The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
FA4452-11-R-0013
| L2.2 |
| Are PDF files allowable vice Microsoft Word? |
| Yes, except for the pricing, which should be submitted using the Excel file. Do NOT PDF the Excel file. |
| L3.1 |
| How are you pricing the 18 months beyond Option 4? |
| Pricing in the 18 months beyond Option 4 will use Option 4 rates. I.e. pricing will remain flat in the 18 months beyond Option 4. |
| L4.2 |
| If you have a contract that has a 12 year duration, how far back can the organizational change history go? |
| As long as the contract is currently being performed or has been performed within the last 3 years, the entire duration of the contract will be considered. |
| M3.0 |
| If past performance is significantly more important than price, how can it be that you will not even review the past performance of many proposals? |
| Past performance is significantly more important than price. If the lowest priced proposal does not have substantial confidence, we will skip that proposal and move on until we get the target number of substantial confidence ratings. Further review of past performance would be unnecessary since, at best, they can only match the awardees’ past performance ratings but will have a higher price. Additionally, the Government wishes to clarify there are clarify that there are not additional levels of ranking/rating within each confidence assessment rating. |
| M3.0 |
| Suggest that statement “past performance is significantly more important than price” be removed from the solicitation. |
| Suggestion has been considered and the Government will not change the solicitation related to this item. |
| M3.0 |
| If past performance is significantly more important than price, shouldn’t you rank by past performance first and then evaluate by price? |
| We are using the approaches in accordance with the FAR and the IG. The reason we chose this evaluation method is so we can save some time. By ranking proposals by price, we can evaluate only up to the point that we receive the target number of substantial confidence ratings. |
| M3.2.4 & M3.2.5 |
| Is substantial performance based on price? |
| Your past performance rating will be based on past performance information, questionnaires, CPARS information, and other information available to the Government. |
| M3.2.4 |
| Will you use CPARS information only on the contracts submitted for past performance or beyond that? |
| The Government evaluation team, known as the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG), will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The PCAG will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data. In evaluating past performance, information may be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels; 5) interview with program managers and COs; and 6) other sources known to the Government to include commercial sources. |
| M3.1.2 |
| How will you calculate price reasonableness? |
| It will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). For example, comparison with other offers received, the Government Estimate, and historical/previous pricing. |
| M3.1.2 & M3.1.3 |
| How does wage determination factor into price evaluation? |
| The wage determination inserted into subject solicitation complies with Service Contract Act of 1965 per FAR 52.222-41 and is included to ensure that minimum wage requirements be met. As they exact A&AS services cannot be identified at this time, further guidance cannot be given. |
| M3.1.2 & M3.1.3 |
| Does the Government have an IGCE for which to compare pricing rates? |
| Yes. |
| M3.2.3 |
| Will each individual contract submitted for past performance be rated for relevancy, or will all of the contracts be rated for relevancy as a whole? |
| All of the contracts will be evaluated as a whole and assigned a single relevancy rating. |
| M3.2.4 |
| If a prime small business has 3 or 4 contracts rated substantial confidence, will that be treated the same as a prime with fewer contracts rated substantial or even satisfactory, but large business subcontractors cause the team to receive a substantial confidence rating? |
| There are no ratings/rankings within a single past performance confidence assessment rating. That is, all substantial confidence ratings will be treated equally. |
| M3.2.3 |
| The prime must do 51% of the work. What if you have a small company that has very low relevance? Would that not be a predictor that they would have difficulty to fulfill the 51% requirement? |
| The relation of relevancy and a determination of responsibility will be made on a case by case basis. |
| L4.2 |
| If a team has more than 10 members, how will they submit past performance for each member and stay within the 10 contract max? |
| Section L.4.2.3 will be revised to require at Prime contractor to submit at least one PPID. The Government will revise the language to allow the offeror to choose the companies for which they submit PPID. A maximum of 10 PPIDs will still be in effect. |
| M3.2.4 |
| How will you treat CPARS that have limited comments justifying their ratings? |
| We will take the ratings and the comments into consideration and as a result of the in depth review of past performance data to arrive at a confidence assessment rating. |
| M3.2.4 |
| What if your customer uses an assessment method other than CPARS? |
| See L4.2 regarding alternate past performance assessment forms. |
| M3.2.4 |
| Will you bring individuals from outside to evaluate proposals? |
| All of the evaluations will be conducted by in-house personnel and will be composed primarily by members of the contracting team. |
| L4.2 |
| If you require 10 contracts maximum, doesn’t the prime still need to submit a minimum of past performance contracts? |
| Per L.4.2.3, the prime is required to submit at least one PPID. |
| M3.1.4 |
| If an offeror low-balls an individual labor category, will their solicitation be thrown out as materially imbalanced? |
| It depends on how materially imbalanced the proposal is. Please see M3.1.4 for information regarding unbalanced offers. |
| M3.1.2 |
| Will you be using other proposals in relation to evaluating pricing? |
| Yes. Per M3.1.3 The Government reserves the right to use other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include, but not limited, to the following: a comparison of all Offerors’ proposed labor prices and labor rates, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items, comparison with competitive market prices of similar indexes, and GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes or comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE |
| M3.1 |
| Does your IGCE include rates for the individual labor categories? |
| Yes. |
| L3.1 |
| Comparing the requirements you’ve previously listed as potentially falling under this contract to the labor categories, it appears that some labor categories (I.e. program/project managers) have weights that are too large. |
| These weights were based on historical contract data and not necessarily just those previously provided for informational purposes. |
| What is the difference between this solicitation and the Program Management Sources Sought? |
| If you are performing the PM IDIQ you will be privy to financial information that will preclude you from performing other contracts. |
| Is it possible to push back the due date for the solicitation in the event that future amendments come out? |
| No, there are task order requirements waiting to be issued under this contract. We cannot extend the due date. |
| Any idea of a task order release schedule after award? |
| Future task orders will be released immediately after award. We currently have 3 request for task order proposals to be issued. |
| How many days will the awardees have to respond to RFP’s for task orders? |
| Typically 2 weeks, however the complexity of the requirement will dictate response time. |
| What % of work will be on-site v. off-site? |
| We don’t have a specific percentage but we anticipate more on-site than off-site. |
| Does this contract include A1 through A9 and other tenant units? |
| Yes. |
| Will current A&AS contracts awarded under GSA task orders with options years be required to use this contract in lieu of exercising options on the existing GSA task orders? |
| No. |
| Do you anticipate using the labor categories with higher assigned weights more than others? |
| Yes. Higher weight indicates higher frequency of usage based on Historical contract data. |
| If I get a task on the first year of option year 4 that goes 18 months beyond the ordering period, is this effectively a 30 month delivery period with stable pricing throughout that period? |
| Yes. |
| What is your determining factor for awarding 3, 4, or 5 awardees? |
| The chosen number of awardees will be based on natural stopping points such as gaps in past performance ratings or pricing. |
| How will you streamline the acquisition process for the task orders? |
| We anticipate using LPTA and PPT evaluation methods on the task orders as much as possible. Customers will be given guides that instruct them how to use this contract with a template PWS, evaluation criteria, and other documents which will allow them to more quickly and efficiently define their requirement. |
| Will evaluation criteria on the task orders be standardized? |
| Evaluation criteria will not be standardized, though templates will be provided to customers resulting result in some level of consistency. |
| What kind of page limits are you anticipating for task orders? |
| Page limits will be specified on the individual request for task order proposals. |
| Do you anticipate use of past performance on a task order basis? |
| We do not anticipate the use of past performance on a task order basis. |
| Will you allow discounts off of the awarded basic contract rates when competing for the subsequent task orders? |
| Yes. Competitive pricing will be accepted. |
| What is your anticipated time of award? |
| 1 Jul 11 is the anticipated date of award. |
| How will you transition current requirements to the new contracts? |
| As new work becomes available, we will highly encourage use of this contract vehicle. Deviations from this vehicle will be rare. |
| When you say Air Mobility Command, does that include work for other bases? |
| Primarily this will be work for HQ AMC, but there may be work for the operational tenant units. |
| Do you anticipate using this vehicle as an employment source? |
| No. |
| Will you prefer NETCENTS 2 to this contract? |
| NETCENTS is an IT contract, this contract will be for Advisory and Assistance. The requirements that fall under this contract will be for A&AS vice IT. |
| If you start as a small business under this contract but become a large business, will you be prevented to compete for the follow-on? |
| This depends on the market research results and the acquisition strategy utilized for the next effort. |
| Are solicitations required to be put out for 30 days? |
| Not necessarily. Solicitations can be put out for less than 30 days so long as we receive more than one response. |
| In Volume 3, it asks for an Affirmative Action plan. By law, however, companies with less than 50 employees are not required to have an Affirmative Action plan. What should a company with less than 50 employees and no Affirmative Action plan do? |
| In lieu of providing this plan, please cite the regulation stating that your company is not required by law to have an Affirmative Action plan. |
| How will the webpage creation work? Will each company be required to create a webpage or each team? |
| Each awardee (team) will be issued a task order to create and maintain a single webpage providing pertinent A&AS contract data. This single page will include data for all team members. |
| According to RFP Section L2.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, “The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table 2.1 below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the specified number of copies.“ Does AMC wish for respondents to use the section headings exactly as they are listed in Section L2.1, Table 2.1, or the headings based on information in L3.0 (and subsections), L4.0 (and subsections), and L5.0 (and subsections)? |
| Follow Proposal OrganizationTable 2.1. |
Section L4.2.4 Past Performance Questionnaire. Request clarification for contracts where the work was performed as a sub, and the COR will not complete a questionnaire citing that the data in CPARS should be sufficient. Rationale: The data in CPARS is mostly applicable to the Prime and does not detail the relevant work performed by subs. COR contact information is provided on CPARS, and authorization letters will be submitted; will the government consider this data sufficient and still evaluate the past performance?
Tthe CPARS data is related to the prime and not the subs, so the information on CPARS will not assist in evaluating the subcontractor.
In this instance offerors should indicate the response given by the COR and list the contact information so we the Government may contact the COR if need be.
| Does the government contemplate the contractor providing classified holdings and processing at its off-site facility? |
| No. |
| Is our interpretation of paragraph H-7(i) correct -- The flow-down of paragraph H-7(i) will only be applied to the subcontractor at the task order level and does not need to be applied at the overall IDIQ level? |
| If the question is understood correctly, it is acceptable to apply the flow-down only at the task order level and only to those subcontractors directly involved in the task order work. |
| Which categories does the Government consider “Data Entry” positions and therefore are excluded from the Level 1, 2, and 3 skill set qualifications? |
| To prevent confusion, “Data Entry” will be removed from PWS Appendix B-1 AMC SKILL SET LEVELS. |