SSPARS_Draft_RFP_and_Industry_Day_Comments-_ROUND_3.pdf

FA2517-15-R-8001 SSPARS Draft RFP and Industry Day

Questions and Answers Round 3

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.

(page 110)

Why are offerors not required to address their proposed approach to many sections of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), such critical items as: handling classified materials, environmental and air quality programs, water programs, asbestos control, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation devices, medical services and drinking water quality. These are of significant importance and require a thorough understanding in order to protect the environment, the local community as well as the military and contractor personnel at each location.

All paragraphs of the PWS are necessary and required for the success of the mission. However, not all PWS requirements have to be evaluated or will provide discrimination among the offerors. Based on the

Government's acquisition risk analysis, the Government determined this is sufficient information to be able to differentiate among offerors or mitigate the identified risks

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.a.

(page 110)

Why is the Mission System Maintenance Plan, the most important

Subfactor being evaluated as Pass/Fail? Using this evaluation criteria the government losses the advantage of selecting a contractor with distinguishing capability and advantages above a marginal but

“acceptable” bid.

In order to help eliminate confusion, the evaluation criteria will be revised. There will now be three factors: Factor 1 -

Management, Factor 2 - Mission Maintenance, and Factor

3 - Cost/Price. Factor 1 will have four subfactors, rated most to least important: Program Management, Knowledge

Capture and Retention, Resource Management, and Small

Business Participation. Each subfactor under Factor 1 will receive a color rating. Factor 2 will be rated on an

"acceptable/unacceptable" basis. An offeror must receive a rating of "acceptable" on Factor 2 to be eligible for award.

Factor 3 will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance.

Factors 1 and 2, when combined, will be significantly more important than price.

Draft RFP

Section M-3

B.3.

(page 115)

Why is Past Performance not formally evaluated per FAR 15.304? By not evaluating contractor Past Performance for relevancy and recency the next SSPARS contractor will likely have no large Weapons System O&M experience.

Past performance will not be an evaluation factor because through market research the Government has determined it will not be a meaningful discriminator for this acquisition.

Market research has revealed that the majority of interested parties for SSPARS are large businesses with extensive experience in this type of work. The Government fully expects that, through offerors' differing technical approaches, the Government will be able to select a proposal that meets or exceeds the PWS requirements and is low-risk, thus representing the best value to the

Government and taxpayers. Past performance is reviewed by the CO when determining an offeror is responsible IAW

FAR 9.104.

FA2517-15-R-8001 SSPARS Draft RFP and Industry Day

Questions and Answers Round 3

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section M-3

C.3.

(page 119)

Why does the evaluation criteria not include price realism? While the contract is FFP and all the financial risk in selecting an unrealistically low bid is thought to be on the contractor. This thinking has proven problematic in many acquisitions where the final contract outcome is termination either by a T4C, T4D or not exercising the next option period.

In each of these cases the mission is significantly impacted, a tremendous amount of time is spent by the contractor, Government

Contracting Officer along with the technical Government customers to unwind the contract and then the procurement must be redone.

FAR guidance and GAO case precedent are clear in this regard. Price realism is not to be done on competitive FFP contracts except in "exceptional cases," for "fixed-price-type" contracts, such as when new requirements may not be fully understood by competing offerors, or performance requires meaningful numbers of "professional employees."

The SSPARS requirement is not such an "exceptional case," and FAR clause 52.222-46 will not be included in the RFP since there aren't meaningful numbers of professional employees; as such price realism will not be conducted. Per the DoD Source Selection Procedures, risk of unsuccessful performance will be addressed through the combined Technical/Risk Evaluation, which considers aspects such as potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Industry Day

Briefing

Slides

(slides 54-60)

When will the Government decide whether or not it will move forward with the "property consideration" approach?

The Government has determined this is not a viable approach and will not move forward with it. There will still be certain property that is issued as "Government-

Furnished Property." As for the "other" property at the sites, the contractor will not be required to propose consideration, nor will the contractor take title of it.

Instead, the property will be available at the sites for contractor use. As the property is consumed or wears out, if that same type of property is still required for contract performance, the contractor will be responsible for replacement at contractor expense.