CNGT_Ops Log_Questions_Submitted_4_Feb_15.docx

CN&GT Operations & Logistics Support

FA4890-14-R-0023

Questions & Government Answers

RFP Questions

RFP H-2, L.7.3.2, (OCI Plan) L-7.3.4 (Master Schedule), L-8.1.3 (Past Performance Consent Letters) Will the Government consider removing these items from the page count limitations?

Recommendation: Revise Section L instructions to remove the OCI Plan, Master Schedule and the Consent Letters from the page count limitations.

The OCI Plan will be included in the Technical Volume page count limitations specified in RFP paragraph L-5.3.3 and associated table.

The Master Schedule will remain as part of the Technical Volume page count limitation specified for each scenario in RFP paragraph L-5.3.3 and associated table. See also RFP paragraph L-5.3.5.

Past Performance Consent Letters are not subject to any page count limitations, should follow the template at Attachment 4 and should have no reason to exceed 1 page. Any information included in the Consent Letter other than the specified consent will not be evaluated.

RFP L-8.1.1.2

RFP L-8.1.2.1

The reference implies that the Government requires the offeror to address not only the nature of the work a critical subcontractor will perform, but the percentage. Within the context of a multiple award IDIQ, the amount of work cannot accurately be predicted by the contractor. If the offeror is successful and the Government later incorporates the proposal into the contract, that offeror may then find itself unable to attain what might have seemed reasonable at the time the proposal was written. Can the Government please explain how this information will be used? Will the Government hold the offeror accountable if those percentages are not attained?

Recommendations: (1) Please consider removing the requirement to predict workshare on a multiple award IDIQ contract. (2) Please also provide a definition of “critical subcontractor.” (3) Provide an explanation how the percentage information will be used; and (4) If the Government does not remove the requirement, provide an assurance that the information is notional only and the contractor will not be held to it.

1) The Government has removed the requirement to describe the “…portion (percentage) of the work to be performed…” by the subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture, or corporate division related to the Prime provided in a Past Performance reference in RFP paragraph L-8.1.2.1.

2) The term “critical” refers to a subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, or corporate division related to the Prime that is essential to the Prime’s ability to successfully perform contractual requirements. It is not up to the Government to determine how this affects each contractual relationship between the Prime and any members of the Prime’s proposed team.

3) No longer required per change at Item (1) above.

4) No longer required per change at Item (1) above.

RFP M-1.2

RFP L-9.1.1

Section L-9.1.1 indicates that FFP rates will be max rates for the life of the contract. As requirements will vary drastically on this contract, will subcontractors be allowed to submit their companies’ max rates separately, so that each teammate will have a cap or is it the intent that there be a single rate table inclusive of the prime and all of its subcontractors?

Recommendation: We recommend that the prime and each teammate be allowed to have a separate cap rate submission.

The Government will not accept proposals (ID/IQ or T/O) that include separate rates for primes and subcontractors. The Government has a contractual relationship with the prime alone. The expectation is that ID/IQ proposals address one labor rate for each labor category for each performance level for each location (CONUS (hourly) and OCONUS (daily). These would then be the max rates for the prime (and all teaming partners, subcontractors, etc.) at the T/O level.

RFP L-9.1.2

Please confirm that the offering of indirect rate ceilings is optional All other things being equal, if an offeror opts not to propose such ceilings, what would be the impact to that offeror’s proposal evaluation score?

Will these ceiling apply to all task types or will they be restricted to cost type work?

Recommendation: That the indirect rate ceilings remain optional and provide clarification as to how this will affect the overall evaluation.

1) Ceiling rates are not required, but may be proposed.

2) If ceiling rates are not provided Offerors shall provide sufficient data to support their rates to allow the Government to evaluate the proposed rates.

3) See L-9.1.2. The ceiling will apply to cost type work. The rate proposed at the ID/IQ level will be the rate used at the T/O level. If ceiling rates are not proposed and the rates require an update, i.e. there is a change in the Contractor’s Forward Price Rate Agreement or Cost Pools, then sufficient data shall be provided at the T/O level to support the rates used.

RFP L-9.1.3; PWS 2.2 & 3.5.4.1

(1) The term minimum guarantee is confusing, since it typically refers to a payment made if no tasks are awarded. Can the offerors assume that there is no minimum guarantee of that definition i.e. to be paid if no tasks are awarded? (2) The language indicating that, “all other travel and labor expected in the course of contract performance shall be considered a cost of doing business…” is also confusing since such costs are clearly allocable (and would otherwise be allowable) to this contract and therefore would be excluded from overhead costs. The Government has specifically identified travel to reviews and the kick-off meeting as a cost of doing business in the PWS. While limiting program startup costs to some initial period is understandable, the implication of this language and that in PWS 2.2 is that ongoing program management, related travel, and system maintenance over the life of the contract will be unallowable. If the Government continues to include this language, the offerors may be forced to increase their profit to offset the exclusion of these costs. This approach may ultimately cost the Government more than if the costs were deemed allowable. Will the Government consider revising this requirement?

Recommendations: (1) That the Government clarify whether there is a minimum guarantee in the more traditional sense (if no tasks are awarded) (2) That the Government explain why an otherwise allocable and allowable cost that is clearly identifiable to a single cost objective should be excluded as a direct cost under this contract.

1) The minimum guarantee is $50,000. See RFP paragraph L-9.1.3 and PWS paragraph 3.5.4.1 for details.

2) Travel done at the T/O level may be reimbursable if determined allowable for that specific T/O. Travel done at the ID/IQ level, e.g., to and from the Program Management Reviews (PMR) and the ID/IQ Kick-off is seen as a cost of doing business (see PWS paragraphs 2.2.6.3 and 2.2.7.1) and should be included in the proposed mark-ups as determined appropriate by each Offeror.

RFP Exhibit1 – Pricing Tables; Tab Year 1

It is unclear how the multiplier/percent columns within the Excel model will work if the multiplier is reflective of hours/category and the same number of hours is inserted for each category level, then multiplied by the percentage, then the number at the bottom incorrectly sums only the hours in the Multiplier which artificially increase the sum of hours at the bottom. However if you reduce the number of hours for each level and indicate the percentage of total hours in percentage column, then it artificially reduced the hours again when it multiplies total cost. Can the Government please clarify the intent of the Multiplier and percentage column with how they relate to the total cost formula?

Recommendation: Please clarify the intent or provide revised template.

The multiplier is 1,920 for CONUS (hourly) Rates (based on 4 weeks off (2 weeks of federal holidays and 2 weeks of vacation time)) and 240 for OCONUS (daily) Rates (also based on 4 weeks off per previous).

The percentage columns have been removed.

RFP Exhibit1 – Pricing Tables; Tab Year 1 The Table Indirect rates is very confusing as it appears to calculate Other Direct Cost as opposed to Indirect Costs or really Indirect Rates (as DSSR will vary by location and many offerors vary as to which items are consider indirect and which items are direct). Can the Government please clarify the intent of this section?

Recommendation: Break out a rate table from the actual direct non-labor pricing development.

Exhibit 1 has been updated to reflect “Indirect Rate(s)” section.

RFP Exhibit1 – Pricing Tables; Tab Year The template includes a profit column for labor but does not include a profit column for “ODCs” that are in the “Indirect Rates” template section. Is it the Government’s intent not to include profit on these costs for evaluation purposes only, as the contract will ultimately contain tasks of various contract types?

Recommendation: Clarify in Section L-9 that profit will not be applied to ODCs for evaluation purposes only, but will also clarify that profit may be applied upon issuance of specific types of Task Orders (and specify under which scenarios profit will be allowable on Other Direct Costs).

Profit is not included on Indirect Rates and will not be applicable at the T/O level when the Indirect item is a CR CLIN at the T/O level. Profit may be applied when an Indirect item is a fixed price CLIN at the T/O level and will be negotiated prior to T/O award.

RFP Exhibit1 – Pricing Tables; Tab Year 1 Will the Government allow offerors to make adjustments to the templates to accommodate various disclosed practices of price buildup that may not currently fit within your sample model?

Recommendation: Change the template to allow for adjustment to model to accommodate disclosed practices.

The Government has added two “Optional” columns for Offerors to accommodate various disclosed practices of price build up. See RFP paragraph L-9.1.1.

PWS 2.1.1

The draft OLS PWS section 2.1.1 begins by stating “The Contractor shall provide personnel, services, equipment and construction as necessary to support start-up of a new, restart of a former, or conduct and sustainment of an existing program, project, process, initiative or directive. This includes procurement (purchase or lease) of necessary services, equipment and material that directly or indirectly support the mission and objectives of an operation.” (emphasis added) PWS section 2.1.1 then goes on by stating “…the Contractor shall provide the resources necessary to design, build, … platforms, systems, subsystems, vehicles, watercraft, vessels, aircraft (fixed wing, rotary wing, aerostats, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)), spacecraft, electronics equipment, shelters, facilities, ground support equipment, support structures, or any other distinct, serviceable and/or replacement element, part, component, assembly, subassembly or tool…”(emphasis added) It is one thing to require NAICS 561210, Facilities Support Services contract companies to procure customer specified platforms, systems, subsystems, vehicles, watercraft, vessels, aircraft (fixed wing, rotary wing, aerostats, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)), spacecraft, electronics equipment, and ground support equipment, but it is a very different thing to require a Facilities Support Services contractor to design and build the identified list of items. Is it the Government’s intent that Facilities Support Services companies that do not design or build the list of items identified in section 2.1.1 should be concerned about their ability to comply with the scope as it is written?

Good distinction. The Government has updated PWS paragraph 2.1.1 to reflect that the design and/or build portion only applies to equipment, shelters, facilities, ground support equipment, and/or support structures, while the operate, maintain and/or sustain applies to the full original list, to include these items.

PWS 2.1.1

PWS 2.1.1

PWS 2.1.1 and subparagraphs

PWS 2.1.1 and subparagraphs

PWS 2.2.3.4 and 3.5.4.10

There seems to be a discrepancy between these two PWS sections. The first requires a 24 hours notice, which may be difficult especially if the issue arises in some of the OCONUS locations with a significant time difference. The second section referenced allows for 3 calendar days, which is much more reasonable but does not take weekends into account. Will the Government change the requirement to 3 business days?

Recommendation: Please consider the use of 3 business days in both sections.

There is no longer a PWS paragraph 2.2.3.4; however, the contents were moved to the current PWS paragraph 2.2.3.3. This paragraph now references PWS paragraph 3.5.4.10 so there are no longer any disconnects.

The requirement will remain at three (3) calendar days, with the PWS now specifying that there may be circumstances that drive a quicker response time.

PWS 2.3.1.3, page 9 PWS 2.3.1.3 indicates labor categories are included in Appendix B, but they are in Appendix C.

Recommendation: Please modify PWS paragraph 2.3.1.3 to reflect Appendix C.

PWS paragraph 2.3.1.3 has been updated to reflect, “…Appendix C, Labor Categories and Descriptions”.

PWS 2.3.5, page 11 and Appendix D, paragraph 1.2.6.3, page 5 and PWS paragraph 6.2.6.3

PWS paragraph 6.2.6.3 reads, “The Contractor shall clearly identify any key personnel, whether Government identified or Contractor-proposed, in the Technical Proposal.” When will the Government identify its Key Personnel requirements? Also, for the identified positions, will the Government identify more specific requirements and required qualifications for each at both the IDIQ level and the TO level? Currently, the only instruction is that key personnel are those deemed critical to the overall performance of the contract.

Recommendation: We recommend the Government identify its Key Personnel requirements (if any) as soon as possible and provide specific Key Personnel requirements to aid in staffing and pricing these positions appropriately.

This is a performance-based requirement; therefore, the Government expects that offerors will propose varying approaches to successful ID/IQ contract performance and oversight in accordance with the ID/IQ PWS; these approaches will be evaluated under Subfactor 1.

Per PWS paragraph 2.3.5, “Any positions proposed as key as part of the ID/IQ proposal will be considered binding key positions for the life of the contract.” See also PWS paragraphs 2.3.5.1 and 2.3.5.2.

PWS paragraph 6.2.6.3 has been updated to refer back to PWS paragraph 2.3.5 and subparagraphs, as well as PWS paragraph 7.1.4.

PWS paragraph 6.1.2.11 states that, “The Government may specify the number of contractor personnel required and/or those deemed “Key” to performance of the T/O requirement.” This paragraph has been updated to include, “The Government may also specify the minimum qualifications required or some or all positions.”

PWS 2.3.5.5, Table 3 Service Summary According to section 2.3.5.5 and Table 3 the contractor is expected to fill vacated IDIQ/TO Key Personnel positions within 14 days. Does this apply to both CONUS and OCONUS?

Recommendation: Due to OCONUS travel restrictions and requirements it will take longer than 2 weeks for Key personnel who leave unexpectedly to be replaced; recommend this requirement be amended to apply only to CONUS key personnel.

PWS paragraph 2.3.5.5 and Table 3 have both been updated to specifically and separately address OCONUS positions.

PWS 3.5.4.5, Table 2 Other than the name of the subcontractor, is there any other information that the Government would like on this list?

PWS paragraph 3.5.4.5 has been updated with the sentence, “The Subcontractor List shall include, as a minimum, each Contractor’s full name, CAGE Code and DUNS Number.”

PWS Table 3 – Services Summary, p 21/22.

Under the Performance Objective “Deliverables Management,” the “Performance Standard” reads, “Develop and submit all required deliverables.” The “Performance Threshold” reads, “Performance is acceptable when: a) 100% of deliverable requirements are met and received on time AND b) Information is current and accurate.” We interpret this to mean perfect performance. Typically, a Performance Threshold is the minimum performance level of a performance objective required by the Government. Achieving 100% is always the goal, but achieving perfect results (especially in the fluid environment of CN&GT with overseas operations in hostile areas) is unlikely. Would the Government identify a more realistic Threshold for this Performance Objective?

Recommendation: Modify Performance Threshold to read, “Performance is acceptable when a) 90% of the deliverable requirements are met and received on time AND b) Information is current and accurate.”

Please keep in mind that this is referencing deliverables at the ID/IQ level. The Government will issue a nonconformance if a deliverable is late or inaccurate. The Government expects that all deliverables will be on time and accurate. As with anything else, if there is something that precludes a Contractor from providing a deliverable on time, the Contractor may request a deviation. Please see specifics in PWS paragraph 3.5 and update to PWS paragraph 3.5.1.

Each T/O PWS will express the requirements for deliverables for that T/O. If there are concerns regarding those deliverables, please advise the KO prior to submission of a proposal.

PWS Security, paragraph 4.3.2.4, p 24.

The referenced paragraph reads, “The Contractor shall appoint a Security Manager for the on base Visitor Group. The Security Manager may be a full time position or an additional duty position.” May we assume that this will therefore be a direct charge position?

Recommendation: That the Government identify the Security Manager as a direct charge requirement.

Now PWS paragraph 4.2.2.4: None of the ID/IQ labor will be identified as a direct charge requirement at the ID/IQ level. Any labor at the ID/IQ level will either be captured in the G&A, overhead and/or profit proposed for each labor category or as a specific line item for each T/O. PWS paragraph 7.1.3 states that offerors may propose labor for ID/IQ oversight/management as part of a T/O proposal. This paragraph further statues that, “It is expected that the hours for ID/IQ oversight/management will be reflective of the true oversight/management hours required from each labor category proposed…”The $50K minimum guarantee is also a substantial commitment by the Government to help primes establish their program management capability.

PWS Appendix D, paragraph 1.2.6.2

The Government indicates that a qualification summary should be submitted, but provides no detail on what this summary should contain. We are recommending clarification.

Recommendation: That the Personnel Qualification Summary include, by position, a brief description of duties, education level, security clearance, and any required licenses and certifications.

Now PWS paragraph 6.2.6.2: Updated language per recommendation.

PWS Appendix D, 1.2.7.1 Will the Government standardize contract recency for the IDIQ and all TOs?

Recommendation: That the solicitation be changed to reflect contract recency to be 5 years from the proposal due date at both the contract and task order levels.

Now PWS paragraph 6.2.7.1: T/O recency will be defined at the T/O level. Each solicitation must reflect an approach that is most fitting for the particular requirement. Therefore, the Government determined that five (5) years for recency is appropriate at the ID/IQ level. It will be up to each T/O CO to define recency for that T/O at the time of T/O solicitation.

PWS Appendix D, New Task Order Requirements, paragraphs 1.2.7.3, page 5 and 1.3.4.6, page 8

We do not understand the word “commensurate” as it relates to the following sentence, “Contractors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a commensurate rating for the Past Performance factor.” Further, 1.2.7.3. on page 5 indicates “Offerors are cautioned to provide references that demonstrate positive and successful performance of previous or ongoing requirements.”

And finally, if the PWS states that the Contractor shall possess the experience, or provide experienced personnel, how can a Contractor without that experience be acceptable? What kind of rating would a contractor with no relevant past performance receive? How would the Government compare the rating of a contractor without such experience to a contractor that does have relevant past performance? In other words, if both simply received a “pass”, would the Government consider them equal? Can the Government please explain its intent and provide clarification?

Recommendation: (1) Please resolve the apparent discrepancy between paragraphs 1.3.4.6 and 1.2.7.3. (2) We request that the Government explain its intent and provide clarification and consider adding a “neutral” rating, or a level of confidence type of rating.

Now Appendix B:

Paragraph 6.3.4.6 has been updated to reflect that a Past Performance rating will be assigned IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and the T/O RFP. In the cases of no relevant past performance, the offeror is neither penalized nor given extra credit. The source selection methodology would determine the impact of such a rating.

Paragraph 6.2.7.3 now references paragraph 6.3.4.6 per above to ensure that contractors understand that there is the possibility that no relevant past performance exists.

PWS Appendix D, 1.2.8, 6.1.2.16

There appear to be several confusing references to the Task Order Cost/Price proposal format. (1) Appendix D makes reference to H.9, which no longer exists. Should this read H-8? (2) Appendix D makes reference to an Attachment 1 proposal template, which we could not find. (3) Appendix D contains specific requirements for the Cost Price proposal, but the PWS states that the TO will specify the requirements and provide the level of detail. Which takes precedence – the PWS or Appendix D?

Recommendation: Provide clarification

1) PWS Appendix B (previously Appendix D) paragraph 6.1.2.16 has been updated to H-8 vice H-9.

2) PWS Appendix B has been updated to remove any reference to Attachment 1.

3) At the T/O level the Government will specify the format in which offerors will submit cost/price proposals. Please note that in PWS paragraph 6.2.8 it specifically states, “Cost/Price proposals shall include the following, as specified in the T/O RFP”. It is important to read parent paragraphs to ensure complete understanding.

RFP Appendix D, 1.2.8.1

Appendix D states that the labor rates awarded at the contract level will be the ceiling rates for all fixed price type tasks. This seems fairly clear. However it goes on to state that cost type tasks will be negotiated, with the pre-established rates serving as the “basis for negotiations”. What does this mean? If the ceiling rate for an engineer is $50 an hour, and the offeror proposes $55 on a cost type task, how would the Government react?

Recommendation: Please explain the Government’s intent.

On a cost type contract, costs may reimbursed if they are determined allowable. Therefore, the Government did not deem it appropriate to use proposed labor rates as ceiling rates for cost type contracts. While proposed /awarded rates are not ceiling rates for cost type contracts, these ceiling rates will be used as a basis for negotiation between the Government and T/O offerors to ensure a fair and reasonable labor rate is used at the T/O level. At the T/O level and offeror may be required to provide supporting data in order to use a higher labor rate than originally proposed at the ID/IQ level.

PWS Appendix D, paragraph 1.2.8.5

This section states that for cost type (it says contracts, but presumably means task orders), proposals shall contain evidence of an adequate accounting system, which is generally consistent with the intent of H-6 (although H-6 does limit it to cost type task orders). Why is this required for every task order?

Recommendations: That the Government specify what constitutes evidence of an adequate accounting system at the contract level and, once acceptable, does not require it at the task level.

Now PWS paragraph 6.2.8.5:

Task orders are individual contracts.

Per this reference, this is not required for every task order; just for cost type task orders. PWS paragraph 6.2.8.5 now includes clarifying language. RFP Paragraph L-9.3.6 provides what is required at the ID/IQ level to provide evidence of an adequate accounting system (certified or compliant). The same type of information would be required at the T/O level, if necessary.

PWS Travel, 6.5.3 p. 44 PWS paragraph 6.5.3.8 reads, “The Contractor shall be responsible for all associated taxes (e.g., VAT), duties and customs fees, and other related charges for each country of performance if a waiver or an exemption is not available.” Will the Government indicate that these are reimbursable expenses?

Recommendation: Identify these costs as reimbursable.

These costs and the approach for these costs vary substantially among regions and countries. The approach for these expenses will be specified at the T/O level.

PWS Appendix D, paragraph 1.5.3.13 Will the Government change the stated criteria to reflect the intent for the Offeror’s ISO certification and Quality Control Plan processes to mirror/support the QASP and/or PRS? This ensures full compliance with expected quality.

Recommendation: That the Government require a detailed Quality Control Plan for the Task Order to directly support the QASP and PRS Now PWS paragraph 6.5.3.13. ISO certification/compliance and ID/IQ Quality Manual will be evaluated at the ID/IQ level. Supplemental QASPs (or T/OSPs) will be developed at the T/O level and supplemental (T/O-specific) Quality Control Plans / Manuals may be required at the T/O level and will be specified in the T/O RFP/PWS. Regardless, a Contractor’s ID/IQ Quality Manual will apply to all underlying T/Os.

PWS Appendix D, 1.5.3.17

This section states that While Human Rights Vetting is a Government responsibility, the Contractor may be required to ensure any personnel who will or may interact with US Government personnel are properly vetted and maintain appropriate documentation. Can the Government clarify the requirement?

Recommendation: Please clarify what proper vetting and appropriate documentation includes.

PWS paragraph 1.5.3.17 of Appendix D became paragraph 6.5.3.17 of Appendix B, which has been removed as this is a Government responsibility.

PWS Appendix D There appears to be a lot of overlap between the task order proposal requirements in the PWS and those in Appendix D. Would the Government consider putting all information pertaining to task order proposal requirements in Appendix D only?

Recommendation: In order to remove any discrepancies and repetition, and for ease of administration during performance, consider putting all information pertaining to task order proposal requirements in Appendix D only.

The vast majority of T/O requirements are covered in PWS Appendix B (formerly Appendix D). There are some minor areas where T/O requirements are specified in the main body of the PWS, which the Government has determined appropriate for efficiency purposes. If there are specific items you believe would be better suited in Appendix B, please provide those references, a rationale for moving that item(s), and recommended location.

PWS Appendix E, 2.1.4

This section states that the Government can create/identify new labor categories act to meet unforeseen mission requirements or as part of a Task Order RFP. Will such rates, even if proposed at the TO level, then become part of the contracts for all offerors who submitted proposals, or will that rate only be added to the TO awardee’s contract? Will the rate then be usable on other task orders as well?

Recommendation: Please clarify the Government’s intent and amend the PWS and/or Appendix D accordingly.

Now PWS paragraph 7.1.4: Per the last sentence of this paragraph, “Any new labor categories will be negotiated separately.” The Government has added, “…and incorporated at the T/O level” to the end of this sentence.

PWS Table 5

Some projects may require a Warrant Officer (i.e. Technician focused) level of PM…higher on technical knowledge and many qualified former Warrant Officers would meet this minimum. Will the Government change the minimal level of education for Junior PM and Experienced PM from Bachelor Degree to Associate’s Degree?; change Expert PM from Master’s Degree to Bachelor’s Degree?

Recommendation: That the Government revise the minimum education standards for the Project Managers in Table 5 to reflect the minimal level of education for Junior PM and Experienced PM to be an Associate’s Degree and the Expert PM to be a Bachelor’s Degree.

The PM labor category does not strictly prohibit qualified personnel to the degree requirements. For each PM performance level there is a specified “OR” capability based on experience in lieu of education. The only labor categories where experience in lieu of education is not allowed is for those (such as pilot, engineer, architect or scientist) where a degree is required. See also PWS paragraph 7.3 and subparagraphs.