Combined_Industry_DRAFT_RFP_CRM.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted

Attached to
Eglin Operations & Maintenance Services (Formerly Eglin Test & Training Complex Technical Services (ETTC-TS) Program) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA2486-16-R-0002
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Test Center

About this file

From the source

Please find attached Government comments to Industry's critical CRM responses to the E-OMS Presolicitation Draft RFP.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Eglin Operations & Maintenance Services (Formerly Eglin Test & Training Complex Technical Services (ETTC-TS) Program), newest first.
File Type Posted
E-OMS_Model_Contract_QandA.pdf PDF
FA2486-16-R-0002-0002_Signed.pdf PDF
Section_J_Attachment_3_WD_05-3033_Rev_16_Okaloosa_County _FL.pdf PDF
Section_J_Attachment_10_E-OMS_WPAFB_GFP.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Section_M.pdf PDF
Section_L_Attachment_8_TEP_6_Jul.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Section_L_Attachment_7_Sample_E-OMS_Cost_Element_Summary.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ADM_Synopsis.pdf PDF
Comment_Resolution_Matrix.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
2015_E-OMS_CDRLs_10_Jun_2015.pdf PDF
NRTF_Mission_Info.pdf PDF
E-OMS_Mission_Vision_HLO's.pdf PDF
Draft_Contract.pdf PDF
Section_J_Attachment_3_WD_05-3033_Rev_15_Okaloosa_County _FL.pdf PDF
Section_J_Attachment_7_DD254_Contract_Security_Classification_Specification.pdf PDF
Section_L_Attachment_9_TEP_3.20.15.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Section_L_Attachment_1_Government_Staffing_Estimate_3.20.15.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Draft_Section_L_3.20.15.pdf PDF
E-OMS_Draft_Comments_MFR.pdf PDF
E-OMS_Draft_RFP_Questions_Answers.pdf PDF
NRTF_Industry_Day_Tour_Scripts.pdf PDF
Resources.pdf PDF
Regulations_List.pdf PDF
Section_L_Attachment_8_Sample_E-OMS_Cost_Element_Summary.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Section_J_Attachment_9_Key_Personnel_Labor_Category_Descriptions.pdf PDF
FBO_Draft_RFP_Cover_Letter.pdf PDF
FBO_Schedule_Update__2.pdf PDF
ASP_Synopsis.pdf PDF
OM_DTF_Description_17_Apr_14_TAIP_-_updated.pdf PDF
TRD_C10.pdf PDF
TRD_B2B.pdf PDF
TRD_D1.pdf PDF
TRD_F4.pdf PDF
TRD_D4.pdf PDF
TRD_C2.pdf PDF
TRD_B9A.pdf PDF
TRD_C9.pdf PDF
TRD_F2D.pdf PDF
TRD_A3.pdf PDF
TRD_F2A.pdf PDF
TRD_A2.pdf PDF
TRD_B2A.pdf PDF
TRD_B13.pdf PDF
TRD_D2.pdf PDF
TRD_C1.pdf PDF
TRD_B11.pdf PDF
E-OMS_Industry_Day_Announcement.pdf PDF
TAB_62_-_Attachment_02_-_PWS__Rev_I__10_Jan_2014.pdf PDF
Attachment_3_Rev_I.pdf PDF
Name_Change_FBO_MFR.pdf PDF
Show all 50

Eglin Operations & Maintenance Services (Formerly Eglin Test & Training Complex Technical Services (ETTC-TS) Program) has more files on GovTribe.

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Draft Model Contract & Attmnts E-OMS Draft Model Contract & Attachments Critical Comment/Recommendation Matrix

CRITICAL COMMENTS ONLY

#Draft Model Contract & Attachments ReferenceDetailed Reference (paragraph, page, etc)Critical CommentRecommended RevisionGovt Response
1NRTF CBAGeneralIn order to propose accurate and fair costs for employees covered under the CBA at NRTF, offerors will need to know the current savings plan match rate and health care company contribution percentage (e.g. 50/50, 80/20).Recommend the Government provide details for the CBA to allow offerors to develop accurate cost proposals and propose the fairest benefits for incumbent employees.E-OMS posted the NRTF CBA on FBO.
2Section H04Page 56The EGLIN-H04 clause, Portable Benefits Program (MAY 2015), references a pension plan that contractors must assure coverage.1) What locations include a pension plan?
2) Is the pension cost included within the plug numbers provided by the Government, or will each contractor estimate the cost within their fringe pool(s)? 3) If required to estimate pension costs, will the Government consider providing additional pension cost information to assist with this estimate?The only pension plans currently on contract are at NRTF. These are addressed in the CBA
3Attachment 1Section A GSE Worksheet, Note 2This note makes reference to the Overarching PWS requirements and, in particular, cites PWS elements 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, and 6.9. We do not find these PWS elements in the PWS, which would seem critical to properly estimating the appropriate staffing.Ensure that Overarching PWS elements in Note 2 are consistent with PWS.E-OMS team corrected the incorrect reference, and note 2 now reference PWS paragraph 7.1-7.9.
4Attachment 4 - Relevancy MatrixPage L-35The "Relevancy Matrix" requested in Attachment 4 seems to be redundant information offerors are requested to include in the PPI tool. For instance, Attachment 4 requests a description of experience that applies to each subfactor - which is the information the PPI Tool requests offerors to include. Describing information by subfactor in the PPI tool as well as Attachment 4 will result in duplicate information for the Government to evaluate.To avoid duplicated information for the source selection team to review, we recommend the Government replace Attachment 4 Relevancy Matrix with a relevancy matrix that easily tracks each relevant contract across the subfactors. We provided an example from the Test Operations and Sustainment (TOS) proposal (FA9101-13-R-0100) for your consideration.Agreed. Language will be updated in the PPI tool instructions to identify applicable factors. Attachment 4 will be removed from section L.
1B01-Page 35 and DPWSPWS Paragraph 4.1.3.2.8. Establishing a single point of contact for scheduling facilities and resources at the LGTF, AVSF and NRTF (one single point of contact for each of the three facilities).Key hires include the LGTF Site Manager, but does not include the AVSF Site Manager. PWS 4.1.3.2.8 requires single POC for both LGTF and AVSF which drives the perception that two individuals need to be identified.Adjust 4.1.3.2.8 to state the single POC for LGTF and AVSF may be the same person.Adjusted 4.1.3.2.8 for clarity.
2CLIN 0002, Page 2
CLIN 0022, Page 8NRTF Operation and Maintenace Contract BaseThe NRTF Base period CLIN starts 1 Apr 2016 like all others yet NRTF's transition is 1 Apr-30 Sep 2016 coincident with the current NRTF Contract PoP.Recommend CLIN 0002 start 1 Oct 2016Adjusted CLIN 0002.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Draft PWS E-OMS Draft PWS

#Draft PWS ReferenceDetailed Reference (paragraph, page, etc)Critical CommentRecommended RevisionGovt Response
1B01-Page 35 and DPWSPWS Paragraph 4.1.3.2.8. Establishing a single point of contact for scheduling facilities and resources at the LGTF, AVSF and NRTF (one single point of contact for each of the three facilities).Key hires include the LGTF Site Manager, but does not include the AVSF Site Manager. PWS 4.1.3.2.8 requires single POC for both LGTF and AVSF which drives the perception that two individuals need to be identified.Adjust 4.1.3.2.8 to state the single POC for LGTF and AVSF may be the same person.Adjusted 4.1.3.2.8 for clarity.
2DPWS 4.2.16.2.94.2.16.2.9. Operate and Maintain the Sniper Fire Range; to include targets and ground maintenance.Sniper Fire Range is a new capability not referenced (or named differently) as previously discussed in the DPWS or in the associated TRD Appendix B13.Provide Sniper Fire Range detail (or cross-reference) in the updated TRD Appendix B13.Additional sniper fire range information provided to offerors that submitted a completed notice of intent to propose.
1Section C, 7.3 "Configuration Management" in conjunction with Section L 2.4Paragraph 7.3.2.3, Page 40 and Paragraph 2.4.c, Page L-9The referenced PWS paragraph requires that the E-OMS contractor “maintain a Configuration Management Plan that complies with the EAFB, WPAFB, or HAFB configuration management plans.” As Section L 2.4.c. requires offerors to describe their CM approach and processes, it is important for offerors to ensure approaches are in compliance with the PWS-referenced CM plans.We suggest that these plans be posted as Bidder’s Library items on the FBO web page. Please clarify that CM plans shall or shall not be developed by an offeror after contract award.Updated PWS paragraph to remove the compliance language.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Draft Section L E-OMS Draft Section L

#Draft Section L ReferenceDetailed Reference (paragraph, page, etc)Critical CommentRecommended RevisionGovt Response
11.3Table L1 and Paragraph 1.3.7;
Pages L-6 and L-8Table L1 calls for two paper copies and three electronic copies. However, Paragraph 1.3.7 instructs Offerors to submit "(one CD per proposal copy; three CDs total.)"Please clarify if the Government requests three hard copies (Original +2 copies) and three electronic copies per volume.The Government requests 2 paper copies and 3 electronic copies per volume
21.3Paragraph 1.3.2;
Page L-7In regards to foldouts, the instructions state, "...contain data on one side." Does this apply to cost volume as well?Will the Government accept double sided fold outs in the cost volume?Double sided foldouts are not accepted. Language in section L has been updated to reflect this position.
31.3Paragraph L.1.3.2;
Page L-4Header and footer requirements are not specified.Will the Government please identify any specific header/footer font requirements?No. There are no Government required header or footers.
41.3Paragraph L.1.3.2L 1.3.2 states that "Offerors shall not alter…Government provided forms…", then states that Offeror's responses submitted on Government provided forms are not subject to these restrictions.Please clarify the requirements in regards to filling out cost forms L-8 and whether or not an offeror may add columns in accordance with their cost accounting practices (i.e., insert additional burden columns).Language in section L has been updated to identify where tailoring is allowed.
52.4Paragraph 2.4.d, 2.4.e, 2.5.c, and 2.6.b;

Pages L-9 and L-10

Section L, Paragraph 2.4.d and 2.4.e appear to be requests for staffing approaches. These requirements appear to be redundant with 2.5.c and 2.6.b.It appears the requirements of 2.4.d and 2.4.e would fit better under the management requirements of 2.5 and 2.6.
Due to the technical complexity required of the most highly specialized positions, the Government will evaluate these under the technical approach subfactor. The staffing approach in the management subfactor addresses the Offeror's staffing approach during contract execution. The staffing approach in Transition addresses the Offeror's plan to meet 100% of the most highly specialized positions on day 1 of full performance.
63.1Paragraph 3.1, Part (i); Page L-13The Past Performance Questionnaire includes a note that it is not to exceed three pages. It is our understanding that Offerors will not have access to completed questionnaires as they will be sent directly to the contracting office, therefore cannot be included in the PPI Volume.Will the Government please clarify if they are referring to the list of questionnaire recipients? If so, we recommend the Government modify the RFP to read “List of Past Performance Questionnaire recipients shall not exceed three pages” to avoid confusion among potential bidders.Updated language in the questionaire to reflect the requirement for no more than three pages.
73.3Paragraph 3.3.2;
Page L-13There are very few details regarding limits of the PPI Tool. For instance, the Test Operations and Sustainment (TOS) RFP included a character limit by fields.Will the Government please clarify if there is any character limit in the PPI tool?

Also, will the PPI tool be available before submission to ensure there are no issues with entering/submitting information into the tool?

See attached example from the Test Operations and Sustainment (TOS) RFP (FA9101-13-R-0100).Added a table to identify character limits. The team intends to post the PPI tool prior to RFP release
83.4Paragraph 3.4;
Page L-14The organizational structure change history is limited to two pages.We recommend the Government allow two pages for the prime and for each of the major subcontractors for the organizational change history.The Gov believes 2 pages are adequate for organizational change history
94.0Paragraph 4.4.2.5"Provide a Cost Summary by major cost elements using Section L Attachment 8 as a guide..."Please confirm our assumption that minor subcontractors (companies receiving less than 25% of the contract value) are not required to submit a cost proposal to include L-8.The Government requires cost element entries for the prime and all sub contractors.
13.3.1Page L-13. PPI is information regarding the performance of a contract, either as a prime contractor, a major subcontractor, or a joint venture partner. Offerors shall submit PPI on recent and relevant contracts for itself as the prime contractor and for all major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor performing 25% or more of the contract scope based on either total labor hours or total cost. If an Offeror is a joint venture, then the Offeror shall also submit PPI on recent and relevant contracts for each joint venture partner.The major subcontractor criteria is excessively high at 25% and limits the amount of PPI references we can provide to highlight the team's capability.Recommend changing the major subcontractor definition to highlight 10% of the contract scope based upon either total labor hours or total cost.The Govt believes 25% is the appropriate threshold for major subcontractors.
23.3.1Page L-13. Offerors may submit PPI on up to three recent and relevant contracts for itself as the prime contractor. Offerors may also submit PPI on up to three recent and relevant contracts for each major subcontractor. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror may submit PPI on up to three recent and relevant contracts for each joint venture partner in addition to submitting up to three recent and relevant contracts for each major subcontractor. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use information provided by each Offeror in this volume and information obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.Three relevant PPIs for the prime limit the Government's visibility into the breadth and expertise the Prime can bring to the E-OMS contract.In order to show more visibility to relevancy and recency, we recommend changing the Prime's relevant PPI citation submission to five.IAW Sec L Para 3.3 the Govt's evaluation the offorer's 3 submissions is only one portion of the total Past Performance evaluation.
32.4.eThe Offeror’s specific technical approach to accomplish PWS Section 4.5 – Major Ground Test Facilities to include the Offeror’s specific strategy, processes, and plans for filling each of the contract’s most highly specialized positions no later than the final day of the transition period and whenever a vacancy occurs during the life of the contract.A Key Personnel was not stated for NRTF scope of workSince the NRTF scope of work is now part of this contract, we recommend adding an NRTF Key Personnel requirement.The NRTF is not part of the LOE requirement, and they do not have a key personnel requirement.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Draft Section M E-OMS Draft Section M

#Draft Section M ReferenceDetailed Reference (paragraph, page, etc)Critical CommentRecommended RevisionGovt Response
12.0Page M-4, Subsection L 2.4.d, 2.4.e, and 2.4.fMission Capability evaluation criteria for Section L 2.4.d, 2.4.e, and 2.4.f again appear to be addressing management and staffing approach.Will the Government please consider the recommendation submitted under the tab "Draft Section L – Line 4" If so, please update Section M to reflect the changes.Due to the technical complexity required of the most highly specialized positions, the Government will evaluate these under the technical approach subfactor. The staffing approach in the management subfactor addresses the Offeror's staffing approach during contract execution. The staffing approach in Transition addresses the Offeror's plan to meet 100% of the most highly specialized positions on day 1 of full performance.
22.0Section L, Subsection 2.4.j, Page M-5The Government is evaluating the contractors data service center system capability to operate within the DOD GIG NIPRNet; however, Section L allows the contractor's data service center to operate externally.We recommend the Government include evaluation criteria of data service centers operating outside the NIPRNet.Evaluation criteria will evaluate offorers approach to operate on the NIPR/GIG IAW Cybersecurity regs.
33.0Section 3.1.2, Relevancy Assessment, Page M-7The two past performance relevancy ratings would appear to reduce the ability of the Government to differentiate among offerors should the need arise.We recommend two approaches to help differentiate relevancy:

1.) Establish relevancy criteria in regards to Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity 2.) Use DoD Source Selection Procedures to determine the degrees of relevancy: Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. Also, ensure the description of relevancy are clear and concise (e.g., very relevant = experience in all five major PWS mission areas and all subfactors).

For reference, we extracted Section M pages related to relevancy from the Test Operations and Sustainment (TOS) proposal (FA9101-13-R-0100).Current Past Performance criteria will provide adequate data for the government to conduct evaluations
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Draft Award Fee Plan E-OMS Draft Award Fee Plan

#Draft Award Fee Plan ReferenceDetailed Reference (paragraph, page, etc)Critical CommentRecommended RevisionGovt Response
1Appendix 1 Award Fee/Term Evaluation CriteriaAttachment 8, Appendix 1, paragraph A1.1.1.3.2, Table(s) A1.2, page 12, and PWS paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3.The first paragraph of the referenced section states "The spend plan is evaluated monthly for its accuracy. All financial inspections are evaluated, in the aggregate, at the end of the award fee period." As currently defined in the referenced section, in order for the Contractor to receive a qualitative rating and/or the maximum, excellent award fee score in the Financial Inspections area, the variations from the DBA spend plan monthly and/or semi-annual must be zero (0). Considering the stated criteria, it would be virtually impossible for a Contractor's variances in actuals vs. plan to be zero.Request the Government reconsider the thresholds for Satisfactory and Excellent performance ratings for the Financial Inspections section of the award fee to be more reasonable. Without accurate mission and or test directive RBA projections for the entire fiscal year, or at least for a semi-annual award fee period, the variations in actual DBA vs. the DBA spend plan will most likely exceed even the current Satisfactory performance required levels for either PWS 5.2.2 or 5.2.3 and especially 5.2.3 which requires the Contractor's variance to be no more than +/- 0.5%.Revised the range for maximum score to a deviation of less than 0.1% for spend plan calculation and less than 0.01% for DBA spend goal calculation.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

CDRL

E-OMS Draft CDRLs

#Draft CDRL ReferenceDetailed Reference (paragraph, page, etc)Critical CommentRecommended RevisionGovt Response
1A005 - Data Collection ReportPages 7-8, Block 16References to 46 TW forms/instructions is confusing as the 46 TW is now the 96 TWConfirm legacy 46 TW forms/instructions are to be used or provide information on new 96 TW forms/instructions to be usedThis has been confirmed.
2A010 - Budget/Cost Status ReportPage 14, Block 16, paragraph 4.BFirst submission is the 15th of the month after contract award. This suggests this CDRL is due during transition, a FFP activity.Recommend changing the submission to the 15th of the month after tranisition period ends and contract starts.Revised to state the submission is due the 15th of the month after transition period ands and contract begins.
3A017 - Cost Analysis ReportPage 25, Block 16, Part Five.A.First submission is the 15th of the month after contract award. This suggests this CDRL is due during transition, a FFP activity. Additionally, the data required will be incumbent-collected facility code data.Recommend changing the submission to the 15th of the month after tranisition period ends and contract starts.Revised to state the submission is due the 15th of the month after tranisition period ends and contract starts.
4A018 - Product & Service Rate Validation ReportsPage 26, Block 16, Part Two.A.First delivery is the 10th of the month following first three months after contract award. This presumes we get incumbent contractor data to perform our analysis and our first submission will be in April 2016.Please clarify that is the case. Alternatively, recommend changing Part Two.A to read "First delivery is the 10th of the month following first three months after after transition ends and contract starts."Revised to state the submission is due the 10th of the month following the first three months after transition ends and contract begins.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .