Q&A_Part_3_Final.pdf

Questions & Answers Part 3

Revised Q&A Part 2

57. In reference to the RFP, the Minimum Quantity field the Government indicates a quantity of 1.0 what does this stand for? And how did the Government arrive at this number?

Original Answer: The unit is months. A 1.0 month Minimum Task Order Quantity means that the government reserves the right to issue an individual task order of 1.0 month for a respective CLIN.

Revised Answer: The unit is months. The Minimum Task Order Quantity has been changed from 1.0 month to 12.0 months. A 12.0 month Minimum Task Order Quantity means that the government reserves the right to issue an individual task order of 12.0 months (represents 1 CLIN) up to a maximum of 120 months (represents all 10 CLINs). The Minimum Task Order Quantity on Page 8 of the original solicitation and Clause 52.216-19 has been amended to include the change.

Questions Received After 13 July

1. RFP page 4 Section 3 (d) Proposal preparation Instructions require Pages shall be single spaced and text size shall be no less than 12 point. …. Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. Will the gov’t accept 8 or 10 point and in graphics, tables and figures as long as it is legible?

Yes, the government will accept fonts of less than 12 point for graphics, tables and figures as long as it is legible.

2. Section 5 a. of RFP Factor One, Price (Volume I): For the purpose of evaluation the Government will evaluate an Offerors proposed price utilizing one or more of the techniques located at FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2). Proposed prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, indirect rates and overtime hours. Please clarify or remove this language as it contradicts multiple statements in PWS and Q&A that no hours outside of additional duty hours will be required.

The verbiage “overtime hours” has been removed from this paragraph.

3. We request the government please clarify the pricing instructions. Should the LOE reflect the current level of effort or should offerors propose the level of effort they feel are required to accomplish support for the LOE identified in Appendix B?

As stated in the PWS, “Each of the four subtasks were historically completed by four separate full time active duty military members.” The workload estimate in Appendix B is provided as guidance on the current estimated personnel to be supported by this effort. It is the contractor’s duty to determine how to most efficiently meet this requirement. As stated under sub factor 2, “Cross-utilization of manpower between each unit and Task will result in an “Unacceptable” Technical Approach rating as it will reflect a lack of understanding of the historical workload identified in Appendix B.”

4. The current LOE supporting each functional task area. Information provided indicates multiple “rotating” personnel but it unclear as to how many are there at any one point. This is important so we know the level of effort that will be there at all times in addition to the proposed contractors.

PWS 3.0 states “4.1 - 4.4. Each of the four subtasks were historically completed by four separate full time active duty military members.” Q&A # 36 asks “In reference to PWS 4.1.2, how many military personnel are currently supporting this effort for each of: 50 ARS, 91 ARS, and 99 ARS? There are approx 4 alternating trainers for each of the air refueling squadrons. It is the intent of the government to augment/supplement the military personnel currently performing the duties, not replace. Q37 has another, different response “ Q&A# 37 In reference to PWS 4.1.2, how many military personnel are currently supporting this effort for each of the task areas identified in Appendix B Workload Estimates (4.1 Training; 4.2 Scheduling; 4.2 Mission Planning; and 4.3 Stand/Eval) for each of the Air Refueling Squadrons identified: 50 ARS, 91 ARS, and 99 ARS?

There are approx 4 alternating trainers, 6 alternating schedulers, 2 alternating mission planners, and 4 alternating stan/eval for each of the air refueling squadrons. It is the intent of the government to augment/supplement the military personnel currently performing the duties, not replace.

It is the government’s intent to augment these subtasks so they are filled on a full-time basis. As stated in the PWS, “Each of the four subtasks were historically completed by four separate full time active duty military members.” The current multiple “rotating” personnel effort is due to mission requirements of the members fulfilling these roles in a part-time status. Cross reference Question & Answer #19 and #20.

5. RFP Factor 2, Sub Factor 2 references Appendix B however, workload provided is for gov’t aircrew/members not the numbers of contractor personnel and offerors have “zero” control over any deviation to those manning numbers. The requirement states “Any deviation from the Government provided estimated workload, Appendix B in the PWS, must be identified in the staffing plan. In addition, if a deviation does occur, the offeror must specifically address their plan to accomplish the workload with their offered workload days. This sub factor is met when the offeror provides a detailed plan with the use of acceptable formats, such as sample resumes and/or qualification summaries, demonstrating a clear understanding of all staffing you will be required to provide in support of this contract. Each organization (50 ARS, 91 ARS, 99 ARS) operates independently from one another. Cross-utilization of manpower and/or failure to identify a complete understanding of the staffing required will result in an “Unacceptable” Technical Approach rating and that offeror will not be considered for award. Please clarify by Task area and by squadron how many contractors offerors should propose.

The government is not requesting a certain number of FTE’s; we are expecting the continuous service to be accomplished regardless of the amount of contractor personnel. Cross reference Question & Answer #19 and #20.

6. PWS 4.2.13.2 KSA for Scheduling and Mission Execution required experience as mission planner, aircraft dispatcher or equivalent. Please consider removing this requirement OR making it part of

4.2.13.1 as another option to meeting that requirement. It is our experience, 4.2.13.1 is all that’s necessary to perform this requirements successfully and 4.2.13.2 will reduce the available candidates as it is uncommon for someone to meet both fo those requirement as well as drive up costs unnecessarily.

The original 4.2.13.2 “Scheduling and Mission Execution Support personnel must show proficiency and experience working as a mission planner, aircraft dispatcher or equivalent” has been deleted and 4.2.13.1 has been changed to read, “Scheduling and Mission Execution Support personnel must show proficiency and experience working as a squadron aircrew scheduler or dispatcher, mission planner, or equivalent.”

7. Pricing data that includes indirects (OH/Fringe/G&A/fee) typically is very sensitive in the solicitation process and is only disclosed to the Contracting Office in an administrative or a pricing volume not in a technical volume. The amendment that has required us to create a total Compensation Plan with indirects and pricing strategies is now directed to be in the technical volume. This would mean that anyone reviewing the technical volume or access to the technical proposal would have access and couldn't inadvertently disclosed the companies sensitive indirect pricing. Can the total Compensation Plan be placed inside the administrative volume which will only be reviewed by the Contracting Office or place in an independence volume of its own again only to be viewed by the Contracting Office?

Sub Factor 4, Compensation Plan will remain in Volume II, Technical Approach. The intent of the Compensation Plan is not to evaluate the specific pricing elements, but to ensure, “compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.” The Compensation Plan acts as a measure to mitigate performance risk on the contract. However, we do understand that sensitive information will be included in Sub Factor 4, therefore all evaluators reviewing all volumes submited by contractors will have signed NDAs and pricing with proposals will remain only in the Contracting Office.

Furthermore, if a FOIA request is received, all sensitive direct or indirect pricing will be redacted.

8. Based off the responses from the first set of questions it seems that this will be similar to a blanket purchasing agreement for people like most installations and units would have for rental vehicles. It also seems like it's a combination of an IDIQ with a firm-fixed-price on an unknown deliverable and unknown period of time. Will the government please reconsider the pricing structure and CLINS?

No, this requirement is for a Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ, with a three year ordering period.

9. Unit prices per CLIN have been requested for a one month unit price for up to a maximum 36 months. Will the government allow break down from base year to each option year to accommodate escalation rates?

The government is seeking a fully burdened monthly price that accounts for escalating rates.

The format for this requirement should be understood as a request for a three year ordering period, not three option years. The Minimum Task Order Quantity has been changed from 1.0 month to 12.0 months. A 12.0 month Minimum Task Order Quantity means that the government reserves the right to issue an individual task order of 12.0 months for a respective CLIN. The government has requested a unit price per month to allow any given awarded task order a minimum period of performance of 12 months (represents 1 CLIN) up to a maximum of 120 months (represents all 10 CLINs). The Minimum Task Order Quantity on Page 8 of the original solicitation and Clause 52.216-19 has been amended to include the change.

10. The way this is structured in the task order requirement and ordering pricing drives this to be a personal services contract not a firm fixed price contract. Recommend this change to a level of effort type contract with the first four individuals at MacDill coming on at Contract award then the increase in the level of effort at a designated time within the life of the base year for the remaining 4 individuals at MacDill and 2 individuals in Birmingham. Would the government consider this approach?

This requirement is not intended to be a personal service contract. This requirement is for a single award, Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ, with a three year ordering period. The government does not intend to proceed with the proposed approach.

11. We are unable to price per "general" month because different months have different numbers of workdays, federal holidays and training holidays. Without establishing a set standard for all industry to follow the same pricing methodology. For example the months of March and August have the most number of workdays the least amount of federal holidays and the least amount of training holidays however months like January and November while they are the same length in number of days they have the least amount of work days, more federal holidays and more training holidays. If we price for the months that have the most work periods our price is going to be a lot higher than companies that bid months that has less work days. If we Price Less work days and you order a month that has more work days there is no way for industry to recoup that revenue. Will the government please provide a set standard that all industry has to use for pricing when it comes to months?

The Minimum Task Order Quantity has been changed from 1.0 month to 12.0 months. A 12.0 month Minimum Task Order Quantity means that the government reserves the right to issue an individual task order of 12.0 months for a respective CLIN. The government has requested a unit price per month to allow any given awarded task order a minimum period of performance of 12 months (represents 1 CLIN) up to a maximum of 120 months (represents all 10 CLINs). The Minimum Task Order Quantity on Page 8 of the original solicitation and Clause 52.216-19 has been amended to include the change. With this change and the knowledge that a 1 month task order will not be issued and a task order will be at a minimum of 12 months, contractors should be able to “price per general month” as an average price over all 12 months.

12. It is recommend that this be made into a multiple award not single award that is evaluated on technical not price evaluation at this point, similar to a blanket purchasing agreement. When the requirements comes up a task order is issued to the multiple awardees. They then simply provide back a 1 page price quote and time determination of having someone on the ground. The government then evaluates price and time between the multiple awardees. Would the government consider this approach?

This requirement is for a single award, Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ, with a three year ordering period.

The government does not intend to proceed with the approach of a multiple award IDIQ contract.

13. The requirements to have these individuals maintain a security clearance is only feasible if they are a current employee working under an existing contract that supports/requires individuals to have a clearance under a dd254. With this being a task order contract with undetermined length of employment for individuals and an expectation of rapid start work orders there is no way to obtain or maintain the appropriate level of security clearances for these individuals according to the NISPOM within JPAS as required by the DSS. This can only be done if they are employees working on a contract that has a DD254. This could potentially create a large amount of work for the 6th OG Security Office as each of these task orders will require the government to create DD254s, sponsor individuals for CAC and SIPR token cards. Understanding this is a requirement for working on the contract and for these individuals to operate some of the computer systems but how will the security protocols be taken into effect as they are government requirements and industry cannot initiate until they are done?

The Minimum Task Order Quantity has been changed from 1.0 month to 12.0 months. A 12.0 month Minimum Task Order Quantity means that the government reserves the right to issue an individual task order of 12.0 months for a respective CLIN. The government has requested a unit price per month to allow any given awarded task order a minimum period of performance of 12 months (represents 1 CLIN) up to a maximum of 120 months (represents all 10 CLINs). The Minimum Task Order Quantity on Page 8 of the original solicitation and Clause 52.216-19 has been amended to include the change. With this change and the knowledge that a 1 month task order will not be issued and a task order will be at a minimum of 12 months, contractors will have a better grasp at a determined “length of employment for individuals.” As the PWS Section 7.1 states, “The contractor assumes costs and request for all PCLs [personal security clearances] under this contract. The contractor Facility Security Officer (FSO) will be responsible for requesting PCLs for contract personnel within 15 days after contract award. Contractor personnel shall have appropriate clearances prior to commencing work unless otherwise approved in writing by the CO.” Also in Appendix A, the contractor must “provide qualified people within 30 days of Task Order start.”

14. From the issuance of a task order what is the expected time to have an individual on site?

While we can have individuals recruited and identify to fill positions, without having consistent work for them but having them on a on-call status it will be hard to retain these individuals and the security clearances without a good amount of time provided by the government. What is the government expectations for recent that task orders to win the expectation of having someone on the ground would be?

As stated in the PWS Appendix A, the contractor must “provide qualified people within 30 days of Task Order start.” The contractor must have qualified individuals on site within 30 days of issuance of the task order.

15. The revised solicitation requests salaries and fringe benefits to be included in Subfactor 4.

Does the government want this pricing information to be included in the Technical Volume or separately identified in the Admin/Pricing Volume?

Sub Factor 4, Compensation Plan will remain in Volume II, Technical Approach. The intent of the Compensation Plan is not to evaluate the specific pricing elements, but to ensure, “compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.” The Compensation Plan acts as a measure to mitigate performance risk on the contract. Contractors should include all relevant pricing data in Sub Factor 4 to ensure all criteria within the Compensation Plan is “technically acceptable.” Volume I, Price should include “any parts of the RFP with fill in the blanks … and Attachment 2, Bid Schedule.” “Proposed prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, and indirect rates.)” Discrepancies in an offerors TEP in Volume I, Price and Compensation Plan in Volume II, Technical Approach (i.e. inaccurate or inconsistent supplemental data) may indicate a lack of sound management judgement and a lack of understanding of the requirement, which represents an inherent performance risk.

16. In reference to Amendment 0001, Page 7, 52.212-2, Paragraph 4.c.(1); and Amendment 0001, Page 8, 52.212-2, Paragraph 4.c.(2)(b), These references refer to “major or critical aspects of the requirement” and “major and critical subcontractor(s).” What is the definition of major and/or critical?

Major/critical aspects of the requirement/subcontractors are defined as those aspects that are deemed important, serious, or significant to a reasonable person.

17. In reference to Amendment 0001, Page 8, 52.212-2, Paragraph 4.c.(2)(a) Recency is defined as being performed during the past five (5) years from the date of solicitation issuance. Is it the government’s intent to not have a defined minimum period of performance? For instance, could an offeror be awarded a contract on 21 Jun 18, essentially performing for one day, and still meet the recency requirement for past performance?

Yes.

18. In reference to Amendment 0001, Page 8, 52.212-2, Paragraph 4.c.(2)(b) Very Relevant past performance is defined as “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” If an offeror has been awarded a contract with essentially the same scope and magnitude of this solicitation but the contract is so recent that the awardee has not received a CPAR and/or performed for a reasonable amount of time, that offeror would have a significant advantage over other offerors – even though the offeror has not performed on that contract for a measurable amount of time. Would the Government consider adding a sentence similar to the following to ensure that past performance rated as “Very Relevant” has actually been proven: “Contracts must have a minimum of six months of work performed prior to the issuance of the solicitation in order to be considered recent.”

No.

19. Can an offeror be rated technically acceptable if they propose one body/FTE for multiple units (i.e. 1 FTE provides training support for both the 50th & 90th)? What are the positives/negatives of having 1 FTE manage training for two units?

No. One body will only have time to support one squadron. The 91 ARS and 50 ARS will be geographically separated, making it impossible for one body to support both squadrons. That said, we provided the number of personnel in Appendix B of the PWS that each contractor would be supporting to justify having one body to support each squadron, per task. While the squadrons are still collocated and have multiple members deployed, one body may be able to assist the other squadron on a time available basis, but we do not want to say that one body can fully support both squadrons. The negative is that the contractor will not be able to provide adequate support to either squadron.

20. Can an offeror be rated technically acceptable if they propose one body/FTE for multiple tasks (i.e. 1 FTE provides both training and scheduling support for the 50th)? What are the positives/negatives of having 1 FTE manage training and scheduling support for one unit?

No. Each task requires a dedicated body to provide adequate support. If one body was supporting multiple tasks, the contractor would not have enough time to accomplish either task at an acceptable level.

21. With the FBO.gov listing, it shows two amendments….neither of those have an actual amendment form associated with it. Is it ok to just state we recognize all amendments to the solicitation or do you need me to complete an actual amendment form?

Offerors must acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation to be responsive. No amendment form is necessary.

22. Please confirm the attached AWD is the correct applicable for the 99 ARS positions in Birmingham, AL.

This service requirement has been labeled as professional services IAW FAR 22.1102. Therefore the Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply and there is no associated Wage Determinations (WDs).

23. Do you anticipate any further amendments to the solicitation prior to the due date of 23 July?

There are no anticipated further amendments before the proposal due date of 27 July at 2PM EST.

24. For Volume II Technical Approach, Subfactor 4, Compensation Plan, the Government requests that offerors submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and benefits for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government traditionally states that pricing information should not be included in the Technical Volume of a proposal. The requested specific compensation amounts and fringe data appears to fit the definition of pricing information. Can you confirm that beyond an overview of our compensation benchmarking and approach to compensation that you desire specific salary and fringe dollar information be included in Volume II, Technical Approach, and not Volume I, Price?

Sub Factor 4, Compensation Plan will remain in Volume II, Technical Approach. The intent of the Compensation Plan is not to evaluate the specific pricing elements, but to ensure, “compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.” The Compensation Plan acts as a measure to mitigate performance risk on the contract. Contractors should include all relevant pricing data in Sub Factor 4 to ensure all criteria within the Compensation Plan is “technically acceptable.” Volume I, Price should include “any parts of the RFP with fill in the blanks … and Attachment 2, Bid Schedule.” “Proposed prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, and indirect rates.)” Discrepancies in an offerors TEP in Volume I, Price and Compensation Plan in Volume II, Technical Approach (i.e. inaccurate or inconsistent supplemental data) may indicate a lack of sound management judgement and a lack of understanding of the requirement, which represents an inherent performance risk.