STATC_Q As_dates_27_October_2016.pdf

SPECIAL TACTICS AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (STATC) TRAINING SERVICES

FA0021-16-R-0040

Questions and Answers RFP Revised 27 October 2016

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA. NO ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 RFP & PWS 4 thru 8 of 60

RFP Schedule B Travel CLINs for Base and all Option Years & PWS Para 10.0

The RFP schedule B and PWS contain travel costs instructions and allowable cost language. The Travel CLINs are identified as FFP which may be difficult to accurately estimate. A Cost Reimbursable (CR or Cost) type contract would be more definitive and likely less expensive for the government.

Will the government revise the PWS and Schedule B with the definitive instructions and/or requiremtns for travel and ODC costs and also change the Travel/ODC CLINs to Cost Reimbursable in stead of FFP?

Commercial contracts cannot have Cost Reimbursable CLINs. Please read CLIN description for CLIN 0002, 1002, and 2002 for instruction.

2 RFP 11 of 60 FAR Clause 52.207-3

As prescribed in 7.305(c) -- The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.207-3, Right of First Refusal of Employment, in all solicitations which may result in a conversion from in-house performance to contract performance of work currently being performed by the Government and in contracts that result from the solicitations, whether or not a public-private competition is conducted. The 10-day period in the clause may be varied by the contracting officer up to a period of 90 days.

Since performance under the current and previous contracts has been provided by civilian contractors, and the contractor workforce has not been converted nor is it being converted from contractor to government, will this clause be deleted?

FAR Clause 52.207-3 removed from RFP.

3 RFP 49 of 60 Para 3.3.1 Table 1

Table 1 needs clarification. Please clarify/validate the following statements.

Disk One should have our original Price Proposal Volume, our original Technical Proposal Volume, and our original Past Performance Information Volume.

Disk Two should have a copy of our Price Proposal Volume, a copy of our Technical Volume, and a copy of our Past Performance Information Volume.

Disk Three or Four should have a copy of a redacted Technical Proposal Volume.

Disk Three or Four should have a copy of our Past Performance Information Volume.

Paragraph 3.3.1 is revised. Please see Amendment 01 of the RFP.

4 RFP 49 of 60 Para 3.3.1 Table 1

Table 1 contains a note at the bottom of the table requiring one redacted copy.

Can the government define and provide more detailed instructions regarding the requirement to provide a redacted copy?

See paragraph 3.3.10 of the revised RFP.

5 RFP 50 of 60 Para 3.3.6 Page limitations language mentions a Cross Reference Matrix.

Is there a requirement to insert a Cross Reference Matrix within each volume?

Removed reference to Cross Reference Matrix.

6 Para 1.6.2.2.1.2 Inclusion of a requirement to demonstrate compliance with FAR 52.222-17-Nondisplacment of Qualified Workers as an evaluation factor when the entire contractor work force consists of SCA exempt professional employees as defined by 29 CFR Part 541 and inclusion of a requirement to demonstrate compliance with FAR 52.222-46 when compensation data should be shown/evaluated in the pricing volume instead.

This requirement is for providing professional employees classified as SCA exempt and there are no SCA non-exempt labor categories required to be proposed by the solicitation. As such, will the government remove the first requirement for FAR 52.222-17 and move the requirement for FAR clause 52.222-17 to the pricing volume?

Removed FAR 52.222-17 from the evaluation criteria and from the RFP. Added section 22.0 in the PWS.

RFP paragraph 1.6.2.2.1.2 revised to remove FAR 52.222-17 and FAR 52.222-46 language. RFP paragraph 1.6.2.2.2.4 revised to move language to paragraph 1.6.2.1.5. RFP paragraph 3.4.1 revised to include Compensation Plan. Added paragraph 3.4.1.7.

Questions and Answers RFP Revised 27 October 2016

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA. NO ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

7 Para 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.2.1, "As provided, these requirements fail to prove technical compliance with the solicitation and encourage the potential for bidders to submit Bait & Switch resumes for the purpose of meeting technical compliance where they may actually fail to have the qualified resources necessary to comply with the PWS. The same resume proposal requirements/instructions found within the PWS those should be in the RFP.

