Q_ _A_on_PARCS_RFP_4_Aug_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization Systems (PARCS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2517-15-R-8000
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 38
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
Text version
Sheet1
| Date Received | Question Number | Reference | RFP Document/ Paragraph/Page | Question | Response |
| 20-Jul-16 | 1 | Offerors Past Performance Volume, Technical Volume, and Price/Contract Documents Volume, paper and electronic copies, must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) on 12 August 2016 | RFP, L-5.C.1, Receipt of Proposals, p 94 | Request the Government extend the delivery proposal date out to Monday, 29 August to provide non-incumbents sufficient time for document review (e.g. CBA, FOUO and Classified document access and review) and proposal formulation in order to develop a viable response based on newly released documentation. Additionally, time is needed to distribute Past Performance Questionnaires along with timely turn in. Unfortunately, anything less than 45 days provides the incumbent teammates significant advantage due to their pre-existing familiarity. | The government has extended the proposal due date to 22 Aug 16. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 2 | Past Performance Questionnaire Relevancy, Communications Operations and Maintenance | RFP, Section M-C.1.b(2), p 102, Communications Operations and Maintenance | Would the Government consider changing the PWS Chapter requirements in this section from PWS Chapter 7 (Civil Engineering) to PWS Chapter 5 (Communication Operations and Maintenance) to better align with the Past Performance Relevancy requirements? Civil Engineering and Operations and Maintenance is already a separate relevancy requirement, and given the scope of the Communications Operations and Maintenance task, we feel that Chapter 5 is more similar to the recency requirements. | The RFP reference will be changed to Chapter 5 in Amendment 2. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 3 | Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Relevancy, Communications Operations and Maintenance | RFP Section M-3.C.1.b(2). Logistics Management | Similarly to Question #2 (above), if the Government concurs, realign PPQ Element IV, section 4.1 Logistics Management to address the following four components: Bench Stock Management, Equipment Management, Supply Point Management, and Local Purchase Support? | Since some PPQs have already been received, the PPQ form will not be changed. If the government needs any additional information from the PPQs, we will contact the POCs. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 4 | Attch 3, Cavalier IBEW 2015-2018 (2).pdf | Collective Bargaining Agreement | We understand the IBEW CBA may be a public release document, however, this CBA was first made available in the bidder’s library upon Final RFP release. The Government did not include the Pension Plan or Health and Welfare Plan referenced within the CBA. The PCO is the best source for this information. We request the Government provide the Pension Plan and Health and Welfare Plan. Currently, the incumbent possesses this entire dataset and therefore has an unfair competitive advantage. | The Health and Wellness Plan is run by The Dakotas and Western Minnesota Electrical Industry Health and Welfare Fund. The Pension Plan is run by the Dakotas Area wide IBEW-NECA Savings and Retirement Plan. Hourly rates for both plans are provided in the CBA on pages 31 and 32. The government has no additional data on either plan. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 5 | Collective Bargaining Agreement, Page 35 | The CBA Base Pay Wage Structure table on p 35 is illegible. It is difficult to determine what rates apply to which labor classification categories. Some listed labor classifications do not have a wage associated. It appears as if this document was cut and pasted into a scanned document. Will the Government provide an updated, legible copy of the CBA? If not, will the Government provide a separate, legible PDF of the Base Pay Wage Structure? | Yes. A more legible CBA was uploaded to FBO on 25 July 16. | |
| 20-Jul-16 | 6 | Attch 3, Cavalier IBEW 2015-2018 (2) | Collective Bargaining Agreement | Can the PCO provide a breakdown of unrepresented versus represented labor? If this information is not provided, it provides the incumbent teammates an unfair competitive advantage with respect to costing and management. | No. The PWS for PARCS is a performance-based PWS. In a performance based PWS, the labor mix and number of employees is decided by each offeror. Therefore, the breakdown of unrepresented versus represented could be considered proprietary information and will not be released. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 7 | Attch 2, PARCS PWS for RFP | Appendix F, p 101 | Please confirm that the MFH Contractor responsibilities and scope of work exist under a separate, mutually exclusive contract. Please identify the current MFH Contractor and MFH Contract number. | MFH is under a separate contract. The contractor is Balfour Beatty Communities, LLC. There is no contract number since this is a lease real estate transaction. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 8 | Attch 2, PARCS PWS for RFP | Appendix F, p 101 | Please clearly delineate which contractor, the PARCS Contractor or the MFH Contractor, will have responsibility for the following scope per facility (ie - gymnasium, individual Military Family Housing Unit, etc): “The Contractor shall inspect, test, operate, maintain, and repair real property (RP), real property installed equipment (RPIE), and appliances and fitness equipment to support the Service Area IAW manufacturer’s recommendations, applicable industry codes, and federal, state, and local regulations as well as requirements below” | PWS Attachment F identifies the demarcation points. The gymnasium is real property and is maintained by the PARCS contractor. The |
individual MFH units are maintained by the Housing Contractor.
| 20-Jul-16 | 9 | Attch 2, PARCS PWS for RFP | PWS 1.11.3, p 8 | As expressed during the Industry Day, the highest risk to the PARCS operations is, "not appropriately maintaining an adequate workforce." Would the Government clarify the status of the personnel knowledge continuity risk? Based on local employee surveys, research strongly indicates significant loss of experienced personnel over the next 12 months. Given the current RFP requirements, it is not clear that the Knowledge Management Plan deliverable, 60 days post contract award, mitigates the Government's highest risk. Would the Government consider including the Knowledge Management plan requirement as part of the technical evaluation? All non-incumbent offerors would inherit a significant, unknown personnel knowledge continuity risk that in turn presents the government with performance risk. We request government reconsider their position. | The Government is using the staffing plan as part of the Technical Evaluation and recruiting/retention as part of the Past Performance Evaluation to mitigate the workforce risk. Unknown personnel continuity is always a concern for non-incumbent contractors. Evaluation of these two areas should be enough to mitigate the performance risk while not favoring the incumbent. |
| 20-Jul-16 | 10 | Attch 2, PARCS PWS for RFP | PWS 1.2.3 Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs. | Would the Government validate the first line of the paragraph regarding fee on labor; …, labor (no profit), … Reference FAR 15.404 -- Profit (a) (2) - (3) | The Government does not foresee many labor hours being used on Cost Reimbursable CLINs. The labor should be included in the FFP CLINs when possible. Para. 1.2.3 of the PWS will be changed to better define CR items. Profit is not allowed because that would, in effect, make this a cost plus percentage of cost CLIN. |
| 24-Jun-16 | 11 | Will Past Performance scoring be done across multiple citations to evaluate the offeror team as a whole? We believe there will be very few offerors who can provide past performance citations that cover all of the requirements with a single citation. Teams, like the one we propose, would be able to show significant relevant experience in all of the functional areas, though not all functional areas would be on a single citation. | Yes, the teams will be evaluated as a whole across multiple citations. | ||
| 24-Jun-16 | 12 | Would you consider relaxing some of the criteria for determining a citation to be "Relevant"? Requiring experience in all of the components of a functional area for a citation to be considered "Relevant" seems overly restrictive | We have changed the criteria in Amendment 1 to add 'Very Relevant', which allows for experience in less than all areas to be considered Relevant. | ||
| 24-Jun-16 | 13 | Would you consider changing the evaluation criteria for the Technical volume to a scaled score? We believe there could be some approaches to technical work that could result in cost reductions. The Pass/Fail rating does not provide any benefit to improvements in technical approach. The current criteria does not seem to provide evaluators a means to evaluate the risks that might be inherent in different approaches. The critical missions, especially missile warning, of the PARCS would seem to lend itself to a need for a scalable evaluation of risk. One such risk is the approach to staffing in light of the expectations of retiring incumbent staff | No. The Government determined that the Pass/Fail rating of technical was effective evaluation criteria for the PARCS contract. | ||
| 24-Jun-16 | 14 | Would the Government be open to the idea of managed services versus a large standing staff? | Yes, as long as it meets the requirements of the RFP and PWS. | ||
| 24-Jun-16 | 15 | Would you consider accepting alternative proposals? | No, IAW RFP para L-5.B.1.d. alternate proposals will not be accepted. | ||
| 29-Jul-16 | 16 | Amendment_01_to_RFP_FA2517-15-R-8000-0001_Conformed_RFP.docx |
L-5 Proposal Instructions D.3.a.(2), Price Information The Government has established contract estimates for Local Purchase, Environmental Compliance Costs, Vehicle Fuels and Pollution Prevention Costs, under Section B. These numbers should not be adjusted by the offeror Section B ESTIMATED COST for the following CLINs is currently blank:
• X006 OM&s Local Purchase
• X007 Environmental Compliance Costs
• X008 Vehicle Fuels
• X009 Pollution Prevention Costs
Will the government please provide an updated Section B that includes the government established ESTIMATED COST for these CLINS?
| Yes, the government will update Section B to include these costs. | ||
| 29-Jul-16 | 17 | Amendment_01_to_RFP_FA2517-15-R-8000-0001_Conformed_RFP.docx |
CLINS X005 Individual Job Order Services
| CLINs X005, Individual Job Order Services NET AMOUNT is currently blank. | |||
| Can the government please clarify if it is their expectation that Offerors leave CLINs X005 NET AMOUNT blank, or, if the government will be providing Offerors with an updated Schedule B that includes the government establish value for these CLINS? | Leave CLIN X005 amount blank. Section L-5.D.3.a.(5) has been updated to address this CLIN. | ||
| 29-Jul-16 | 18 | 2._Attch_2,_PARCS_PWS_for_RFP.pdf |
PWS 1.2.4
Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)
| Can the Government please clarify if non-vehicle fuel costs (e.g. oil, diesel, natural gas) associated with running the electrical generation equipment will be cost reimbursable, or, if Offerors are to include such costs into the firm fixed price offering? | Non-vehicle fuels will be cost reimbursable. CLIN X006 will be used for generator fuel purchase. | ||
| 29-Jul-16 | 19 | Bidder’s Library, via AMRDEC Safe File Exchange | We do not locate, in the Bidder’s Library, via AMRDEC Safe File Exchange, a RPIE listing. |
Will the Government please provide Offerors with a RPIE listing?
