Consolidated_Questions_20140902.docx

CN&GT Operations & Logistics and Training ID/IQ Questions for Industry Please provide input on the following and rationale for any input provided.

Scope:

1. [Item d. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The scope of each ID/IQ touches multiple aspects of CN&GT. Do you have any suggestions to better refine these requirements and/or clearly delineate the difference between each ID/IQ (including Army-led ID/IQs) to ensure use of proper vehicles post award?

2. [Item e. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] A significant challenge to supporting CN&GT work of any type is the requirement to service locations around the globe with highly divergent local and country guidance and challenges. The Government recognizes this is difficult for Contractors. Do you have any suggestions for minimizing the impact or suggestions for guidance/resources that the Government could include to better support Contractors?

3. [Item a. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Do the requirements capture the work that we anticipate will be required of each ID/IQ and delineate enough between the two to reasonably determine the appropriate vehicle for CN work?

Period of Performance:

4. [Item a. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government is considering a five year base period versus a shorter base with option period for the ID/IQ ordering period. Update: The Government is currently considering a three-year base plus two two-year options. Do you see any advantages or disadvantages to either approach?

5. [Item b. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government is considering a longer period of performance for the ID/IQ ordering period. What do you think would be appropriate given the type of work required and balancing that with the ability to ensure competition and an active and viable pool of primes? Update: The Government is currently considering a seven-year ordering period with the ability to issue up to a two-year task order on the last day of the ID/IQ ordering period.

General PWS:

6. [Item b. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Does the organization of the PWS make sense?

· Are there items that would be better suited elsewhere?

· Is there redundant or conflicting information?

7. [Item l. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] What feedback can you provide for meeting ESOH requirements overseas? Update: Does requiring compliance with the Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document (OEBGD) suffice?

8. [Item m. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Should DD Forms 254 be required at the ID/IQ level, T/O level or both? Update: The Government is currently considering issuing a DD Form 254 for task order 0001 (ID/IQ program management capability), then a DD Form 254 for each applicable requirement. Does this seem reasonable?

9. [Item n. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Property Management requirements are stringent. Do these seem meaningful for these requirements? Update: The Government expects compliance with FAR Part 45. Is this sufficient?

10. [Item o. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Transportation requirements are stringent. Do these seem meaningful for these requirements?

11. [Item p. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Are there any publications and forms that would apply to these requirements, other than those addressed in the text of the PWS?

Program Management:

12. [Item f. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government also recognizes the challenge of getting in country expertise and support and retaining that support in a fiscally constrained environment. Is there anything the Government can include or eliminate that would help the Contractors be more successful in this area?

13. [Item q. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government finds it vital that Contractors properly manage / oversee their subcontractors and teaming partners. If the proper management / oversight is not there it may result in things like subs’ failure to pay second tier subcontractors, schedule delays, contract modifications, excess costs, etc., all of which would have been unnecessary if there is the proper management / oversight on the entire contract. It is vital for CN&GT work, because these outcomes also affect US diplomatic relations with our foreign country partner. As a result, this will be a focus area for these ID/IQs. While the Government does not have privity of contract with any contractor other than the prime, the Government would like to minimize such events and potentially minimize second and third tier subcontracting arrangements, where possible. How can the Government better highlight this important aspect?

14. [Item r. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] Another important aspect of ID/IQs of this nature is the Contractor’s ability to attract, hire, train and retain qualified and trained personnel. It is also important that fully qualified individuals be available at task order start. Do you have recommendations to better articulate this in the PWS?

15. [Item s. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] Additionally, the PWS includes a lapse rate requirement, across all task orders, of 5%. Is this reasonable for this type of work? Why/why not? If not, please provide an alternative.

16. [Item c. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Are there program management aspects that are not currently included in the PWS that would be beneficial to include?

17. [Item d. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Are the human resources management requirements appropriate? Realistic?

18. [Item e. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Are there any questions regarding travel or material reimbursement?

Quality / Deliverables:

19. [Item h. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] In lieu of numerous individual deliverables, the Government is considering the requirement for a Management Information System that captures up-to-date status on numerous aspects of contract oversight, such as:

· T/O Status

· Movement of Resources Status

· Property Management

· Lapse Rates

· Quality Management

· Earned Value Management, where applicable Please provide thoughts/recommendations/concerns.

20. [Item o. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government has required that all Contractors have a current ISO 9001 registration (in any area). What are your thoughts on this?

21. [Item t. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government has established various response times and action timelines throughout the PWS. What are your thoughts, recommendations, or concerns?

22. [Item v. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government would like to ensure receipt of comprehensive, compliant and easy to track invoicing from Contractors. As a standard, the expectation is that Contractors will provide invoices on a monthly basis, unless a task order specifies a milestone schedule or some other invoicing regularity. The Government also needs to maximize timeliness of invoicing, inclusion of appropriate supporting documentation and that all documentation related to an event (such as travel (a single trip) be captured in a single invoice. Please provide recommendations, thoughts, or concerns.

23. [Item g. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Do the deliverables seem meaningful? Are there too many? Too few? Are they properly specified?

24. [Item h. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The PWS includes various other deliverables (security plan (PWS paragraph 4.3.3.1), OPSEC plan (PWS paragraph 4.3.6), acceptance test plan (PWS paragraph 5.1.5), property control plan / system (PWS paragraph 5.2.1), and perhaps others). Are these meaningful deliverables for this requirement?

25. [Item j. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Does a transition plan seem appropriate for these contracts?

26. [Item k. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Does the services summary measure meaningful items? Are there other items to include?

Task Orders:

27. [Item j. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government understands the need to use local national and third country nationals to help support work under these requirements. However, the Government also realizes that the labor rates associated with these individuals is far less than the labor Contractors would pay for US citizens or other resources. The Government is therefore considering a local national/third country national discount for labor. Update: The T/O process specified in the ID/IQ appendix will include the expectation that labor will be discounted when using local national/third country national labor. Please provide thoughts, recommendations or concerns.

28. [Item m. (2nd part) on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] What are your thoughts on pre-proposal site visits for T/O work?

29. [Item r. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The Government is contemplating T/Os periods of performance up to 3 years. Is this sufficient? Too much? Too little?

30. [Item s. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The Government is currently projecting T/O performance up to 2 years beyond the end of the ordering period. Is this sufficient?

General Solicitation:

31. [Item c. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government is seeking to maximize participation in these solicitations. What can the Government do to accomplish this?

32. [Item m. (1st part) on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] Do you believe it pertinent to travel to any countries as part of the ID/IQ bid process?

33. [Item p. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government intends to provide historical task order PWSs for Contractor reference. Do you believe this is beneficial?

34. [Item t. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Do the factors and subfactors appropriately capture the risks related to these requirements?

35. [Item u. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The Government may down select proposals evaluated whether or not the Government uses competition pools (as currently shown in the RFP). What is an appropriate number of target awardees and minimum offerors to evaluate to obtain a viable pool and competition?

36. [Item w. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] How many days would you recommend for days for proposal preparation?

37. [Item x. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The Government is contemplating splitting into 2 competition pools (if market research supports this approach). What would be a reasonable split (percentage, number of primes) between large businesses and small businesses (may be different recommendations for each ID/IQ)?

Technical Evaluation:

38. [Item g. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government is currently considering Technical scenario(s) (vice sample task orders) to demonstrate an offeror’s understanding of various critical aspects of CN&GT work. Some examples include:

· An understanding of foreign travel requirements

· Movement of personnel (within country, to country, use of Government air travel, Individual Replacement Deployment Operations (IRDO), etc. processes, timing and compliance)

· Import/export requirements and challenges for various countries (use of freight forwarders, required use of in country representatives for various countries and types of work, etc.)

Please provide thoughts/recommendations/concerns.

Past Performance Evaluation:

39. [Item v. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Past Performance:

· Does recency definition allow capturing of enough references (are the number of years sufficient (6 months of performance within the last three years)) to indicate capability to perform similar work?

· How many references are necessary to capture capability?

Cost/Price Evaluation:

40. [Item i. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government is considering numerous options for the pricing structure. A challenge is the number of countries and possible labor categories that could be utilized under these requirements. One approach the Government is considering is the use of generic labor categories based on experience and education levels with ‘add-ons’ for Department of State Differential for each country, level of expertise, functional area, etc. vice titled labor categories requiring pricing for multiple countries. Update: the Government currently has 20 established labor categories with three levels for each category (fully qualified, experienced, expert), each of which will require separate pricing. The only exception is the Subject Matter Expert (SME) labor category, as a SME is a SME. What are your thoughts on this? Any other suggested approaches?

41. [Item n. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government is considering a minimum guarantee. Some options are to cover the Program Management aspect at the ID/IQ level, the Management Information System, or a credit toward each Contractor’s first awarded task order. Update: The Government has established a minimum guarantee to stand up / initiate the offeror's proposed Program Management structure and capability per PWS paragraph 2.2, to include establishing the Management Information System. This is a one-time payment that will occur at ID/IQ award as T/O 0001 for each awarded prime contractor. All other travel and labor expected in the course of contract performance shall be considered a cost of doing business and may be included in the offeror's Overhead, G&A and profit proposed for each labor category, CONUS and OCONUS, for each year of performance. Therefore, each offeror will propose the amount deemed appropriate to stand up the management capability; the Government is not establishing a set minimum guarantee amount to be paid to each awardee. What are your thoughts and what do you think is a reasonable amount? Do you think offerors should propose their own amount for the minimum? Is this reasonable approach? Why or why not? If not, please provide recommended alternative.

42. [Item i. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The minimum guarantee will now be for initiating the program management capability and establishing the MIS. ID/IQ management will otherwise be a cost of doing business and should be included in the cost elements for each labor category/location/performance year. Does this seem reasonable?

43. New: The Government currently has 20 established labor categories.

· Do these categories capture all work that could occur under each ID/IQ?

· Are there other categories the Government should include?

· Are there categories the Government could combine?

44. [Item f. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Are there other indirect rates that should be addressed in the PWS?

Contracting:

45. [Item k. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government intends to require an adequate accounting system and approved accounting system [correction: approved purchasing system] be in place for each prime prior to award. Please provide thoughts, recommendations, or concerns.

46. [Item l. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government will establish a contractually binding Small Business Subcontracting minimum percentage and intends to follow DoD guidance. What percentage do you recommend and why?

47. [Item y. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The current DoD SB Subcontracting goal is 23%. These ID/IQs will specify a minimum. What is reasonable (answers may be different for each ID/IQ) and why?

48. [Item q. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] The Government does not yet know its approach for each acquisition with respect to small businesses and will continue to assess capabilities. Approaches under consideration include total set-aside, specified pools (how RFP is currently arranged). If large businesses are included as potential offerors, the Government will establish a SB subcontracting requirement. Please specify whether this should be overall, by socio-economic category and what percentages would be appropriate for these requirements.

49. [Item z. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Are there specific socio-economic set-asides you would recommend for this requirement, if any?

50. [Item u. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The Government would like to incentivize performance in various areas. Some of the areas under consideration include small business participation, bid rate on task orders, and some of the higher risk areas mentioned above. However, there are plusses and minuses to each item. For instance, the Government does not want a company to bid on a high percentage of task orders in an effort to get an incentive when some or several of those task orders may not fit the company’s business model. Update: The Government is not currently considering an incentive arrangement at the ID/IQ level, but will utilize incentive arrangements on task orders, as appropriate. Please provide any recommendations you have on appropriate incentives and how you would like to see them implemented.

51. [Item w. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] What types of contract types do you recommend the Government to include in the IDIQ? Update: The Government is currently considering all contract types for labor, with the exception of time and materials and labor hour, as these are not currently considered appropriate by the Air Force. Please provide your opinion with your rationale.

52. [Item x. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] The anticipated NAICS code for this procurement is 541330, Engineering Services (Training Support Services), which has a small business threshold of $15,000,000 and NAICS 561210, Facilities Support Services (Operation & Logistics), which has a small business threshold of $38,500,000 (per size standards effective 14 Jul 14. Provide any input on this or other potential NAICS codes that should be considered. Provide any input regarding your capability as a small business to accomplish the work as a prime contractor, or any other information relative to setting aside the procurement for small business participation only.

53. [Item aa. on Additional Market Research Questionnaire posted 2 Sep 14.] Primes that are awardees under the Program and Programmatic Support cannot propose for any of the other three ID/IQs, to include these two.

54. [Item y. on initial posting with responses due 28 Aug 14.] RFP W9113M-12-R-0006, Program & Programmatic Support (PPS) poses an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) with this requirement. Does your company have any potential association or current association either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor with this solicitation? If yes, please provide information about your association.