Similarly, the resume requirements, as provided, allow a bidder to submit a resume with no intent of using that person(s) in lieu of the incumbent contractors. By submitting a fictitious/proxy resume in order to obtain the low bid award, and subsequently submitting the resumes of the incumbents 5 days after award creates an environment that encourages unethical behavior and userpts the conclusion that the supplier provided a technically acceptable proposal. The PWS and RFP contradict the number of resumes to be submitted as two is defined as a minimum but the bidder is allowed to submit more than two for evaluation purposes. Where as LPTA solicitations should only be used when a product or service has well defined requirements, the bidder should provide verifiable resumes and LOIs for the five positions that confirm acceptance of the salary and compensation plan required by FAR 52.222-46 to be submitted for evaluation. This requirement also contradicts the rationale/premise for requiring compliance with FAR 52.222-46 at (c), is ambiguous, and increases risk of receiving an unrealistic bid price. "

"Will the government correct this requirement to ensure that bidders submit the resumes of their own qualified personnel for all of the positions along with a letter of commitment (LOC) backing up the representations made by the bidder that support the FAR 55.222-46 compensation plan and also ensure that the government verifies the validity of the LOC with the candidate?

Additionally, will the government remove proposal instructions from the PWS that belong in the RFP?"

RFP paragraph 3.4.2.3 states that Résumés shall include signed Letters of Intent to ensure that résumés submitted are not fictituous. All résumés submitted must meet the qualifications specified in the PWS.

No, the government will not remove the proposal instructions from the PWS.

8 Para 5.0, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 8.0

Sections 1.3, 5.0, and 8.0 contain contradictions with other parts of the PWS. For example, resume and education requirements and reference to a nonexistent RFP Section L Key Personnel requirement.

Will the government revise the PWS to remove ambiguous, contradictory, and/or superfluous requirements referred to in this sections?

There is no Key Personnel requirement for this effort.

Paragraph 5.0 language is removed. Section 1.3 addresses résumé submission requirement, whereas

8.0 addresses notification requirement

9 Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

This is a follow-on requirement. Incumbent contract number is FA002112C0001.

10 DD254 In reference to the facility security clearance requirement, please let us know if the government will consider a bid from an uncleared company, or an under cleared teaming partnership/subcontractor.

Yes, however, must have means/resources to perform PWS requirements at the start of the period of performance pending clearance.Uncleared company meeting eligibility requirements of DoD 5220-22M, may submit proposal.

Questions and Answers RFP Revised 27 October 2016

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA. NO ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

11 DD254 The question asks: "if the government will consider a bid from an uncleared company."

The response states: "Yes, however, must have means/resources to perform PWS requirements at the start of the period of performance pending clearance."

However, the Solicitation states: "5352.215-9000 FACILITY CLEARANCE (MAY 1996)...The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation."

So to clarify, it is acceptable for an Offeror (Prime) without an FCL to submit a proposal and start the POP with a pending FCL?

Yes. Prime may use teaming partners facility clearance until its facility clearance is upgraded. , it is acceptable for an Offeror (Price) without an FCL to submit a proposal provided it meets the eligibility requirement of DoD 5220 22M NISPOM.

12 PWS Pg 4 of

Para 1.3.1 1.3.1. RÉSUMÉ SUBMISSION FOR PROPOSAL PURPOSES: The contractor shall provide at least two candidate résumés and letters of intent with its proposal to show the contractor’s ability to obtain qualified personnel.

Issues:

1) RFP Instructions and evaluation criteria belong in sections L and M of the RFP and not in section C for specifications as part of the PWS.

2) A PWS describes work in terms of required results rather than “how” the work is to be accomplished whereas this paragraph does not.

No. Language was included to clarify and give notice to all parties that resumes submitted at the time of proposal are considered sample only and the awardee would have to submit resumes for approval prior to performance start date.

13 PWS Pg 4 of

Para 1.3.1 "1.3.1. RÉSUMÉ SUBMISSION FOR PROPOSAL PURPOSES: The contractor shall provide at least two candidate résumés and letters of intent with its proposal to show the contractor’s ability to obtain qualified personnel.

Issues:

1) RFP and PWS references to ""samples"" and ""two resumes"" conflicts with meeting minimum requirements for staffing per PWS 1.2.1 and under

4.6.1 geographically separated locations.

1.1) Language ambiguity conflict RFP 3.4.2.3 ""...include a minimum of two sample résumés..."" 1.2) Language ambiguity conflicts with RFP

1.6.2.2.3.2 ""Offeror submits two sample résumés..."" "

Will the government change the requirement to ensure bidders submit five candidate resumes for each of the positions and at the locations stated in the PWS along with signed LOIs backing up the representations made by the bidder?

1.3.1 and 1.6.2.2.3.2 revised to require offerors to submit five sample resumes with its proposal.

14 PWS Pg 4 of

Para 1.3.1 "1.3.1. RÉSUMÉ SUBMISSION FOR PROPOSAL PURPOSES: Contractor may submit more than two résumés with its proposal for evaluation purposes only.

Will the government change the requirement to ensure bidders submit five candidate resumes for each of the positions and at the locations stated in the PWS along with signed LOIs backing up the representations made by the bidder?

See response for item #15

Questions and Answers RFP Revised 27 October 2016

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA. NO ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Issues:

1) This is an ambiguous undefined requirement which does not establish a definitive quantity of resumes needed for evaluation.

2) The PWS establishes that five personnel are required for meeting the minimum staffing but the instructions contradict that by only requiring two resumes.

3) Price proposal and Total Compensation Plan (TCP) are dependent upon proposing a realistic level of effort for five qualified candidates that have accepted the compensation plan and salaries.

Submitting two samples thereby precludes a meaningful evaluation of the proposal cost, creates elevated risks, and would not fully support any realistic evaluation of the TCP "

15 PWS 13 of 20 Para 12.4 "12.4. SUCCESSOR CONTRACTOR

Issue:

1) This entire section paraphrases and attempts to impose Service Contract Act requirements on the bidder that are not applicable to professional services employees exempt from the act in accordance with 29 CFR part 541.

2) Of grave concern is the requirement language in subparagraph 12.4.3.4. which states, ""Establish agreements with its employees..."" forcing the bidder to enter into an employment contract with their employees. This could potentially expose both the bidder and the government to future litigation."

Will the government delete paragraph 12.4 in its entirety?

Paragraph 12.4.3.4 deleted. See revised PWS.

16 PWS 19 of 20 Para 22.0 "22.0. NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED

WORKERS

Issue:

1) This paragraph paraphrases and attempts to impose Service Contract Act requirements that are not applicable to professional services employees exempt from the act in accordance with 29 CFR part 541. "

Will the government delete paragraph 22.0 in its entirety?

No. Paragraph 22.0 will remain in the contract.

17 PWS 8 of 20 Para 6.0 We believe that DBA insurance should be included in the insurance requirement because the instructors travel overseas for training. (52.228–3

Will you add the requirement for DBA insurance into the PWS or solicitation.

The Government Reviewed DBA insurance. This is applicable to civilian employees working outside of the United States

Questions and Answers RFP Revised 27 October 2016

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA. NO ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Workers’ Compensation Insurance [Defense Base Act]).

18 Attachment 3 Tab TEP On tab TEP Sheet my numbers are not matching to my price workbook. I believe there are formula errors in the following cells: G21, L22, and O22.

G21 is pulling an amount from D21, which also contains a formula. I believe that D21 would need to be a hard-coded number for G21 to calculate correctly. For cell L22, I believe it is pulling from the wrong cell on the summary sheet. Since O22 equals L22, it also has an incorrect amount.

Also, the instruction state that we can only complete the Fill-in field on the TEP. However, I like to always round the total labor cost to be divisible evenly by the number of months in the year. May I make this adjustment?

Attachment 3 revised to make corrections on Tab TEP.

Note that TEP is for evaluation purposes only. Final pricing needs to be entered on Schedule B of the RFP.

You may make adjustments on your offer on Schedule B only or on other Tabs in Attachment 3. No adjustment allowed on Tab TEP.