FA4890-14-R-0023_CN GT_Ops Logs_RFP_Qs As_5_Mar_FINAL.docx

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-14-R-0023 CN&GT Ops&Logs

Q: Will the government consider – for other than small business – making the provision of a DCAA determination of adequacy a mandatory submission to qualify as technically acceptable?

All offerors are required to provide evidence of an adequate accounting system (certified or compliant). The statement in RFP L-9.3.6, “If an Offeror has never dealt with DCAA, the Offeror shall review the website at www.dcaa.mil and identify the cognizant DCAA office” does not exclude any offeror from providing an adequate accounting system (certified or compliant).

Q: Will the government remove the phrase “and these proposals are not determined to be easily correctable” from Sections M-3.1.1.2.1 and M-3.1.1.2.2 in the final RFP?

No, this statement will not be removed. Your statement, “It also suggests that the government’s performing organization is willing to assume additional risk associated with an Offeror who submits a low cost proposal without adequate demonstration of its Technical capability or its Past Performance” is not accurate. The language allows the Government to pull in the next lowest priced proposal to ensure adequate competition. If a proposal is easily correctable, then there is no need to evaluate another proposal because there will be adequate competition.

1. As part of our response we intend to submit PPI Sheets on up to 3 ID/IQs; the number of task orders for those ID/IQs range from the teens into the 90s – most of the TOs demonstrate recency and relevancy. Is it necessary for offerors to address task orders in the PPI sheets or may offerors discuss their selected TOs in the Past Performance Summary?

1. If the Government determines that the requirement must be discussed in the PPI sheets, please advise how this is to be accomplished since the instructions indicate PPI sheets cannot exceed 1 page and completing the format itself will use up most of that 1 page.

Recommendation: That the Government consider eliminating the requirement (quoted above) from the PPI instructions and direct offerors to discuss task orders deemed appropriate to demonstrate recency and relevancy in the PPI Summary.

0. If an offeror submits a PPI for an ID/IQ the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ and not performance on each individual task/delivery order.

0. However, for the Government to properly assess that performance, a list of task/delivery orders performed is required. See updated to L-8.1.1.2 and Section L, Attachment 3 in RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

0. If an offeror wants a task/delivery order to be assessed they shall be submitted as a separate PPI.

0. The page limitation for PPI Sheets has been increased from one to two pages. See RFP Amendment 0001 (forthcoming), paragraph L-8.1.

Recommendation: Please clarify. If these are cost – no fee, please indicate.

CLINs 0X06 are Cost Reimbursement with no fee.

Months - for Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) type of contracts.

Lot - for Cost Reimbursement (CR).

Hours - for Cost Plus Fixed Fee Level of Effort (CPFF LOE).

The unit type may change at the T/O level and will be specified in the T/O RFP.

Recommendation: Please clarify that this clause applies at the task level, and will be specified in task orders.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ; therefore, there are various clauses that appear but do not directly apply at the ID/IQ level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level, it will be specified in the T/O.

Recommendation: Please clarify that the appropriate clauses incorporated by reference apply at the task level, and will be specified in task orders.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ; therefore, there are various clauses that appear but do not directly apply at the ID/IQ level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level, it will be specified in the T/O.

Question: The clause as currently written references several clauses: PGI 252.204-0012, DFARS 252.204-0012, DFARS PGI 204.7108 (d) (12). There are multiple references to those within the clause. We have not been able to locate PGI 252.204-0012 or DFARS 252.204-0012. The only information in DFARS PGI 204-7108 (d) (12) is that if the other instruction in items (d) 1 through 11 are not appropriate, the Contracting Officer may provide alternate instructions. This leaves the clause entitled Payment Instructions unclear.

Recommendation: Please clarify the Government’s Payment Instructions.

The payment instructions are included for DFAS. Offerors will invoice either at the CLIN or SubCLIN level. The instructions tell DFAS to pay the invoice with the funding on the CLIN or SubCLIN invoiced.

Question Can the Government please provide a link to the clauses that are incorporated by reference to ensure that we have the most up-to-date reference?

