Question_Responses_to_RFI_3.pdf

Question GOVERNMENT RESPONSE DATE ANSWERED

During the transition phase, contractors are required to stand up a warehouse for GFE/P. Can the Government confirm the warehouse size listed in the industry day slides still relevant? It is suggested that a requirement be added that the warehouse must be climate controlled to properly protect GFP/E. The IRSP inventory includes circuit cards, high value tubes, integrated circuits, etc. valuing more than $40M that will degrade without this requirement.

Verbiage added to SOW paragraph

3.2.1 "The contractor shall provide inventory management of approximately

1.4 million government-owned parts, in an access controlled contractor furnished facility suitable for housing standard and specialized GFP, as well as, all government-owned tools/test equipment, major hardware, technical data support packages, and software support packages."

26-Jun-19

Will the Government add the specifications for the warehouse requirements to the DRFP in the solicitation or SOW?

The government is not providing a specific specification for the warehouse requirement to allow for various offeror's solution.

26-Jun-19

With the projected increase in scope and contract value, will the government consider changing this CLIN from NSP to a CR CLIN and provide a plug number or percentage for proposal purposes.

The government intends to keep this as NSP. 26-Jun-19

The Government has established a 5% MQR for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB). As the incumbent, we have found it challenging to meet the 5% requirement for SDB in the industry. Will the government consider changing this subcategory MQR to 2.5%.

Not at this time. Market Research indicates the 5% MQR for SDB is attainable.

27-Jun-19

With increase in scope and projected contract value we suggest raising the annual contract magnitude for the very relevant rating to $50M annually. During the current contract, the average dollar value per year has averaged more than 3 times the $20M value you currently have for annual contract magnitude for the very relevant rating. Recommend including a requirement of supporting multiple locations to include OCONUS locations for Relevant and Very Relevant evaluation criteria.

This path eliminates the cost savings that come with small businesses as well as the agility, flexibility and innovation that small business decides.

The government can decide to concentrate on selecting a best value contractor as described in Para. M-2 Evaluation factors or have a large company run off. If the government is willing to consider small business primes then change the number of relevant past performances from 10 to 5 in Section L, Para 2.3.1 and remove the dollar values associated with relevancy in Section M, Table 2.3.1.2.

Response is Pending

Page 6 States “The offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document submission of Section L, Table 2.2 above, indicating the business category and percentage of Total Contract Value will be evaluated against the below stated Government Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) Percentages: 35% Small Business, 5% Small Disadvantaged Business; 5% Women-Owned Small Business; 0.5% Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) Business; and 1% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business.” Question: The DoD 2019 Small Business Subcontracting goals (statutory goals) are 5% WOSB, 5% SDB, 3% HUBZone, and 3% SDVOSB. These goals are in terms of Total Subcontract Value (TSV). The solicitation lists similar percentage goals for each socio-economic category, but states they are based on Total Contract Value (TCV). Please advise if it is the Governments intent for the overarching small business participation goal be based on TCV and the socio-economic goals be based on TSV, consistent with the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established by Congress.

The Governments intent is Small Business Participation Commitment will be evaluated based on the Total Contract Value (TCV). (See AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1)) The DOD Small Business Subcontracting Goals are not applicable to the Small Business Participation Commitment.

27-Jun-19

Past performance requirements in Section L, Paragraph 2.3.1 and Section M, Table2.3.1.2 are inconsistent with small business as a Prime. Section L, para 2.3.1 indicates that a prime, and subcontractor can supply "...up to ten recent and relevant contracts...." but Section M, Table 2.3.1.2 indicates that to be very relevant the annual contract value has to have an annual value of $20M. Even to be somewhat relevant the past performances have to have a annual contract value of $5M. No true small business has 10 Past performances with annual values of $20M. This requirement was a primary reason the government only received one submission for this important contract. It clearly favors and looks for large business participation. This path eliminates the cost savings that come with small businesses as well as the agility, flexibility and innovation that small business decides. The government can decide to concentrate on selecting a best value contractor as described in Para. M-2 Evaluation factors or have a large company run off. If the government is willing to consider small business primes then change the number of relevant past performances from 10 to 5 in Section L, Para 2.3.1 and remove the dollar values associated with relevancy in Section M, Table 2.3.1.2.

