Gov't Responses to Industry Questions 25 Aug 10.docx

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001, Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV (CAAS IV)

After reading the Q&A section published yesterday I have an additional question: Can I bundle Task Orders that I am working on a single IDIQ contract for the purposes of the PPI?

I am currently working an IDIQ contract. A&AS work. The Task Orders that we are currently working exceed the $500k requirement for small businesses to be considered as "Very Relevant". I'd like to be able to have this work considered as a single PPI. Is that allowable?

The Government has given significant thought to this request and has worked to make the RFP capture our intent while addressing industry’s concerns. The latter part of RFP Section L, paragraph L-8.1.2 has been updated to read, “Each PPI sheet shall only address one (1) performance effort. For example, if a PPI sheet references an overarching ID/IQ or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) in which the offeror was the Prime contractor, individual, underlying task/call/delivery/purchase orders shall not be included/referenced on the PPI sheet. For cases in which the offeror was a subcontractor performing under a Prime on an ID/IQ or BPA, the Offeror shall submit each related task/call/delivery/purchase order on a separate PPI sheet. If an offeror would like assessment of a C-type contract, or a single task/call/delivery/purchase order, the offeror shall submit the reference on a separate PPI sheet.” So, if you were a prime on an ID/IQ contract, you may submit the ID/IQ contract as a reference. However, be advised that the Government will only assess the company’s ability to manage the ID/IQ contract, not performance on each individual order.

The following comment is submitted for your consideration.

PWS 1.1.2 defines the scope of this effort to include “Studies, Analyses and Evaluations; and Engineering and Technical Services,” with such outputs as “information, advice, opinions, alternatives, analyses, evaluations, recommendations, training and services.” Many contracts that support numerous types of defense-related systems are categorized as “sustainment contracts,” but include advisory and assistance services such as these. The activities on these sustainment contracts are consistent with the policies that define Advisory and Assistance Services set forth in FAR Subpart 37.2. Our concern is that in both Section L, Attachment 1, Past Performance Information (PPIS), and Section L, Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), the identification of contracts as A&AS (“yes” or “no”) categorized into types (“Management & Professional Support Services,” “Studies Analyses and Evaluations,” and/or “Engineering & Technical Services”) will unduly restrict the Government’s ability to consider relevant past performance activities on sustainment contracts that actually perform these services. That is, Offerors may not provide sustainment contracts – or receive credit for A&AS activities under sustainment contracts – if contracts are a priori categorized as A&AS Type or as not A&AS Type. We recommend that “A&AS Type” and “Contract Type . . . A&AS” be removed from the PPIS and PPQ respectively in order to broaden past performance consideration to sustainment contracts with significant A&AS activities consistent with FAR Subpart 37.2. Relevant A&AS activities can then be described in PPIS Section B and confirmed, along with quality of service, in the PPQ by the Points of Contact.

Thank you for the continued opportunity to provide AMIC with comments on this procurement. We are looking forward to your release of the next DRFP.

The information required in RFP Section L, Attachment 1, Section A is used to help the Government identify/describe the past performance reference. It in no way precludes an offeror from documenting A&AS-related work on a sustainment contract.

Does AMIC still anticipate an RFP release date in early August?

Does AMIC anticipate a change from the latest version of the draft RFP? If so, will the change be published before the final RFP is released?

No, the anticipated release date is still on or around 30 Sep 10. Release still pending HHQ approval.

RFP Changes: The Government has made some changes to the RFP that are in the version posted with these responses. If there are any other significant changes prior to release of the final RFP, and if time permits, the Government will consider release of an additional draft.

Is there any updates on the release of the RFP? Will There be a another draft RFP? Will there be Sample task orders?

As of mid- Aug, the anticipated release date is on or around 30 Sep 10. Release still pending HHQ approval.

RFP Changes: The Government has made some changes to the RFP that are in the version posted with these responses. If there are any other significant changes prior to release of the final RFP, and if time permits, the Government will consider release of an additional draft.

We do not anticipate inclusion of sample task orders.

DRFP Section M-3.2.3. Draft PWS section 1.2.1.9 DRFP Section L7.4.1.2 Subfactor 2: Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan states “Provide approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI issues/risks at the CAAS IV ID/IQ contract and task order levels when companies propose as both a Prime and as a subcontractor or teaming partner on another Prime’s proposal.”

DRFP Section M-3.2.3.Subfactor 2: Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan states “Demonstrate an effective strategy for detecting, disclosing, avoiding and mitigating OCI issues and risks, to include those resulting from teaming arrangements, at the CAAS IV ID/IQ contract and task order levels.”

Draft PWS section 1.2.1.9 Cross teaming Mitigation Plan states “Disclose all cross-teaming arrangements and provide a Mitigation Plan for detecting, disclosing, avoiding and mitigating Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues/risks at the CAAS IV ID/IQ contract and TO levels when issues are identified.

Each of these references implies and/or states that the OCI Plan should only address OCI issues/risks that may occur due to cross teaming. Is it the Government’s intent that our OCI Plan ONLY address cross teaming issues/risks? Or should our plan address broader OCI issues/risks resulting from other conditions (e.g., hardware development) and cross teaming?

See answer to question 2. Also updated PWS paragraph 1.2.1.9 to get more in line with recommendations here and in question 2.

Reference: DRFP Attachment 6 and Section B-1.

Discussion: The pricing template contains three areas which could either be construed as errors, or as intended by the creator.

The first area is the Total Column for each of the four input tabs for the Optional Extension (column BV). The absolute reference has been carried to all cells, resulting in all labor categories in the Optional Extension referencing to Cell B4, the weight for the Program Manager.

The second area is the formatting for input cell for Material Handling and for Travel Handling for Option Years 3 and 4, and Performance Period X. All other input cells are formatted as a percent; however, these cells are formatted as a number.

The third is cell H13 on the Total Price tab. This cell, unlike all others in the column, sums Total Cost, rather than the Total (which includes profit).

Question: We understand that it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the spreadsheets are error-free. However, in order to ensure that we begin with a correct version of the spreadsheet, please verify that these are errors in the construction of the spreadsheets, or that they are correct as they written/formatted.

Please note that the errors addressed were not in any way done intentionally, as implied.

Column BV was updated in all four tabs to show the rate multiplied by half of the historical multiplier of the applicable labor category. In addressing your error, we also discovered that the rate was divided in half vs. the multiplier, so that was fixed, as well.

All Proposed ODC Rates blocks have been updated to reflect formatting as percentages vs. numbers.

Updated H13 on Total Price tab to reflect totals for the Totals for each labor category for Performance Period Y vice the Total Cost before Profit.

The above were errors in the construction of the spreadsheets, and nothing more. All items addressed have been corrected and we are conducting an additional scrub of the spreadsheet to minimize errors.

Reference: Section L, Attachment 4, Sample Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter Discussion: The body of the sample letter indicates that the past performance information, from the reviewer is to be returned to the Contracting Officer (CO) within 15 calendar days after release of the solicitation. This contractor believe this is an insufficient amount of time needed for us to finalize the Past Performance Information Candidates we intend to submit, send the letter to the reviewers, have them complete the questionnaire, and submit it to the CO.

Question: Request that the Government extend the amount of time to complete this process to a minimum of 30 days from the release of the final solicitation.

Changed due date for PPQs to 30 calendar days after release of solicitation.

Reference: Section L, Instruction, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, para. L-5.3.4.

Discussion: The paragraph states that “fold-outs shall not exceed one fold (11” x 17”), and shall count as one page.” An 11” x 17” page requires two folds for professional insertion in a standard format proposal.

Question: Does this refer to one fold per fold-out for an 11” x 17” page? If so, please describe how the fold out is to be folded using a single fold format.

Removed ‘one fold,’ with an 11” x 17” counting as the largest size allowed for a page. Please remember that anything more than 8.5” x 11” is reserved for rare cases when a graphic or table cannot reasonably be read on an 8.5” x 11” sheet of paper.

Discussion: At Industry Day it was stated that the on-site rates to be submitted with the Proposal would be the maximum allowable rates and that they may be discounted at the TO level. It was also stated that off-site and OCONUS rates would be negotiated with the CO at the TO level. With the previous version of the RFP (released in April), we were to only submit on-site rates, consistent with the Industry Day information. With the current version of the RFP (released in July) we are now required to also submit off-site rates. Since this is a change from the information disseminated at Industry Day, we request clarification regarding the reasoning behind the change.

Questions: Should the offeror have the ability to perform work at the contractor’s site (off-site) at all locations?

The government determined that having the two rates would better meet requirements.

Discussion: The current draft RFP requires companies to propose rates for both Government site (on-site) and contractor site (off-site), for both inside and outside the National Capital Region (NCR). With respect to the proportion of work that will be accomplished on-site compared to off-site, Attachment 6 treats both equally. Our analysis of the sample Task Orders and our experience with CAAS III indicates the vast majority of the work will be on-site.

Question: What percent of work will be performed on-site and what percent of work will be performed off-site?

We do not know at this point. HHQ guidance is moving toward contractors working off-site vs. on-site; however, we do not know the rate at which this will be implemented or its impact to CAAS IV.

Reference: Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices, CLIN structure, CLIN 0001 and CLIN 4001 Discussion: It appears that CLIN 4001 on page 12 of the current draft RFP is mis-labeled as CLIN 0001.

Question: Please correct the CLIN numbering on the final RFP.

Corrected.

Reference: Appendix D, Task Order Proposal Process & Labor Category Descriptions Discussion: It is unclear which, if any, of the subject solicitation’s Labor Categories correlates with the SCA Wage Determination Labor Categories provided concurrent with the release of the April draft RFP.

Question: Please indicate which, if any, of the solicitation’s Labor Categories are governed by an SCA Wage Determination Labor Category.

Per SAF/AQCK, the contractor is responsible to comply with the Service Contract Act and the applicable contract wage determination with respect to non-exempt employees assigned service work as described in the Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations, available at the USDOL Wage Hour Division web site.

Reference: Pricing Tables, Wage Determination and Appendix D, Labor Categories

Discussion: In accordance with the Department of Labor and specifically the Wage Determination No. 05-2103 for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, Note 1 relating to Computer Employees defines an exempt and nonexempt employee. This applies to both the “Computer Systems Analyst Level I” and the “Computer Systems Analyst Level II” labor categories.

Question: Do the duties of the “Computer Systems Analyst Level I” and the “Computer Systems Analyst Level II” in this solicitation pass the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Computer Professional, Professional or Administrative professional exemption test?

Per SAF/AQCK, the Air Force does not have the authority to determine employee exemptions from the Service Contract Act. Offerors are referred to 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 541 and the USDOL Wage Hour Division for guidance in applying the exemption criteria to their employees.

Reference: DRFP Attachment 6, Pricing Tables

Questions:

A. Since it is the practice for subcontractors not to provide cost detail to the primes but only directly to the Government how should the subcontractor data be presented on the price tables.

B. Will the Government require sealed packages from the subcontractor?

C. Will the Government require backup (basis of estimate) for the base labor rate?

For proposals at that ID/IQ level, the Government will not require any subcontractor (sealed packages) cost detail. The Government will not require backup (basis of estimate) for the base labor rates. However, contractors must be prepared to submit cost details and additional pricing information at the TO level. At the TO there will be requirements to see overhead, fringe, profit/fee, direct labor rates, labor categories, hours, and total labor costs for each labor category as well as total labor costs for each performance period. Additional backup documentation may be requested at the TO level at any time by a Contracting Officer.

The Draft CAAS-IV PWS Appendix D, Attachment 2, lists 40 individual labor categories. The recently released CAAS_IV_RFP_Atch_6_-_Table_B-1_17_Jul_10 document lists only 24 labor categories. Does this mean the labor categories not reflected on the B Table list were deleted from the CAAS-IV requirement entirely? Please clarify.

Yes, there are only 24 labor categories.

I'm contemplating a get-away with the MRS the last week in Sep but CAAS IV has me hamstrung. Does September still look like a viable time for RFP release or will it slide into October? I understand this is a hard one to answer, given all the help from OSD, but thought I'd ask.

The anticipated release date is still on or around 30 Sep 10. Release still pending HHQ approval.