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/ocs/ocs_gcc/TBC_Afghanistan-31_August_2013.pdf.pdf

Question: In order to meet this requirement, it would seem that a prime offeror will have to request that its proposed subcontractors identify all other teaming arrangements it has participated in, which may be precluded by the language of the applicable NDA or teaming agreements. (Some agreements may specify that the existence of the agreement is considered proprietary). Is it enough to identify those subcontractors that are non-exclusive, or on multiple teams, or does each proposed subcontractor have to reveal what other teams it is on in order that its primes be able to comply with this requirement? Will the prime contractors be penalized if its subcontractors cannot or will not comply with this request?

Recommendation: Please clarify this requirement.

In order to avoid organizational conflict of interest, the prime contractors must comply with this request. Each proposed subcontractor has to reveal what other teams it is on in order for Primes to comply with this requirement.

Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.6.1.1 Question: The requirements for the content of the Master Schedule in Section L are not the same as those identified in the Scenarios (1.6.1.1). Does the Government intend for the offeror to include both the requirements in section L and those in the scenarios?

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Question: The clause requires identification of major subcontractors. (1) Please define a major subcontractor for the purposes of this clause (2) Which volume should contain this information.

“Major subcontractor” is defined in the DFAR clause at 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program.

“Major subcontractor,” as used in this clause, means a subcontractor that is awarded a subcontract that equals or exceeds—

(1) Both the certified cost or pricing data threshold and 10 percent of the value of the contract under which the subcontracts are awarded; or

(2) $50 million.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to request that the offeror address performance based payments in specific task orders rather than at the contract level? Please clarify.

This will be identified at the T/O Level, if necessary.

Question: Section B CLINS 0011, 0111, and 0211 make reference to a CPFF LOE Guide. Where is this document?

The document was posted on FBO. Please refer to 48 CFR 1352.216-71 - Level of Effort (cost-plus-fixed-fee, term contract). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title48-vol5/CFR-2011-title48-vol5-sec1352-216-71

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ; therefore, there are various clauses that appear but do not directly apply at the ID/IQ level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level, it will be specified in the T/O.

Question: Incorporated by reference in the solicitation are 252.209-7008 and 5352.209-9000, which are specific to SETA-type contracts supporting major defense acquisition programs. Based on the PWS and to our knowledge, the efforts contemplated under this solicitation will not provide SETA support for a major weapons program.

(1) Are these clauses appropriate to include in the solicitation?

(2) If so, what Major Defense Acquisition Program will be supported with SETA tasking under the resulting contract from this acquisition? Given the provisions of 252.209-7008, we will need to ensure our organization is not participating on any program you identify.

1) Yes, they are mandatory clauses.

2) This will be identified at the T/O Level, if necessary.

52.234-2

Question: If the Offeror has a certified EVMS system in operation on Projects, is it acceptable to simply address this certification within the management section of the proposal as illustrated in (a) of the clause or do Offerors need to address all elements of the system as shown in (b)?

Recommendation: If certified, address that certification in the management section of Offeror proposals.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ; therefore, there are various clauses that appear but do not directly apply at the ID/IQ level. The EVMS clauses are an example of this. If an EVMS Plan is required at the T/O level, it will be specified in the T/O.

Recommendation: We recommend there be clarification on citizenship requirements.

Please go by what is in the RFP; nothing more, nothing less.

There may be citizenship requirements at the T/O level.

1) Yes. All cost elements identified in the Item column on the Indirect Rate(s) table in the Table B-1 format are defined as Other Direct Cost items for future T/Os.

2) Amounts shown in the Multiplier column are given by the Government and should not be changed by Offerors (see M-3.4.1 and RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming).

Question: There appear to be errors in the formulae linking the Indirect Rate(s) and TOTAL From Each Year’s Worksheet columns on the Total Price tab to the associated columns on the Years 1-7 and Perf Pd A&B tabs. May Offerors update these formulae, as well as other formulae within the template which may result in errors, to correctly reflect proposed amounts?

Recommendation: Please clarify.

Table B-1 has been updated with the correct formulas. See Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Please clarify if the horizontal and vertical controls are related to the shot plans? Or the trajectories?

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Both. This applies to Prime Contractors participating as a subcontractor/team member with another prime or team member/subcontractor and/or subcontractors/teams with more than one Prime Contractor.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ; therefore, there are various clauses that appear but do not directly apply at the ID/IQ level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level, it will be specified in the T/O.

Now paragraph S-2.3.4 The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) The Government is hiring contractors with the capability to fulfill T/O requirements. It is and will be the Contractor’s responsibility to determine sources to meet Government requirements and notify the Government if specified items are no longer available.

