The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS 29 September 2010 SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001, Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV (CAAS IV)
| # |
| DOCUMENT |
| COMMENT/QUESTION |
| RESPONSE |
| 1 |
| The Draft CAAS-IV PWS Appendix D |
| We are a SDVOSB under NAICS 541611 who attended Industry day last November and conducted a one-on-one session with yourself and the CAAS IV PMO. At that time, we were briefed that labor categories would include 12 specific engineering labor categories that were later included in the draft RFP. The recent update posted to FBO on 24 August contained Answers to Industry Questions. Our request for clarification pertains to Question? Response #20 below. |
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.
Request for Clarification:
(a) Given the Response to #20 that states there are now 24 labor categories and based on Attachment 6 Table B-1 provided by the Government on 17 July 2010, does the Government expect any environmental engineering requirements from the Air Force’s Environmental Compliance and Advisory Services (ECAS) IDIQ contract to be solicited as task orders under CAAS IV?
(b) When we organized our team, we included teaming partners to ensure we had adequate resources to meet any engineering requirement in order to provide assistance and training needed to maintain and operate fielded systems, equipment, and components at design or required levels of effectiveness. These engineering disciplines included environmental, civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc. With those labor categories removed we believe it will be difficult to provide specific engineering disciplines to support TO requirements unless the Government’s intent is for those disciplines to be priced under the remaining “Engineer” labor category. Please provide the Government’s intent and reasoning for the removal of these various engineering labor categories from the initial draft RFP in order for us to better assess and make necessary adjustments to our team composition before the release of the final RFP at the end of September 2010.
There may be an instance when Advisory and Assistance type services that may have been procured via the ECAS contract could be suitable for CAAS IV. Those requirements will be reviewed on case by case basis. Any A&AS requirement specifying engineering expertise will be addressed using the Engineer labor category as appropriate. Non A&AS requiring engineering specialties should be procured through the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency or other appropriate contract vehicles.
| # |
| DOCUMENT |
| COMMENT/QUESTION |
| RESPONSE |
| 2 |
| Section L, Paragraph L-8.1.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet. |
| A portion of the revised language states: “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.” |
Question: If I use an IDIQ as a PPI then how is that rated against the Section M criteria which is clearly focused at the Task Order level and not the IDIQ level since I cannot mention any Task Orders in the PPI if I go the IDIQ route?
Question: If a Contractor desires to utilize Task Orders as Past Performance under an IDIQ in which the Contractor is the prime, is that allowable or is only the IDIQ vehicle itself allowed to be used.
A Contractor may provide an ID/IQ contract as a PPI reference if they served as a Prime on the ID/IQ contract. If an ID/IQ contract is a PPI reference, the PPI sheet now requests a list of information on subordinate TOs to include PoP, dollar value and locations to help determine recency and relevancy. An ID/IQ will only be considered one reference and the performance for each Task Order will not be assessed under the ID/IQ. Therefore, the Contractor may also submit an underlying TO as a separate PPI reference. See Section L, Paragraph L-8.1.2 and Section L, Attachment 1 to be posted 15 Oct 2010.
| 3 |
| The following Question on L-9.2.4. is submitted for clarification purposes. |
| Does the statement “Offerors shall provide the Contracting Officer a copy of the database registration for Government verification as part of the proposal submission” mean that you are looking for the Contractors name in the National Pre-Award Registry or are you looking for something different. |
| Looking for the Contractor’s name in the National Pre-Award Registry. |
| 4 |
| The following question on Clause 52.246-5 is submitted for clarification purposes |
| Please clarify what steps will need to be taken by the contractor to insure that they are providing and maintaining an inspection system acceptable to the Government. |
Also, please clarify the method that the Government will use to inspect the services required under this contract.
See PWS Section 1.4.2. The Government intends to post the CAAS IV ID/IQ Performance Plan with the final RFP to provide insight into the Government’s surveillance methodology to meet the intent of FAR Clauses 52.246-4 and 52.246-5. Keep in mind that the Performance Plan is an evolving document and will be updated as required.
| RFP |
| Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort Term – FAR 16.207 indicates that the application of this contract type is for investigation or study in a specific research and development area and that the limitation for use is when the contract price is $100,000 or less, unless approved by the chief of the contracting office. Does AMIC anticipate much use of this contract type for task orders? |
| It is hard to predict how often the FFPLOE Term contract type will be used. The intent is to use the most reasonable contact type (FFP, FFPLOE Term, CPFF Term) for the requirement. |
| 6 |
| Section E |
| DFAR 252.246-7000 Material Inspection and Receiving Report (Mar 2008) – Request the Gov’t consider removing this clause based upon the criteria stated in DFAR 246.370(b)(8). |
| Clause has been removed. |
| 7 |
| Section F |
| FAR 52.211-16 Variation in Quantity (Apr 1984) – Request the Gov’t consider removing this clause. FAR 11.703(a) states this clause is applicable in fixed price contracts for supplies or for services that involve the furnishing of supplies. |
| Clause has been removed. |
| # |
| DOCUMENT |
| COMMENT/QUESTION |
| RESPONSE |
| 8 |
| Section G |
| WAWF Billing Instructions – The first paragraph states that “The Government reserves the right to request a break-out of cost elements for any contract type at the task order level”. Is it the Governments intent to request this break-out at time of task order proposal or after award of a task order? Since task orders will be competed, thus determining price reasonableness, why is the break-out necessary? |
The Government will request a break-out of cost elements for each TO requirement at the time of solicitation regardless of contract type. This is to help ensure that the government is paying a fair and reasonable price for the services. Recent findings have shown that in some instances competition alone is not sufficient to determine prices fair and reasonable.
| 9 |
| Section G |
| WAWF Billing Instructions – In the table with the row labeled “Back-up Documentation” it states that the Government may request charges be broken out for each FTE. Please clarify that this information is not required for firm fixed price task orders. |
| This information will be required for Firm Fixed Price contracts, when requested. |
Section H-11(d)
| Task Order Cost/Price Factor – Since contractor’s cost elements will be evaluated at the basic contract level, why are the cost elements required again at the task order level for other than CPFF? |
| This is so the government can get the most insight possible into TO total price to ensure fair and reasonable awards, particularly since Contractors may discount at the TO level. |
Section I
| DFAR 252.215-7002 Cost Estimating System (Dec 2006). This use of this clause is required when the award is based on cost or pricing data. Since this is a competitive effort and cost or pricing data is not required, request removal of this clause. |
| Clause has been removed. |
| 12 |
| Section I |
| FAR 52.216-18(a) Ordering – the dates listed need to be updated. |
| Done. |
| 13 |
| Section I |
| FAR 52.216-22(d) Indefinite Quantity – the date needs to be updated. |
| Done. |
| 14 |
| Section I |
| The necessary FAR payment clauses appear to be missing from the draft RFP. |
| Added FAR Clause 52.232-1 Payments. |
| 15 |
| Section L-9.2.4 |
| What is AMIC’s definition of a Teaming Partner versus a Subcontractor |
| Teaming would be an agreement in which two or more companies form a partnership / joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor for CAAS IV. A subcontractor is one who supplies services to a prime CAAS IV Contractor. |
| 16 |
| In CAAS III Section H para 1.1.2.2 |
| Contractors may submit a “standing proposal” which contains the standard terms and conditions applying to most or all of its task orders. The contractor then need only reference the applicable terms and conditions……” Will similar language be incorporated into the CAAS IV? With only 5 or 10 pages for the task order technical proposal, this would help immensely. |
| No, standing proposals are not required for CAAS IV. |
| 17 |
| Appendix D, 1.3.11 Cost/Price Proposal Format |
| This section requires a break-out of cost elements, regardless of contract type. Please explain how subcontractor’s costs are to be addressed. Subcontractors rarely, if ever, provide a prime with the cost element breakdown of their rates. Should subcontractor’s rates be proposed separately from the prime rate(s)? |
| Depending on the requirement subcontractors may have to provide the government with their rates. These requirements will be addressed in the individual TO requirements. |
| # |
| DOCUMENT |
| COMMENT/QUESTION |
| RESPONSE |
| 18 |
| Reference DRFP Page 21 of 74, Page 29 of 74 Reference DRFP Section G, WAWF Billing Instructions; Clauses Incorporated by Reference |
| First paragraph states the following: “Services performed under this contract shall be billed on a monthly basis, unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, using Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) in US dollars in accordance with Section E. However, Section I incorporates FAR clause 52.216-7. Can you please confirm if twice monthly billing will be permitted as allowed per FAR 52.216-7? |
| Twice billing monthly would be acceptable. The intent is to ensure that Contractors invoice at least once each month. Invoicing details will be addressed in the kickoff meeting for each TO. |
| 19 |
| Page 35 of 74, Page 27 of 74 H.14, I 52.216-18 ORDERING |
| Paragraph (a) states: “Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued from 1 Jun 11 through 31 May 16.” This conflicts with Paragraph H-14 which states: “The period from 15 Oct 2011 through 14 Oct 2016 is considered the CAAS IV ID/IQ contract ordering period.” Please clarify. |
| All the dates now match. |
| 20 | |
| Page 28 of 74; Page 36 of 74 H.14, I | 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY |
| Paragraph (d) in the last sentence it states: “The contract shall govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after 31 May 2019.” This conflicts with Paragraph H-14 which states: “Task orders shall not be awarded for delivery past 14 Oct 2019…., performance shall never go beyond 14 April 2020 per the optional 6-month extension priced in Section B, Table B-1.” Please clarify. | |
| Clause 52.217-8 (Opinion to Extend Services) has been removed and all dates now match. | |
| 21 | | |
| Page 38, 39 of 74 | I | 52.244-2 SUBCONTRACTS (JUN 2007) |
| Paragraph (d) states: “If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the Contractor nevertheless shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before placing the following subcontracts: | | |
***Contractors may have to provide the subcontractor information on contracts as required at the task order level***” Can you please clarify this requirement? Will the Gov’t require consent at the Task Order level?
Subcontractor consent may be required and will be addressed in the TO solicitation as required.
RFP Section G and PWS paragraph 1.2.3.1
| PWS states that billing shall be submitted 90 days after end of billing period, end of service performance period, purchase of materials or completion of travel. RFP Section G states that Services will be billed on a monthly basis. Please confirm that billing statement in section G will be applied to this effort and the PWS will be modified to reflect this change. |
| The intent is to have Contractors invoice at least monthly. PWS Paragraph 1.2.3.1 has been updated accordingly. |
| 23 |
| RFP Section G – WAWF Billing Instructions |
| Invoice type under Cost Voucher is needed for invoicing CPFF contracts. Will the Government be inserting the invoicing requirements for CPFF contracts? |
| Technically a Cost Voucher is prepared vice an Invoice for a CPFF contract. Cost Voucher procedures are at: |
http://www.dfas.mil/contractorpay/electroniccommerce/wawfvendorqkrefgds/40VendorCreatingaCostVoucher.pdf
| # |
| DOCUMENT |
| COMMENT/QUESTION |
| RESPONSE |
| 24 |
| RFP Section G – WAWF Billing Instructions |
| Can the Government please clarify the level of detail of back-up documentation? |
| Back-up information could include travel receipts, hours worked, purchasing and subcontracting information or any other information that may be requested to support or validate monthly invoices/vouchers. |
| 25 |
| PWS 3.2.2 |
| May we receive a copy of AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 definitions? |
| Here is the link to the Mandatory Procedures. |
http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/affars/MP5315.3.doc
| 26 |
| PWS Appendix D TO Process 3.3.3 |
| What accessibility will contractors have to the governments Confidence Assessment Rating? |
| Any ratings assessed at the ID/IQ or TO level will be provided as part of a requested debriefing or upon award. |
| 27 |
| PWS Appendix D TO Process 3.4.1 Cost/Price |
| Will the Contractor be required to perform the Cost/Price analysis on our subcontractors as part of the TO RFP process? |
| The Government will specify any cost/price specifications within the TO solicitation. Contractors should do what is necessary to show that any subcontracting that is awarded is at a fair and reasonable price. Usually competition can show that, but in some circumstances you may have to perform a more detailed cost or price analysis. And all the information you develop in making that decision should be kept for your records for auditing purposes. |
| 28 |
| Section L-8.1.2 |
| States the past performance citations will be evaluated either at the contract level or the TO level. The government's 1st answer to questions dated August 2010 states a prime contractor submitting an IDIQ reference will not be assessed for the company's ability to perform on task orders. Can a Prime submit a past performance citation for a contract and a 2nd citation be for a task order under that same contract? |
| See Question 2. |
| 29 |
| Reference PWS Para 1.2.2.2.1. |
| This paragraph indicates that the Contractor shall provide a qualification summary/resume for Government coordination. Will it be sufficient to coordinate with the QAE or is it necessary to transmit this document to AMIC who will handle any other internal Government coordination required? |
| All those types of documents must be coordinated through the servicing contracting office. |
| 30 |
| Reference PWS Para 1.2.2.2.1. |
| This paragraph indicates that the Government may request coordination of qualification summaries/resumes on proposed replacement/substitution personnel for non-key positions. How do we identify to the Government who those non-key positions are? Can the Government explain their interpretation of what positions are non-key? What is the process for determining whether or not the Government would want to coordinate on these qualification summaries/resumes? |
| The Government may specify key personnel in a TO solicitation and/or an offeror may propose key personnel in response to a TO solicitation. If a resulting TO does not define key personnel, the Contractor does not have to pursue coordination of qualification summaries/resumes unless the Government requests such coordination. |
| # |
| DOCUMENT |
| COMMENT/QUESTION |
| RESPONSE |
| 31 |
| Section H-7 Accounting System. |
| For CPFF Contract, the RFP states that Contractors shall have an approved purchasing system in accordance with FAR Part 44. Although we have the necessary policies and procedures in place, we do not have an approved purchasing system as we have not been required by the Government to form a survey based on our existing contracts. Would the Government consider allowing an independent auditor to review our purchasing system, or does the Government mandate a Federal Agency to review such system. If so, will the Government make the request to DCAA/DCMA since these agencies do not take requests from Contractors? |
| An approved purchasing system will not be a condition for contract award and the RFP has been updated accordingly. |
However, to answer your question, an independent auditor review of a purchasing system or accounting system that shows the capability to meet government contracting requirements is acceptable.
| Will the RFP still be released at the end of Sept 2010? Will they be an update or another Draft RFP? |
| See cover letter for expected release date. The Government does not anticipate the release of another draft RFP. |
