rate buildups? This will insure a fair one-to-one evaluation of the loaded labor rates.

No, the government will not specify a fee. This is a competitive acquisition.

This is the contractor’s business decision. See Factor 5. Factor 5 will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.4.

Section L.18 - Factor

Section L.18 - Factor 4 DOE makes the following statement: “PPQs are requested for the prime contractor as well as the teaming partner(s) and major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are subcontractors that will cost at least ten percent (10%) of the work under the LMS requirement.” Question – given that the cost volume has one set of rates, with little back up requested, how will DOE insure that Offeror’s are incorporating “major subcontractors” in their rate buildup?

For example, a major subcontractor may have very attractive past performance, but very high rates. L.20 as currently written does not allow DOE to evaluate whether or not a major subcontractor has been included in the rate labor rate development. Will DOE provide additional direction for disclosure on how rates are calculated in L.20 to insure a fair evaluation?

The determination of fair and reasonable price will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.4.

(Regarding L.20 –)

Will DOE amend this section to include a tie to the Factor 3 Teaming discussion? For example, L.20 as currently written does require the disclosure of the rate buildup showing participation of Teaming Partners and their associated labor rates. To insure a level playing field, will DOE modify the L.20 instructions to require a fully disclosed cost model that shows how labor rates are blended – consistent with Factor 3. This will help insure that DOE will have access to the full proposed Team post award.

Please see response to question 35.

41 (L-20, Factor 5, Price, p. 109)

The RFP states that the proposed fully burdened labor rates will be incorporated into the contract and may be used in task orders. Assuming that fee will be proposed and negotiated on a task order by task order basis, should the rates provided by the offeror be exclusive of fee?

No.

(L.20 Volume III)

Because cost-of-living rates vary significantly between Office of Legacy Management government facility locations, will the Government request (or can the Offeror propose) multiple (different) rates based on location for the Price Matrix LCATs?

Please see revisions at L.20, Factor 5.

43 (6. Reference RFP Section L.20)

Reference RFP Section L.20 - Given the diverse locations and significant differences in labor costs where LM has concentrations of staff, would DOE consider adding Government Proposed Labor Categories by location? For example, will DOE allow bidders to propose Government Facility Burdened Hourly Labor Rates by major locations – Westminster, Grand Junction, Morgantown, Fernald, Weldon Spring?

Please see response to question42.

44 (Reference RFP Section L.20)

Reference RFP Section L.20 - In the Excel Sheet titled SOL Attachment 8 DOE provides labor hours by Category.

Question - To assist in the accuracy of Offerors pricing, will DOE provide additional information on the geographic location of the staff associated with the category labor hours provided?

Please see response to question 42.

(Reference RFP Section L.20)

Reference RFP Section L.20 - Given SBA’s prohibition on populating a Small Business or Mentor Protégé JV Offeror with staff (see 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h), where SBA defines a joint venture as follows: For purposes of this provision …and, if it exists as a formal separate legal entity, may not be populated with individuals intended to perform contracts awarded to the joint venture (i.e., the joint venture may have its own separate employees to perform administrative functions, but may not have its own separate employees to perform contracts awarded to the joint venture). Question:

Given the requirement of G.10. TASK ORDER ORDERING PROCEDURES for use of the proposed Attachment 8 labor rates in contract Task Order pricing (including FFP TOs) and the fact that Small Business’s and their JV partners will be subcontractors to the JV from a labor perspective, will DOE allow multiple Attachment 8s to be submitted? For example, one for each of the JV partners and one for each critical subcontractor to the JV – as long as the total hours per labor category add up to the hour allocation provided by DOE? This will facilitate TO development post award and allow for better project tracking and reduced total costs rather than trying to have 4-5 entities with one composite rate for each labor category.

No. Please see response to question 42 and section L.17(e)(2)

46 (L.20 Volume III) Because subcontractors have different rate structures (some higher/some lower than a Prime contractor), how should the Offeror propose T&M rates for their major subcontractors? This is the contractor’s business decision. See Factor 5.

Reference RFP Section L.20, page 100, fifth paragraph

The following statement is made: “The fully-burdened rates include ALL costs associated with management of the IDIQ contract.” In the RFP provided Excel sheet “SOL Attachment 8” the RFP states “The fully-burdened labor rates include direct cost, indirect cost (fringe & overhead), general & administrative expenses, profit. The fully-burdened rates include ALL costs associated with the management of the IDIQ contract.” DOE currently has several Overhead/G&A type position descriptions and associated hours built into the SOL Attachment 8 pricing sheet. Additionally, it is our understanding that the incumbent contractor currently direct bills project accountants, contracts, human resources and project controls staff. Question: given DOE’s pricing model, is DOE expecting that offerors will discount their government approved Overhead/G&A rates to reflect the direct billing of these typical Overhead/G&A type functions?

Please see Factor 5 and Attachment 8. Also, please see response to question 110b.

48 Reference RFP Section L.20, page 100, fifth paragraph the following statement is made – “The fully- burdened rates include ALL costs associated with management of the IDIQ contract.” DOE has provided approximately 21 FTEs in the Business Specialist Position. The Position Description appears to cover functions that are related to typical contract management functions. Question: are these 21 staff performing contract management tasks directly billable to the contract?

No. Please see response to question 82.

(RFP Section L.20, last paragraph, page 101)

We understand that the number of staff in the incumbent team has grown from approximately 350 to 470. Thus, the value of the contract of $366M given in page RFP Section L.20, last paragraph, page 101 corresponds to an average number of staff of approx. 410. Is this analysis correct?

Please see response to question 3.

(Section L, Factor 2:

Management Approach, b.)

Can the DOE provide historic staff retention rates across the LM program areas? The Offerors should review the solicitation requirements and propose its best solutions to meet the needs of this requirement.

(Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 2 – Management Approach, item (a), page 98)

Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 2 – Management Approach, item (a), page 98 - The requirement states, “align contract management organization structure….” Please confirm that “contract management organization structure” refers to the Offeror’s proposed organization structure to manage and execute the LMSS Contract and not simply the Offer’s contracts staff.

Correct.

(Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 2, Management Approach, paragraph b)

Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 2, Management Approach, paragraph b requests we demonstrate our approach to recruit, vet, develop, and retain qualified personnel and our ability to exploit reach-back and backfill capability; however, Section M includes no evaluation criteria for that request. How does the government plan to evaluate our approach to recruit, vet, develop, and retain qualified personnel and our ability to exploit reach-back and backfill capability?

Part of “managing resources” is demonstrating reach back capability.

Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 2, Management Approach, paragraph c )

Reference RFP Section L.19, Factor 2, Management Approach, paragraph c requests offerors provide evidence of successful recruiting and retention programs with HR metrics; however, there is no Section M criteria. How does the government plan to evaluate retention and reach-back?

Please see response to question 52.

(Section L, Factor 2d, third line, pg 98.“Describe work planning, integration of safety, communication, execute work in the

SOW.” )

This appears to be an incomplete sentence and the verbiage is different than in the corresponding Section M equivalent, Factor 2, Management Approach. Please clarify. See revised Section L.19, Factor 2, Management Approach.

RFQ L.17 (e)1

Teaming Approach, page limit In the event the full 20 pages are not needed to describe the teaming approach, can the remaining pages be used for elements a-b as long as the total page count for the section does not exceed 27 pages? No.

(Factor 2, e, Transition-in/out Plan, p.98)

Is this 10-page Plan included in the 99-page limit? Yes.

(Factor 3, Teaming Operations Agreement p.99)

Is this 20-page Plan included in the 99-page limit? Yes.

L.18 Factor 1 Security Clearances 97)

Please confirm that key personnel for the duration of this contract are not required to obtain a security clearance.

It is up to each offeror to determine and propose whether or not the personnel submitting for security clearances, in Attachment C, will also be Key Personnel.

(L.19 Factor 1:

Technical & Capabilities Approach Resumes 97)

We request that the resumes be limited to 5 pages for the IDIQ Manager and 3 pages for all other key personnel. No.

Regarding the instructions for Factor 1 (b) “demonstrate comprehension of the objective, scope, and intent of the requirement through the Offeror’s planned implementation of its approach to the requirements as outlined in the Statement of Work.”)

Question - Given the significant page limitations, is DOE expecting a discussion on Objective, Scope and Intent of each SOW element or is DOE looking for a discussion on offerors “planned implementation” and approach to the SOW elements for which DOE will then evaluate our comprehension of objective, scope and intent of the SOW?

The SOW is for the IDIQ contract. The Government expects the Offeror to submit its written response to its approach to the SOW elements, and planned implementation. How the contractor chooses to best address this requirement is the contractor’s business decision.

61 (L.19 Factor 1 Key Personnel 97)

L.19, Factor 1, in referring to Key Personnel resume requirements, states, "are intended to be assigned to a given task order". Is the intent of this phrase to imply that Key Personnel are to be assigned to a specific task order? What is intended by a "given task order"? Please clarify.

Key Personnel may be assigned to any task order(s), depending on the need(s) of the government.

(L.19, Factor 1:

Technical & Capabilities Approach, Element “a”, Page 97 )

Page 97 of the solicitation states that resumes must “note whether the key person is a current contractor personnel.”

Please confirm the Government is asking that resumes indicate if the key person is an employee of the Offeror and not an incumbent LMS employee.

Correct. See revision to Factor 1 in Section L.19.

(L.18, L.19 L.18(8), L.19(b) Industry Teaming Agreement and Concept of Operations Agreement 95, 98- 99)

If a contract-specific JV Small Business Teaming Agreement is required per Volume 1, Item 8 (Industry Teaming Agreement) is this intended to be the same as the Concept of Teaming Operations Agreement requested in Volume 2, Factor 3 (Teaming Approach), or are two separate agreements required?

For factor 3, the government’s request for a teaming agreement is not an intent to replace any industry teaming agreement(s). The intent is for the government to understand the “concept of teaming operations”. It is very likely that some or all requirements of factor 3 “c-h” overlap with industry agreement(s) or joint venture teaming arrangement.

The contractor must address requirements of factor 3 “c-h” via a single Concept of Teaming Operations Agreement. All parties must sign the Concept of Teaming Operations Agreement. The Concept of Teaming Operations Agreement will be carried-over as part of the contract and conditional upon award; in addition, the Concept of Teaming Operations Agreement must be substantiated by a complementary industry teaming agreement or join venture arrangement that is complete and also signed and required in Volume 1 (See Section L.18 and L.18(8))

64 (L.18, L.19 L.18(8), L.19(b) Industry Teaming Agreement and Concept of Operations Agreement 95, 98- 99)

It appears DOE is requesting multiple agreements to be provided as part of their response to this procurement:

1. For Joint Ventures – the JV agreement (which may not include additional subcontractors selected for this work and may not be specific to this contract),

2. The Industry Teaming Agreement, separate from the original JV agreement which names the individual singularly responsible for the performance of this contract.

3. A Concept of Operations Teaming Agreement (CTA), which describes the management and governance of the team. In our experience, CTAs are typically associated with GSA contracts, where The CTA differs from a teaming arrangement between a prime contractor and subcontractor in that all members of the team are equal parties to the contract.

There appears to be significant overlap between and among these agreements. Can DOE please clarify the purpose, intent and differences between the Industry Teaming Agreement and the Concept of Operations Teaming Agreement?

Please see response to question 63.

(L.19, Factor 3:

Teaming Approach, Concept of Operations Teaming Agreement)

Is it the Government’s intention to include “Duration of Agreement” as element “e” of the Concept of Teaming Operations Agreement, therefore changing elements “e-h” to elements “e-i”? Please see response to question 63.

66 (M Factor 2) Evaluation Factor 2 (Management Approach)

Element “e” directs the Offeror to submit a “complete, detailed master transition-in & out plan.” And the Statement of Work (Attachment A) Deliverables Table (Section 2.5) states “Master plans must be submitted at proposal due date for evaluation. The master plans shall be then modified to fit the needs of each Task Order and program office requirement.”

However, the Statement of Work (Attachment A), Section 2.3.B, states the Contractor “shall provide a master transition-out plan at the contract level no later than 150 days prior to the final expiration date of the contract.” Please clarify what the Offeror should submit to adequately address Evaluation Factor 2, Element “e.”

See SOW Section 2.3.A

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 2, Management Approach, e)

Element e states: “transition-in & out methodology for the onset and completion of the contract, and as necessary, transition of replacements during an active contract.” What do you mean by replacements? Replacement of personnel resources.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 2, Management Approach, e)

Do the Master Phase-in and Phase-out Plans need to address the transition of each task order, to be tailored later for specific programs?

The master plans should be tailorable to each task order. See Section L.19, Factor 2(e). Also, see SOW 2.3.A.

(L.19 DOE-L-2004

Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II – Technical Proposal, Factor 2, Management Approach, e)

To address element e, are you asking for Master Phase-in and Phase-out Plans for the overall contract and also Phase-in and Phase-out Plans for each Task Order? Master Plan that is tailorable to each task order. Also, see SOW 2.3.A.

70 (Attachment A, Statement of Work, 2.3.A Master Transition Phase-In Plan, Page 18)

The first paragraph in Section 2.3.A of the SOW states: “A master transition-in plan shall be generated at the IDIQ Contract level and modified to fit the needs of the program office for which the support will be provided at the Task Order level. The details of the plan shall be refined at the Task Order kick-off meeting. The kick-off meeting ideally should happen prior to the contract effective date to ensure a smooth onboarding.”

The second paragraph states: “The plan must be detailed and include all activities that may be required to transition to full operational capability to successfully assume all duties under the contract.”

If the master transition-in plan includes “all activities … to transition to full operational capability….”, please clarify the distinction between the master transition plan at the IDIQ level and a “refined” transition plan at the Task Order level.

Please see response to question 68.

(Attachment A, Statement of Work, 2.3.A Master Transition Phase-In Plan, Page 18)

The second paragraph in Section 2.3.A of the SOW states: “A near final draft plan must be provided to the Government by the 2nd week of the 90 day transition period, for initial Government review.”

Please clarify the “near final draft plan” referenced above is the Task Order level transition-in plan as the master transition-in plan must be submitted at proposal due date for evaluation.

Please see response to question 68.

(Attachment A, Statement of Work, 2.3.A Master Transition Phase-In Plan, Page 18)

The first paragraph in Section 2.3.A of the SOW states: “The details of the plan shall be refined at the Task Order kick-off meeting. The kick-off meeting ideally should happen prior to the contract effective date to ensure a smooth onboarding.”

The second paragraph states: “At least two weeks before the final expiration date of a contract the Contractor shall set up a meeting with the outgoing Contractor and the Task Order Contracting Officer Representative(s) and Contracting Officer(s) to ensure all parties are in agreement of all actions taken and a successful transition has transpired.”

Please clarify the meeting with the outgoing Contractor and the Task Order Contracting Officer Representative(s) and Contracting Officer(s) should take place prior to the Task Order kick-off meeting to ensure all parties are in agreement of all actions taken and a successful transition has transpired prior to the kick-off of a new Task Order.

Please see response to question 68.

Attachment C, Position Qualifications

The position descriptions include bachelor’s degrees requirements. Would DOE consider years of experience in lieu of a degree? See Revisions at Attachment C, Position Qualifications.

74 Attachment C, Position Qualifications

The majority of the position descriptions for IT, asset and records management require a BS degree. Would years of experience in lieu of a degree in these positions be allowed? It is not standard practice to require a BS degree in the positions such as records management specialist, asset management specialist, desktop support (information management specialist, etc.).

Please see response to question 73

(Attachment C Position Qualifications)

How many of the incumbent staff already have the eight required Q clearances? See Attachment C, Position Qualifications for the requirements related to this procurement.

(Attachment C Key Personnel Qualifications)

Three of the four Key Personnel minimum qualifications descriptions include the phrase "management of a major program dealing with legacy stewardship activities of complex environmentally impacted sites and assets either owned or managed by the program or business." The term "legacy stewardship" would seem to preclude crediting of experience gained at other, "non-legacy" sites or facilties with similar complexity, conditions, and/or hazards. Please clarify if experience gained at an active (non-legacy) site is credible if the complexity, conditions, and/or hazards are similar.

Please see revisions at attachment C for respective Key Personnel Qualifications. Terminology "legacy" has been removed.

(Attachment C Position Qualifications)

There are four labor categories (Information Technology Specialist 5, Records Management Specialist 5, Environmental Safety & Health Specialist 4, and Environmental Safety & Health Specialist 5) included in the Price Matrix (Attachment

8) that do not have a corresponding Position Qualification listing in Attachment C. Will the Government provide these position descriptions in a revised Attachment C?

Please see response to question 73

(Attachment C Position Qualifications)

Attachment C does not include qualification requirements for the following labor categories: “Environmental Safety & Health Specialist 4”; “Environmental Safety & Health Specialist 5”; “Information Technology Specialist 5; and “Records Management Specialist 5.” Will the Government please provide position qualifications for these labor categories?

Please see response to question 73

(Reference RFP Attachment C, Position Qualifications)

Reference RFP Attachment C, Position Qualifications - Can DOE provide salary ranges for the Attachment C Position Qualifications so that bidders can use appropriate salaries ensuring continuity and negating the potential to negatively impact employee morale. If this information cannot be made available, we will utilize our market knowledge to develop market-based salary rates and benefit packages. This may result in salary cuts to incumbent employees.

No. This is the contractor’s business decision.

(Attachment A, Statement of Work, Section 2.4, Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The QCP description in page 19 of the SOW ask to provide: “an outline of the procedures that the Contractor will use to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and any other requirement set forth within the terms and conditions of the contract.” Does this mean that we need to provide a list of procedures and a brief description? A detailed outline of each procedure will not fit within the page limitations given. Please clarify.

How the contractor chooses to best address this requirement is the contractor’s business decision. Page limitation will remain unchanged.

81 (Attachment A Statement of Work

(SOW), 1.2.B

Quality Assurance)

SOW Section 1.2.B Quality Assurance states: “…based on the requirements of DOE Order 414.1, Quality Assurance, and uses the International Organization for Standardization 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems as international consensus standard to manage tools to ensure quality objectives are achieved throughout LM’s technical, administrative, and operational functions….”

DOE Order 414.1D requires the implementation of 10 QA criteria described in Attachment 2 of the document and use of appropriate national or international consensus standards. In this case the standard being used is ISO 9001:2015. Requirements of DOE Order 414.1D must be met while implementing the ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management System standard elements.

(Attachment A, Statement of Work, I. Background and Information.)

What is the contractor’s role and what activities are performed in maintaining HPO under the LM Program?

The contractor will support LM's operation as an HPO by providing LM with sound technical and…