Now paragraph S-2.3.4 The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) The Government is hiring contractors with the capability to fulfill T/O requirements. It is and will be the Contractor’s responsibility to determine sources to meet Government requirements and notify the Government if specified items are no longer available.

ISO 9001 registration certificate would provide evidence.

NOTE: – The USG does not define daily OCONUS performance at the IDIQ level, which may have uplifts and variations based on the country of performance and specific requirement sod each task order.

Question:

1. Will the USG define their performance expectations for daily OCONUS efforts?

1. If the Government expects that daily OCONUS performance expectations will vary based on individual task orders will the government establish minimum performance expectations to facilitate reasonable and accurate bidding for this opportunity?

Will the USG define methodology the it intends to use in evaluation of daily OCONUS rates since without establishing some standard it is unclear how offerors can propose and the government evaluate the work against the ”Daily” OCONUS rates proposed.

1) Per response to Question #41 posted to FBO on 4 Feb 15, The Government will not stipulate a standard workweek for the OCONUS (daily) labor rates. This is a performance-based requirement; therefore, the Government expects that offerors will propose varying approaches and therefore propose varying hours based on those approaches.

2) The Government may specify such details at the T/O level; however, at the ID/IQ level, Offerors must demonstrate ability to ensure continuity of services during leave/rotation such that disruption to mission accomplishment is minimal.

2) See answer to 2) above.

Question:

Part A: Will the Government compare the TOEP for each Offeror against one another or against the aggregate of all Offerors’ prices as part of the reasonableness evaluation and/or to make determinations of pricing that is unrealistically high and unrealistically low?

Part B: Will Offerors outside of the reasonableness range described in Part A be disqualified from receiving an award?

Please refer to RFP paragraph M-1.

A. The Government will compare the TOEP for each Offeror against one another.

Refer to M-3.1.2.

Question: To avoid uncertainty, can the government provide a flow chart on how and in what order it is performing its evaluations?

The Steps are included in Section M-3.1:

Step 1 - Rank by Initially Proposed Total Price (IAW M-3.1.1.1) and Establish the Pools Large Business Evaluation Pool - select a minimum of the eight (8) lowest priced proposals Small Business Evaluation Pool - select a minimum of the six (6) lowest priced proposals Step 2 - Evaluate each factor simultaneously M-3.1.1.2.1 Technical Evaluation IAW M-3.2 M-3.1.1.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation IAW M-3.3 M-3.1.1.2.3 Price Evaluation IAW M-3.4

Now paragraph S-1.2.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Comment: Criteria for becoming an accredited ISO9001 Lead Auditor is very stringent and the grade of Lead Auditor generally is only held by professional 3rd-party auditors. It is highly unlikely any small business could satisfy this requirement. On the other hand, requiring the QMS Management Representative to have completed formal Lead Auditor training is entirely appropriate, as it prepares him/her to plan and perform internal audits and report on the effectiveness of the QMS.

Yes, all offerors shall provide an ISO 9001:2008 Lead Auditor or ASQ Certified Quality Auditor (CQA), with that Quality Management Representative dedicated (full time) to the CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support ID/IQ contract and all underlying T/Os. See RFP Amendment 0001, PWS Revision 01 forthcoming.

If not, is it the USG’s intention that offerors will subsequently obtain registration/certification under a new ISO9001 (anticipated in 2015)?

The Contractor is required to maintain registration to the most current standard throughout the life of the contract in accordance with ISO guidelines / timelines established for any new standard(s). See RFP Amendment 0001, PWS Revision 01 forthcoming.

PWS 3.5.4.1, Minimum Guarantee, states that “Performance under this minimum guarantee award requires that Contractors stand-up / initiate and maintain a viable Program Management Structure and capability per PWS paragraph 2.2 and subparagraphs…” Question: Will the Government clarify what Deliverable, in regards to Minimum Guarantee, is required with the proposal?

The Minimum Guarantee deliverables are provided in Table 2 and paragraph 3.5.4.1, as referenced.

L-5.3.2 L-5.3.2 states that “Electronic copies of all proposal information for each volume shall be submitted on a single CD-ROM or CD-R using Microsoft Office 2003…” Question: Will the Government verify that they are expecting one CD-ROM or CD-R with all three volumes contained within?

Provide a single CD-ROM/CD-R from each offeror – see table at RFP paragraph L-5.3.3.

Question: Will the Government clarify what they define as charts? Recommend that “charts” be changed to “tables”, for example, organizational charts, flow charts, process diagrams, etc. would generally be in .jpeg format and therefore would be unsearchable.

All charts in the proposal shall be searchable. Provided clarifying language in RFP Amendment 0001 (forthcoming).

Question: Should offerors add task/delivery order information as a separate list (as stated in Section L) or in the Contract Type box of the PPI Sheet?

If an offeror submits a PPI for an ID/IQ the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ and not performance on each individual task/delivery order.

However, for the Government to properly assess that performance, a list of task/delivery orders performed is required. See updated to L-8.1.1.2 and Section L, Attachment 3 in RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Did the government mean: MV/PVS-7B?

Now paragraph S-2.3.4.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Are there any access restrictions or considerations for Taraz Police Barracks and how does contractor and its local personnel gain access?

Now paragraph S-1.1.1.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Will an official site visit be hosted? If not, how does contractor go about scheduling site visit?

Now paragraph S-1.1.6.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Are there any requirements for interior walls/rooms?

Now paragraph S-1.2.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Will the government please clarify if the Construction Superintendent Junior should be priced in Table B-1 with actual Junior prices, or priced as $0, or with the description as N/A should the hours and days per year be deleted?

The Junior level for the Construction Superintendent has been removed from Table B-1, Pricing Table. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Please note that this is in the Section titled. “T/O Requirement Documents.” The required documentation will be identified at the T/O Level, if necessary.

Question: A detailed master schedule, particularly for construction, can be quite lengthy. May the Contractor provide the master schedule for each scenario as pages that are not counted in the page count?

Now paragraph S-1.6.1.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Question: The QCP will ultimately be a separate deliverable upon T/O contract award. May the Contractor provide the scenario QCP outlines as pages that are not counted in the page count?

Now paragraph S-3.3.2.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

PWS paragraph 3.5.4.8 Statement: PWS 3.5.4.8 states, “…(as a standard, EVM shall be utilized for all cost reimbursable contracts or cost reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLIN), unless otherwise specified in the T/O requirement or waived by the Government).”

Question: In reference to Q&A #4 from 4 February 2015, the Offeror understands an EVMS Plan will be required at the Task Order level. To clarify, may the Offeror assume a compliant EVMS or EVMS Plan is only applicable at the Task Order level and not as part of ID/IQ proposal submission?

An EVMS Plan may be required at the Task Order Level, if necessary. In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ; therefore, there are various clauses that appear but do not directly apply at the ID/IQ level. The EVMS clauses are an example of this. If an EVMS Plan is required at the T/O level, it will be specified in the T/O.

· Integration of Quality, Property Management, Security and other functions key to ID/IQ oversight of T/O performance

· Name and contact information of person responsible for each function Question: Functional personnel may vary by T/O requirement. Therefore, may the Contractor submit names and contact information for key functional positions to T/O performance at each T/O submission?

Offerors shall provide the functional personnel identified at the ID/IQ level. The Contractor shall provide any changes or updates to the CO, PM, and COR for Government review and acceptance prior to Contractor implementation. RFP Amendment 0001, PWS Revision 01 forthcoming.

Currently, the requirement for a Lead Auditor or ASQ Certified Quality Auditor (CQA) limits Offerors from proposing a Quality Management Representative that has the demonstrated skills and experience in successfully implementing and managing the full scope of Quality Management Systems and other management systems.

Question: The Government accepts years of experience for education when considering labor category requirements. Would the Government consider candidates that have successfully demonstrated years of experience executing similar size and scope ID/IQ programs while maintaining an ISO 9001 quality management system in lieu of the Lead Auditor or CQA requirement?

The PWS specifies the Government’s minimum requirements. If a company has in individual with years of experience, that individual should be able to attend Lead Auditor training (for example) and successfully complete the course. See http://the9000store.com/iso-9001-lead-auditor-training.aspx for available training and locations.

Now paragraph S-2.2.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Now paragraph S-2.3.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. RFP Amendment 0001 forthcoming.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

Question: Shall the Offeror propose Government or Contractor site rates?

See L-9.1.1 in RFP Amendment 0001.

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.