Response is Pending

Block 11 item b of the DD254 states that we can receive and store classified documents only. How are we supposed to receive the classified documents? I expect block 11 item m should be selected and stated that SIPRNET access will be required. Mailing or hand carrying classified documents between locations would be time sensitive and risky. The SIPRNET would provide the most efficient and safe way to transfer classified information.

SIPR terminal will not be provided. 26-Jun-19

Will the contractor need access to classified information at the OCONUS sites listed in block 13. If so, then block 11f should be checked. No 26-Jun-19

Since Volume 2, Small Business Participation has a maximum page limit of 5 pages, do we need Table 2.2.3 for identifying SB Categories, Product/Services, NAICS Code, and Nature of Commitment, along with sections 2.2.4 Proposed Ranges, 2.2.5 Listing of Supplies/Services,

2.2.6 Extent of Commitment, and 2.2.7 Description of Efforts, because it is the same information described in the Table. Do we need the table and also the sections explaining the same information, which limits our ability to have a maximum of 5 pages?

Yes. The Table 2.2.3 is a required summary. Paragraphs 2.2.4 through

2.2.8. are considered supporting documentation and are excluded from the page count.

27-Jun-19

Section 3.1 says there will be a phase in period to understand work flows and develop labor mixes. An offeror would expect the RFP to contain sufficient information to include in the proposal, not after award when it could drive cost.

Workflows and labor mixes will be evaluated as part of sections L and M, and will not be developed during phase-in.

26-Jun-19

Section 3.2.1 – Must maintain stock levels. What is the process to identify what the government considers to be sufficient stock?

Contractor will recommend and the government will approved based on available funding and usage.

26-Jun-19

Section 3.2.2 – DPAS interface – What is that interface? Is there an ICD? Successful contractor will need to identify an application that provides the range managers and government the insight they need along with the required interface to DPAS. The phase out plan is clear the incumbent will not turn over their existing application. Lack of this information could cause an offeror to provide an inefficient solution.

Response is Pending

Section 3.3 Obsolescence –Does the government have any requirements relative to how this is executed e.g. ongoing DMSMS program, situational reaction? Lack of definition of expectations could lead to an approach that does not meet government expectations and puts a successor contractor at performance risk.

The government will evaluate approaches as identified in sections L and M.

26-Jun-19

Section 3.6 – Are the semi-annual travels to locations other than PAFB? Yes, destinations are TBD on a yearly basis. 26-Jun-19

Is DPAS the cost accounting system referenced in the stock replenishment CONOPS? Reference the previous question concerning identification of the DPAS interface.

No 26-Jun-19

Since the incumbent contractor will likely not have a Phase-In period, will the Phase In/Phase Out be included in the evaluation of the proposed cost?

The Phase In/Phase Out period is anticipated to be a plug number for evaluation purposes only.

26-Jun-19

The Relevant and Very Relevant categories for the Instrumentation Tracking Systems, will make it difficult for all but the incumbent and the top ten large companies to have a well-scoring Past Performance volume.

Response is Pending

The concept of payment for stock items and repairs/overhauls is clear in the CONOPS. Would like to receive confirmation of whether the Ranges will use the Wide Area Workflow system or equivalent to pay for the stock and repair costs. Additionally, would the government consider receiving payment for the stock items in any form other than a check?

WAWF and check will be utilized. 26-Jun-19

Is the intent to show $20M annual performance in each of the three Relevancy Areas in order to demonstrate "Very Relevant" status or is it an aggregate of $20M annual performance across the three areas? In other words, would an offerer who demonstrates, as an example, $5M annual performance in Program Management, $5M annual performance in Supply Requirements, and $10M annual performance in Specialized Expertise be viewed as Very Relevant.

Response Pending

Does the magnitude of effort in the relevancy criteria required to meet an Adjectival Rating need to come from a single contract? Response Pending

Sheet1