| The Government is developing a RPIE listing and it will be posted later. | |||||
| 29-Jul-16 | 20 | Reference Solicitation Section L-5 Instruction to Offeror's; Subsection D Proposal Volume Instructions; Volume III Price/Contract Documents; Price Information para4 (page 98/105) | Would the Government be willing to provide the current number and labor categories of Union positions operating on the contract? | See answer for question 6. | |
| 29-Jul-16 | 21 | Reference Solicitation Section L-5 Instruction to Offeror's; Subsection D Proposal Volume Instructions; Volume III Price/Contract Documents; Price Information para4 (page 98/105) | Would the Government be willing to provide the tenure statistics for the current Union employees? This information will allow bidders to more accurately price the fringe benefits dictated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. | The government does not have this information. A seniority list will be provided 10 days prior to the current contract completion. | |
| 29-Jul-16 | 22 | Collective Bargaining Agreement | Section 7. Health Insurance and Pension (a) NEBF | The National Electric Benefit Fund (NEBF) is currently underperforming; therefore, the current contractor (and future contractor) will likely be subjected to a Withdrawal Liability at contract end. Given the Government's position to stay removed from the PARCS OM&S Contractor and the IBEW Union, combined with the IBEW refusal to discuss anything with potential bidders, how does the Government intend to eliminate contractor Firm Fixed Price Risk inherited by the winning contractor? Recommend that the Government include a CBA Cost Reimbursable CLIN for costs resulting from the CBA; e.g. Withdrawal Liability. The CBA unknowns represent a significant Cost Awareness advantage for the incumbent teammates on a FFP Contract. | We would deal with and entertain any potential withdrawal liability at the time it occurs, IAW FAR 52.222-43. |
| 29-Jul-16 | 23 | Collective Bargaining Agreement | Section 7. Health Insurance and Pension (a) | Currently, there are common, accepted practices between BAE and IBEW to conduct operations and work through issues. The bidders are taking on unknown risk in a FFP relationship. As part of the incumbent, will the incumbent be required to document practices between themselves and the IBEW? Can the Government provide sufficient insight into these practices to help reduce bidder risk? | No. The incumbent will not be required to document practices between themselves and the IBEW at this time. The government does not have insight into these practices. |
| 29-Jul-16 | 24 | PWS Section 4, Appendix E Reports Cross Reference | R1.1, Quality Status Report | PWS Reference should be corrected to read 1.5.11.3 vs. 1.5.12.3. | Changed PWS reference. |
| 29-Jul-16 | 25 | Bidders Library | Over 6,000 items. | Given the immense volume (thousands) of files provided in the Bidder's Library, will the Government consider providing an additional week (29 Aug) for the RFP responses, so that bidders may adequately review the documentation? Unfortunately we are at a distinct disadvantage as compared to incumbent teammates document familiarity. | At this time, the government does not plan to extend the proposal due date past the 22 Aug 16 date. |
| 29-Jul-16 | 26 | Collective Bargaining Agreement | Article 6, Section 8 Portability of Sick Leave | "In the event that the incumbent company loses the contract with the government, the successor contractor will be responsible for carryover of employee unused sick leave balances." How does the Government intend to compensate the contractor for carryover balances? Employees earn up to 88 hours of sick leave on an annual basis. Maximum accrual is 720 hours. That is 90 days of sick time which represents significant cost within a FFP contract. Recommend that the Government consider a cost reimbursable CLIN to cover transferred sick leave to mitigate contractor risk from unknown CBA labor costs. Unfortunately the CBA represents numerous, undefined risks to the incoming contractor. It's impossible to estimate these costs. Adding the costs to the proposal will force the bidder to raise their price putting them in a distinct competitive Performance Price Tradeoff disadvantage. A reimbursable CLIN strategy is means to eliminate the risk. | Sick leave is only paid for when used. Thus, we do not agree that the carried over sick leave represents a huge, guaranteed liability. Rather, we expect offerors to take this potential sick leave into account when preparing their proposals and staffing approaches. |
| 27 | From Post Site Visit Question #19: What is the average life if a TWT? | Spreadsheet on average TWT Life will be posted on FBO. | |||
| 28 | |||||
| 29 | |||||
| 30 | |||||
| 31 | |||||
| 32 | |||||
| 33 | |||||
| 34 | |||||
| 35 | |||||
| 36 | |||||
| 37 | |||||
| 38 | |||||
| 39 | |||||
| 40 | |||||
| 41 | |||||
| 42 | |||||
| 43 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .