Presolicitation_-_Amendment_1.pdf

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) FA4890-13-R-0111

Questions & Answers

Q1. Has a decision been made to date to make this procurement a Small Business Set-aside?

A1. This procurement will be a total small business set-aside. The formal RFP, when released will reflect such. The government intends to award a target of six awards of the ID/IQ contract resulting from the release of the formal solicitation, and two contracts will be set-aside for award to certified 8(a) small business concerns.

Q2. What is the Governments intent in dealing with these current Set-Asides? Will the current

8A and SDVOSB set asides be maintained?

See response in A1. above.

Q3. Is it the Governments intent that all sites will be priced in the initial proposal submission tentively due in July 2013? If not, what sites will be priced?

A3. All sites will be priced as part of the initial proposal.

Q4. Will a prime contractor be allowed to use specific size standard sub-contractors for task order sites that are currently set aside for that subs category, i.e. 8A for an 8a site or SDVOSB for a site that is already set aside for that category?

A4. Prime contractors compete based on their classification, not any team members.

Q5. How will the contractor be notified and how will the time being notified be documented (ref:

PWS 2.1.1)?

A5. Most if not all of these communications happens either through email or telephone communications. Each of these methods has their own inherent documentation capability built into the process.

Q6. Will the Government consider saving money by maintaining the web site (MIDS) themselves and allowing the contractor that are awarded the task orders to sign into their site?

A6. The government does not have an interest in maintaining a company’s operating principles on a government maintained website. The purpose of MIDS is not intended for the governments benefit solely. Its purpose should be as a data repository of the information a company uses to operate multiple locations in an enterprise fashion. As the requirement states, SOPs, OIs, and other documents must be included. How a company chooses to do so is their own decision and would expect that the company would feel that their approach is proprietary. Thus the information could be considered proprietary. The government only wishes to have view access to this information and not be responsible to maintain the site security for this information. The government obviously will not share this info from one company to another. However, if the government operated the site, we would have to maintain security to ensure only personnel from a specific company have access to that company’s operating principles. This should be the company’s responsibility and is why the MIDS requirement is structured in this fashion.

Q7. Do we need to place PAMS generated quality and production reports on MIDS?

A7. The information available on MIDS is not anticipated to simply be info that is available through other means, i.e. PAMS. The paragraph before the one listed above includes CDRLs, metrics, operation instructions (OIs), standard operating procedures (SOPs), quality control/quality assurance documentation (QMS, audit schedule, audit checklist/reports, root cause analysis), training records, and official contractor PMO letters at a minimum. This is a company’s approach and the government’s intention is to monitor this information to provide us insight into the quality of support being provided.

Q8. PWS, section 2.1.3 needs to be clarified a little further in depth “requested by the CO” could entail excessive cost for the contractor, will you establish a set NTE number of non-programmed meeting that can be called by the CO?

A8. Because non-programmed meetings will be requested based on performance; it would not be prudent for the government to set a NTE number if necessary to call the meeting to address substandard performance. If sub-standard performance is why the meeting is being called, probably not reimbursable, however, if it is for new support or something, then it will be reimbursed. PWS updated to read as follows:

2.1.3 Attends Government conferences, meetings, and program management reviews as required by the PWS. Travel costs for non-programmed meetings or travel that is requested by CO/SSO in excess of the normal FFP PWS-identified travel requirements are cost reimbursable when the reimbursement is agreed to by the CO/SSO in advance based on circumstances of the meeting or travel.

Q9. What is considered “Government-identified contractor program management problems and deficiencies” and who determines what is a problem or deficiency (ref: PWS 2.1.5)?

A9. The government determines one exists. The possibilities are too widespread to detail possible examples but normally they will include risk to the government. If one exists, the specifics will be provided through one of the normal notification processes, i.e. Notice, Corrective Action Request, or CO letter and will be provided by either the SSO or CO in writing and will request a documented corrective action.

Q10. Can you elaborate or offer more clarification (ref: 2.4 Quality Management System

(QMS)?

A10. QMS compliance goes beyond meeting the intent and requirements of TO 00-20-14. As the requirement states, it includes the contractor’s Quality Management System which must meet the requirements of the PWS which includes TO 00-20-14. The key is “contractor’s procedures do not accomplish their objectives.” So similar to what you state about AFMETCAL and PR’s, meeting performance objectives determines acceptability of system.

Q11. Won’t the contractor have some say so as who can do the audits (ref: PWS 2.4.4)?

A11. Yes, performing items for the government can at times be disruptive to the contractor which is why a location is off the clock for Turn Around Time requirements while CORs are on-site. Similar to AFMETCAL, contractor will have some input in who performs the item, however, as this PWS states, the government will ultimately decide which qualified individual performs the task. Selection will only be an individual who has historically certified these items for the company or Quality Assurance personnel.

Q12. Out-of-cycle assessments may be performed as required. The MFM will notify 562

CBSG/QP within 30 days of contract award or facility relocation so an assessment can be scheduled. This statement is no longer in TO 00-20-14. Will the government entertain removing

PWS 3.1.1 requirement?

A12. Negative. Will an assessment happen each and every time, probably not, however, the intent of this paragraph is for the contractor to inform the SSO that operations are ready for an evaluation.

Q13. One hour may not be enough time in some areas, all labs and serviced equipment/systems may require special consideration in response time, will you add a language that covers special cases (ref: PWS 5.3.3.1)?

A13. Cannot think of any special cases where response to the PMEL should not occur within an hour of notification. Please note this paragraph only covers the initial response time, not completion of the priority.

Q14. Having a 1-day response may cause one body full time employment contacting customers.

Overdues are every labs problem. Would the government entertain within 3 workday of late delivery? (This also provides the customer with extra latitude) – ref PWS: 5.4 Overdue TMDE

A14. Customer latitude is covered in the “scheduled input date” terminology. Customer and

PMEL can establish the input date if latitude is required. At this time, do not anticipate changing the requirement for the ID/IQ version of the PWS. Specific location terminology may be adjusted during RFPs for that location.

Q15. Would the government entertain changing to read, “A copy shall be provided to the TMDE coordinator upon request” (ref: PWS 5.5.2)? Some customers may not want or need this form such as non-DOD or other contract customers.

A15. Requirement is to provide the document. This PWS does not govern what a customer does once contractor provides.

Q16. Will the contractor be doing pickup/delivery or does the customer deliver and pick up (ref:

PWS 5.7 Pickup and Delivery)? Which sites will be doing pick up and deliveries, if any? Will the Government furnish vehicles for this task? If contractor is to furnish vehicles at any site will the Government state the type and number of vehicles required since you have that data?

A16. At most locations, the customer delivers. Locations where PMEL will operate a pick-up and delivery function will be identified in location specific RFPs. None of the first three locations include a Pick-Up and Delivery function. However, no vehicles will be provided by the government except in support of specific functions noted within the PWS, i.e. pulling test cell trailer, and travel into restricted access areas which is only at certain locations.

Q17. 6.1.1.1 PWS reads: Maintain a log of all parts ordered in the PMEL MIS.

What about the part ordered for customers as outlined in paragraphs 6.1.2.1?

A17. If PMEL orders the part, the information shall be on the log in the PMEL MIS.

Q18. (Ref: PWS 6.1.3) In some cases, we will not have a document number to “6.1.1.1 Maintain a log of all parts ordered in the PMEL MIS.” What happens in these cases?

A18. Not sure what the question is actually asking. Whatever the company chooses to use as a document number for items ordered outside of the AF Supply system should be defined in their

QMS and followed to ensure “proper accounting for parts requisitioned for reimbursable customers.”

Q19. PWS 6.1.6. Declare items that do not have any computed demand level, special level, projected use, or Government economic retention value as excess. Excess assets shall be redistributed or disposed of as follows:

6.1.6.1 Coordinate suggested Redistribution Order (RDO) actions with the SSO.

6.1.6.2 Turn in items assigned a National Stock Number (NSN) to Base Supply using procedures outlined in AFMAN 23-110, Vol. 2, Part 13.

6.1.6.3 Dispose of non-stock listed items IAW FAR 52.245-1.

The government should be the determining authority if they want to keep or dispose of equipment. Example: When foreign sells requires us to turn in items with a disposition they inform us. This should NOT be a contractor’s responsibility.

A19. The government is ultimately the determining authority through the subordinate paragraphs, i.e. SSO, Base Supply, or in the last item it will be detailed in the property control plan that is approved by the government.

Q20. PWS 6.2 Property Control Administration. The contractor shall provide and operate a property control system IAW FAR Part 52.245-1, Alternate 1. Submit a Property Control Plan

IAW CDRL A005.

FAR part 52.245-1 appears to be for contracts that do not fall within the jurisdiction of AFMAN

23-110. If you continue with this requirement please explain the perceived gain for the

Government.

A20. FAR Part 52.245-1 is the clause that enacts Part 45, which prescribes policies and procedures for providing Government property to contractors, contractors’ management and use of Government property, and reporting, redistributing, and disposing of contractor inventory.

This is irrelevant of AFMAN 23-110. Our contract provides government property so this clause and its associated requirements are required.

Q21. Is the government going to provide the contractor with an inventory for initial contract start up to identify these items (ref: PWS 6.2.4)?

A21. These items will be identified during the initial baseline inventory that will be accomplished during transition.

Q22. Are these not a supply function instead of PMEL responsibility when items are issued to the PMEL?

6.2.4.1 Assign a Virtual UII for Legacy GFP currently in use or in stock, IAW the Virtual

UII Guide.

6.2.4.2 Ensure newly purchased equipment and repairable meet the UID requirement

IAW DFARS clause 252.211-7003.

A22. This IUID requirement is for items purchased as part of the contract outside of the AF

Supply system.

Q23. Some bases do NOT operate or perform maintenance unless the Gov. provides us with specific PPE. The 400Hz in conjunction with the UPS has a high electrical shock hazard.

Would the government consider making this a function of CE (ref: PWS 7.1.2)?

A23. PWS does not dictate functions of government personnel however “as required” is included in this requirement and can be site specific. This requirement is to only operate these devices along with normal operator maintenance. Not sure how turning on a generator/converter, if done properly, can be fatal or require PPE, however, if PPE is required, then it must be used.

Q24. Can you clarify intent here?

PWS 7.1.3 Monitor temperature and humidity recording devices in calibration and repair areas and when necessary, limit the use of TMDE affected by out-of-tolerance environmental conditions. While TO 00-20-14, Section 8 provides general guidance, the contractor shall abide by environmental operating limits established in commercial manuals or TOs for each item of TMDE. The contractor shall continue to calibrate equipment when laboratory environmental restrictions are exceeded, using equipment that is specified to perform calibration functions under a wide range of ambient environmental conditions. When environmental conditions are exceeded, both the standard and the unit under test shall be evaluated for environmental requirements.

A24. The intent is normal operating practices. If the lab is out of tolerance, then it would be expected that only operations affected by the out of tolerance be altered/stopped. (i.e. high humidity does not stop operations not affected by high humidity as an example). Research what the condition affects and continue to operate when it does not affect a measurement.

Q25. PMEL MIS (PAMS) has limited space. Some TO directed limitations CANNOT be entered in its entirety. I.e. cable tentiometers, analytical balances limitations, what do you intend to happen in these cases (ref: PWS 7.1.10)?

A25. In cases where limitation cannot be entered in its entirety, a company can define their approach for consistency. Example would be to put something like “TO directed limitation of paragraph 3.6” or whatever. It is our experience that most will fit, although it may require some abbreviations.

Q26. Is the government going to provide the contractor an established tool program meeting AFI

21-101 requirement (ref: PWS 2.4.1)?

A26. For bases that are covered by 21-101, the requirement is to comply. Contractor has opportunity to notify SSO/CO during transition if program does not meet requirement at beginning of performance and will be allotted a period of time to bring the program into compliance. Paragraph has been updated to include the following sentence:

“The Contractor shall ensure all tools are marked, identified, and controlled in the TAS program within 120-days of contract start date or 120-days after the Government provides the HW/SW. “

Q27. What constitutes Specialized Training, does the government have an example (ref: PWS

3.10)?

A27. An example may be that the Government provides a new capability never before accomplished within AF PMELs that has specialized training provided. Normally this is handled at the PMEL but could be instances where AFMETCAL contracted someone to only provide one session of training at a different site. If this is the case, we are saying that government will fund the travel.

Q28. Can managers input data into METWEB instead of through MFM’s (ref: PWS 2.3.7)?

A28. This statement shows that requests for the data will come through the MFM, normal process will be that the Node Manager inputs the info directly into METWEB if the request is for data that will be entered into METWEB. Some requests for data may require other delivery means.

Q29. With the intent to save contract cost, may the CAC cards be used in lieu of Contractor provided tags (ref: PWS 2.6.4)?

A29. Negative. The requirement is that all contract personnel are identified by a badge visible at all times and that includes a Company name. CAC does not display this information nor can it be visible at all times.

Q30. From past experience what ACC may think PMEL is involved with and what the base thinks may be different. Can you expand on this and be more exact of what we are involved in as far as base exercises (ref: PWS 4.3.1)?

A30. It is difficult to state all occurrences that could happen at all locations because as you say, sites may be different. Expectation is if requested by base to comply, then SSO be notified and we will work with local officials to determine if compliance is required. As always, if the government impacts operations, appropriate remedy will be allowed, i.e. TAT allowances, etc.

Q31. Please clarify (PWS 5.19), are we only permitted to access our place of work when a mission essential letter is provided? Will force Protection EXERCISES ever prevent the contractor from accessing his place of work?

A31. These are site specific and similar to statement to previous question.

Q32. May the contractor request that the owner accompany the classified material to the PMEL and stay with the item until completion at sites where no classified storage is permitted or do not have proper facilities to store and safeguard classified material and items (ref: PWS 5.8.2)?

A32. Contractor may request but cannot refuse to support if customer does not agree.

Requirement is to support classified items so procedures must be in place to do so when required.

Q33. There are NO directives for working copies in TO-00-20-14. Suggest removing this sentence (ref: PWS 7.5.3)

A33. Statement provides flexibility. PWS requirements are in addition to TO 00-20-14 so to say, it isn’t in 20-14 so it should be removed is incorrect. With levels of effort determined by actions, this requirement is in place to minimize additional calibrations because cal charts are lost. How a company/site complies is their choice within the requirement.

Q34. (Ref: PWS 2.1.2.1.3. ) Are the training records in electronic format at each site? If not, will the contractor be compensated for the time to convert the records? Is the surveillance on the contractor performance or individuals hired by the contractor?

A34. Two part question, first, government cannot guarantee all records are in electronic format or if an incumbent would want to share, however contractor will not be compensated for complying with the requirement. Second, surveillance of the contract is on contractor compliance with the PWS which is accomplished by the individuals the contractor hires.

Difference between certified on a task and an individual’s qualifications. If you are asking if we monitor individual qualifications, please note that our qualification requirements are based on meeting performance requirements.

Q35. What data is required for element in the PWS (ref: PWS 4.1.4 Load personnel data files to the PMEL MIS)? Does this violate the privacy act?

A35. Contractor is only required to load the information required by the PMEL MIS, which includes name, phone number, employee number, and K-stamp, etc. and does not violate the privacy act.

Q36. Does the contractor have the authorization to modify this requirement (ref: PWS 5.6

TMDE Collection Point)?

A36. Contractor does not have authority to modify any PWS requirement so not sure exactly what the question is actually asking.

Q37. RFP Section M-3.4.2.2 indicates “Adjustments to the proposed pricing provided in Part A are permitted, but shall be justified based on your technical solution for the unique task order requirements and must be clearly identified in the proposed price.” This language implies there will be an opportunity to price the first two task orders (Part B) separate from the ID/IQ pricing

(Part A) included in schedule B. Where in the cost proposal should the contractor include pricing for the first two task orders?

A37. Section M has changed and will be updated when the formal RFP is release – please stand-by.

Q38. To assist with pricing will the government provide a listing of contractor provided vehicles used at all locations?

A38. Negative. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine the number of vehicles based on their approach depending on the PMELs location.

Q39. The bandwidth requirements for PMEL O&M Services are based on total annual actions subject to quality review. This information was not provided in Appendix G, Workload Data.

Will it be made available?

A39. Bandwidth levels are identified in Schedule B of the RFP. Total annual actions subject to quality review projects to be within the middle Bandwidth for each location.

Q40. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). Utilizing this source selection process essentially drives the quality out of PMEL contracts. For contractors to be the lowest price, they must reduce staffing. Reducing staffing results in unacceptable annual production levels per technician resulting in significant risk to the single key element of PMEL services. Without

Quality in our PMEL services, the continued success of the USAF mission is jeopardized. Is

LPTA the acceptable source selection process to guarantee continued excellence and superiority in the Air Force Metrology and Calibration Program?

A40. Recognize your concern; however LPTA is the process being utilized for this acquisition.

Q41. “Offerors shall provide their proposed price for all Fixed Price CLINs listed in Part I, Section B, of the solicitation.” However, L-9.4.2 Part B – Task Order Subfactors, Subfactor A:

PMEL Manning, states that the Technical Volume applies to Technical Task Order 2 – Wright

Patterson AFB Type IIC and Technical Task Order 3 – Peterson and Malmstrom AFB Type IIB

PMELs. Please provide guidance as to why all CLINS would be priced, but only three bases would be addressed in the Technical Volume.

A41. The Technical Volume will be evaluated for technical acceptability for the two ID/IQ subfactors, Program Management and Quality Management as well as the two Task Order

Subfactors, PMEL Manning and Transition. The Task Order Subfactors submitted will only be for Wright Patterson, Peterson, and Malmstrom. All of these subfactors will need to be acceptable to be viewed as technical acceptable. The Task Order subfactors for the other locations will be evaluated during subsequent RFPs for those locations. Price however will be evaluated for total overall price for the middle bandwidth of all locations, program management, MIDs, and transition for Wright Patterson, Peterson, and Malmstrom.

Q42. “The Government intends to award a target of five (5) awards of the ID/IQ contract resulting from this solicitation.” Does this infer award to five contractors? Draft RFP FA4890-

13-R-0111, M-1.4.3, states, “The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINs IAW para M-3.4.11 and M-3.4.2.1.” This methodology will result in only one low price bid for all PMEL sites, therefore only one contractor will be awarded all five awards of the ID/IQ contract. Is this correct? Please elaborate on the contract award strategy.

A42. Award will be to the six lowest priced, technically acceptable contractors IAW the formal

RFP.

Q43. Draft RFP FA4890-13-R-0111, Attachment 3, Collective Bargaining Agreements/Wage

Determinations. It is not readily apparent what the PMEL job classifications and wages are for the Arnold, Vance, and Wright-Patterson CBAs. Please provide.

A43. Arnold PMEL job classifications are TBD…

Vance PMEL job classifications are currently Labor Grade 12 with a Lead as a LG13

Wright Patterson PMEL job classifications are Electronics Technician I, Electronics Technician II, Electronics Technician III, PQA Technician, and

Production Control Clerk.

Q44. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 2.1.1. Is the two duty hour response electronically or physically?

A44. Phone or e-mail contact is sufficient.

Q45. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 2.3.4: What budget requirements are anticipated for

PMEL operations that must be submitted to organizational unit that are not covered in the contract?

A45. Normal operating costs, supply accounts, etc. are examples of local budget items.

Q46. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 5.7. As a cost factor, what sites require pickup and delivery service? What is the projected workload?

A46. Patrick/Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg, and Sheppard are locations currently known as having pick-up and delivery functions. Specific locations will be identified within the RFP for the location.

Q47. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 10.5. Current PWS for Elmendorf AFB PMEL operations requires snow removal for parking lot and sidewalks. Will this be required for

Elmendorf and possibly other bases?

A47. Sidewalk, entry ways is included for all locations that could potentially be faced with this situation. Elmendorf is the only location that we are aware requires the parking lot as well and that will remain as a requirement.

Q48. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 12.3. TODO. Have all PMEL sites migrated to E-tools functionality? If not, will E-tools hardware and functionality be provided by the Government?

A48. All locations have not migrated to E-tools completely, however, hardware and functionality will be provided by the government.

Q49. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 12.3.6.1. It is our understanding WebAFCAV has the capability to store, file, and maintain commercial maintenance manuals. Is this an acceptable means of meeting this requirement when the commercial maintenance manual is digitally available?

A49. WebAFCAV has the capability and many are loaded however the government will not guarantee that all items are available. A second copy will not be required to be maintained if one is digitally available.

Q50. Draft PWS, Section A, Paragraph 12.3.7. Paragraph states, “Incoming contractor shall use the contents of the library until updated and revised plans are submitted and approved by the

Government to ensure continuity of O&M services.” What are the requirements for the “updates and revised plans”?

A50. If a contractor should want to change the approach, such as only use WebAFCAV, those are the plans that would have to be submitted and approved by the government to ensure that support is provided.

Q51. Draft PWS, Section B, Paragraph 2.1.3. Referenced FAR 52.246-4 does not state any financial penalties for non-compliance with Service Summary requirements. Are there financial penalties associated with non-compliance?

A51. While the government retains all remedies for substandard performance, there are no penalties directly tied to not meeting Service Summary requirements.

Q52. Draft PWS, Section B, 3.0, SS Table, 2. TMDE Maintenance and Certification Process.

Will maintenance and certification processes actually be evaluated (PNC) or only that end item quality meets safety, accuracy, reliability, and traceability requirements (QNC)?

A52. Both the process and the quality can be evaluated and process and quality non-conformities identified if they exist. Surveillance takes a risk based approach so the items sampled can come from all statuses. With that in mind the contractor is only accountable for those within their control, i.e. if CORs surveil an item that that was inwork, then quality of the end item has not yet been established, so primarily only the process is being surveilled, quality, because it has not yet established until after the contractor’s calibration process is complete and you have certified the item. An item selected from Awaiting Customer pickup could have both quality and process evaluated.

Q53. Draft PWS, Section C, Paragraph 2.4. Government Furnished Tools. Are replacement tools a reimbursable expense? If Appendix D does not identify tools at a PMEL site, should the cost of providing tools be included in the cost proposal or be treated as a reimbursable expense?

A53. Initial tools will be provided. As status of tools are not the same and could change before transition to this contract vehicle, tools should not be included in a cost proposal and be considered a reimbursable expense so all treat it the same.

Q54. Draft PWS, Section C, Paragraph 2.5. ADPE. Will all contractor-acquired IT equipment/software be a reimbursable expense?

A54. Other than any IT used solely for company purposes, all ADPE will either be provided by the government or be considered a reimbursable expense.

Q55. Draft PWS, Section D, Paragraph 4.2. Referenced paragraph only addresses holidays contained in Attachment 4 DOL wage determinations (actual attachment provided addressing

CBAs and WDs is Attachment 3). Are the holidays addressed in Attachment 3 CBAs also observed?

A55. PWS uses standardized holidays listed for DOL, however, CBAs will take precedence over any DOL WD so holidays identified in CBAs will be observed.

Q56. Draft PWS, Section D, Paragraph 5.8.Classified Material. Which PMEL sites have approved classified storage containers?

A56. Specific details will be identified during the RFPs for those locations.