FA4890-14-R-0023_CNGT_Ops__Log_Q_ _As_20_Mar_15.pdf

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-14-R-0023

CN & GT Operations and Logistics

No REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Q&A #35, #115

5 Mar 15

The Government continues to state that they will not stipulate a standard workweek for the OCONUS

(daily) labor rates. This creates a performance-based requirement for Offerors to propose varying approaches and therefore varying hours based on those approaches. This does not establish a common baseline against which each Offeror’s proposal would be evaluated as LPTA.

Given the LPTA evaluation, will the Government confirm any schedule the Contractor chooses for the

ID/IQ OCONUS rates will be considered technically acceptable? If not, will the Government clarify what schedule(s) for the ID/IQ OCONUS rates will be considered technically acceptable?

The Government will not stipulate a standard workweek for the OCONUS (daily) labor rates at the ID/IQ level. 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.

See RFP paragraphs L-7.3.1.2, L-7.3.3, L-9.1.1, M-1 (and subparagraphs), M-3.2.1.2, M-3.2.3, and

M-3.4 (and subparagraphs); and PWS paragraphs

2.3.1, 2.5.1, 6.1.2.17, 6.2.8.1 (and subparagraphs), and 7.1.3

2 PWS paragraph

6.1.2.17

Given an LPTA evaluation and to ensure consistency of pricing across all Offerors, does the

Government require U.S. expats labor only or are other nationalities technically acceptable at the

ID/IQ level?

Offerors shall propose US citizens for ID/IQ

OCONUS labor rates.

3 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.1

Does the USG requirement for OCONUS rates explicitly require deploying US Citizens to overseas locations?

No. At the T/O level, primes may propose a variety of approaches for meeting T/O requirements. See response to Question #1 above

4 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.1

Given the wide disparity of potential OCONUS rates, how will the USG evaluate if the rates proposed are adequate to support the USG OCONUS requirements?

In accordance with the solicitation, (RFP paragraph M-3.4 and subparagraphs), all

OCONUS rates will be evaluated for a fair, reasonable and balanced price. Price reasonableness will be conducted in accordance with the solicitation (RFP para. M-3.4 and subparagraphs) and FAR 15.404-1. As identified in RFP paragraph M-3.4.1, price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offeror’s Total Overall Evaluated Prices (TOEP).

In addition, the Government may conduct a price realism analysis (if proposed prices appear exceptionally or unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, proving evidence of capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s) .

5 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.1

Will the USG allow the bidder to propose rates that could result in a situation where the employee receives more financial compensation than what is billable to the USG under contract?

I.e. Will the USG accept rates that result in the contractor effectively losing money when providing labor in those categories?

Details will be negotiated at the T/O level.

See response to Question #1 above.

6 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.1

Will the USG allow the use of foreign national labor to fulfill CONUS positions if the work does not require physical presence in the US?

Example: The USG has a requirement for shipping goods which requires significant labor of qualified logisticians. Can this requirement to provide logistics support be fulfilled by non-US citizens?

CONUS labor rates is for work that is based at

CONUS. Specific qualifications to meet the

Government’s requirements for a T/O labor category will be specified at the T/O level.

7 RFP paragraph For OCONUS labor, can the contractor propose to deploy personnel at CONUS rates? See PWS paragraph 6.1.2.17. All other details will

L-9.1.1 be negotiated at the T/O level.

8 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.1

Does TDY OCONUS travel for positions normally deployed CONUS require the use of OCONUS rates?

See response to Question #6 above.

9 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.3

Reference: An example of an unrealistically low proposed price would be proposed labor rates that were so low that the Government could not make a reasonable determination that an Offeror could successfully attract, hire and retain qualified personnel for the labor categories proposed.

Q: Without direct verification from each Offeror, how will the USG determine that an Offeror would be unable to attract, hire, retain, qualified personnel?

Q: If an Offeror has an innovative approach to sourcing and retaining qualified labor at the proposed rates and provides an explanation in the cost narrative, will the USG consider such an approach as reasonable justification for the rates proposed?

Q: If not, what would the USG consider as reasonable justification?

1) This will be based on an evaluation of the labor rates proposed, which will be evaluated for a fair, reasonable and balanced price. Additionally, the

Government may conduct a price realism analysis

(if proposed prices appear exceptionally or unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, proving evidence of capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). See RFP paragraph

M-3.4 and subparagraphs.

2) This is a performance-based requirement;

therefore, the Government expects that offerors will propose varying approaches. Each approach will be evaluated in accordance with solicitation requirements.

3) See response to question #9 2) above.

10 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.2

In Amendment 1, the Govt. changed the verbiage to state, “All charts, tables, diagrams (all pages) in the proposal shall be searchable.” Earlier in this section, it states, “Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots.” JPEG images are not searchable. Please clarify what kind of searchability the

Govt. wants for charts, tables, and diagrams. Suggest striking the sentence: “All charts, tables, diagrams (all pages) in the proposal shall be searchable” or, at least, removing diagrams from the list.

The Government also recognized the confusing verbiage in this paragraph and has updated paragraph L-5.3.2. JPEGs are not to be used in proposals, due to their lacking capability to be searched. See RFP Amendment 0002.

11 RFP Section L, Attachment 3

Section states, “Provide current information on Government Program Manager, Contracting Officer….”

If we are submitting Past Performances on which we are a subcontractor, the Govt. has no privity of contract with us (the subcontractor) and, indeed, we have no direct interaction with the Govt. Suggest changing the verbiage to “Commercial or Government” points of contact.

If the PPI is cited as a subcontract, Offerors shall include the Prime Contractor's own POCs for that subcontract. If known, list the Government POCs as well.

12 Table B-1

Pricing Table

In response to question 19 requesting clarification for citizen requirements for OCONUS work the government stated that “there may be citizenship requirements at the T/O level.” Please clarify whether the government requires that all the proposed OCONUS labor rates in Table B-1 Pricing Table reasonably support the hiring of US citizens.

Offerors shall propose US citizens for ID/IQ

OCONUS labor rates.

13 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.2

Offerors shall propose indirect rates for the items specified in Section B, Table B-1. This table requires indirect rates for the items that include DSSR Differential. This is a payroll taxable income for the employee and requires an employer statutory payroll tax contribution. However there is no column provided to include this additional tax. Also Section M-3.4.1 does not allow bidders to change the pre-established formulas in the template. Will the Government accept this cost added into the Overhead column for the DSSR Differential? If not, where should the offeror recover the employer paid statuary tax requirements on the DSSR.

Offerors may propose additional anticipated costs in the labor cost elements (for labor-related costs) or as part of the applicable indirect rate.

14 RFP paragraph

L-9.2

Supporting Price Backup Data. Certified cost or pricing data is not required. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals. M-3.4.3 states that an exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the

Government and may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Question: Will the government please clarify if it intends to open discussions if an offer is received that is believed to be

In accordance with RFP paragraph M-1.5, the

Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make award based on initial proposals, but may conduct discussions if the

Government determines it is necessary. If it is exceptionally or unrealistically low and an unacceptable risk to the government? determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, the Source

Selection Authority, with the contracting officer concurrence, will then make a Competitive Range determination, evaluation notices may be issued to

Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened.

15 RFP paragraph

M-3.4

Factor 3: states that price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the

Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price and M-3.4.1 further states that price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of Offerors’ Total Overall Evaluated Prices

(TOEP). M-3.4.3 states if “proposed prices appear exceptionally or unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An example of an unrealistically low proposed price would be proposed labor rates that were so low that the Government could not make a reasonable determination that an

Offeror could successfully provide qualified personnel for the labor categories proposed. An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.” M-3.4.3 implies that the government will be using Cost Realism Analysis as defined in FAR 15.404-1 (d) to ensure that the Offeror is not proposing labor rates so low that the performance of the contract will be at risk. Will the government please clarify whether Cost Realism is the standard that will be applied to determine the acceptability of proposed labor rates.

The Government may perform a price realism analysis (not a cost realism analysis) as this is a firm-fixed price requirement. The price realism analysis focuses on whether the offeror’s proposed prices are too low or otherwise indicate a misunderstanding of the agency’s requirements.

As identified by RFP paragraph M-3.4, “if proposed prices appear to be exceptionally or unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s)” and such an offer

“may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.”

16 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.1

The offeror is required to certify that the practices used in estimating costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting practices disclosed in the Disclosure Statement. Section M-3.4.1 does not allow bidders to change the pre-established formulas in the Table B-1 Pricing Table. Our established accounting practice is to apply G&A on Total Cost Input basis, which requires all direct cost, overhead and material handling be included in calculating the G&A cost. However, formulas in the template are calculating G&A only on the direct cost. Will the Government allow bidders modifying formulas in this table in accordance with their disclosed accounting practice?

No. Offerors shall not modify formulas.

17 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.2

In addition to the price analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (see FAR 15.404-1(g)). L-9.1.1 sates Labor Rates. Offerors shall propose loaded CONUS (hourly) and OCONUS (daily) Basic Labor and associated cost elements

(Fringe, Overhead (OH). G&A), and Profit for each labor category. Questions: 1) Will the government allow Offerors to propose varying fee by labor category or will that be considered unbalanced? 2) Will the government allow Offerors to propose varying fringe by labor category?

1) In accordance with FAR.15.404-(1)(g) and the solicitation, RFP paragraph M-3.4.2, price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. FAR 15.404-

1(g)(1). Until proposal evaluation is conducted, hypotheticals cannot be provided an answer. It is the offeror’s decision on how to bid its fees related to the labor category.

2) It is the offeror’s decision, based on their business practices, to bid the requirement.

18 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.1

Can the Government confirm that the evaluation team will NOT perform price reasonableness analysis for individual labor categories as part of the overall price evaluation?

In accordance with the solicitation (RFP paragraph

M-3.4. and subparagraphs), the Government will be conducting a price reasonableness determination of the Offeror’s Total Overall

Evaluated Prices (TOEP). The TOEP consists of the Minimum Guarantee (T/O 0001), Offeror’s fully burdened labor rates (and all contributing elements) and indirect rates for all priced performance years (years 1-7 and performance periods A and B), and fifty percent (50%) of the last performance year (Performance Period B) to cover the option to extend services IAW FAR clause 52.217-8.

19 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.1

If the Government will perform price reasonableness analysis can the USG explain how the evaluation team will assess reasonableness? The evaluation of price reasonableness of OCONUS rates is of particular interest

Price reasonableness will be conducted in accordance with the solicitation (RFP para. M-3.4 and subparagraphs) and FAR 15.404-1. As identified in RFP paragraph M-3.4.1, price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offeror’s Total Overall Evaluated

Prices (TOEP). See also response to question #18 above.

20 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.3

Can the Government provide information on how the evaluation team will perform cost realism analysis as part of the price evaluation?

The Government will not be performing a cost realism analysis as part of the price evaluation.

See also answer to #15.

21 RFP paragraph

M-3.1.1.2.2

For past performance on CNTPO TORPs by companies acting as a subcontractor, the USG has no privacy of contract and there are no CPARs discussing subcontractor performance.

Additionally, the prime contractors themselves now have a conflict of interest as they are bidding for the same work and may be considered competitors.

Q. How will the USG evaluate the cited TORP past performance of small businesses?

Q. Will the CPARS of the prime be considered the CPARs of the subcontractor?

1) The Government will be evaluating IAW M-3.3 is the same whether it is a Large or Small

Business.

2) The CPARs of the prime will not be considered the CPARs of the subcontractor.

22 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph S-2.0

Q. Will the US Embassy act as consignee for the delivery of NVG devices?

This question is appropriate as it has a significant impact on the CONOPS for delivery and teaming required to properly assess the requirement.

No, this is contractor’s responsibility.

23 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph S-2.0

Q. What Embassy and Host nation support will be provided to facilitate importation of the NVGs to each country?

This question is appropriate as it has a significant impact on the CONOPS for delivery and teaming required to properly assess the requirement.

The Embassy and Host Nation will not provide any support for this scenario.

24 RFP paragraph

H-1

Q. Will the USG allow bidders to present their subcontractor’s teaming agreements as an appendix or in a table that does not count against the total page count?

No. See L-5.3.6 in the RFP.

25 RFP Section L, 1) Safety Berm Yes, see RFP S-1.2.12.

Attachment 1, paragraph S-1.0

- Paragraph S-1.0 states, "... This effort shall include the shoot house, safety berm, and connection to the existing utility infrastructure."

- Deleted Paragraph 1.2.12 previously stated, "... The Contractor shall design and construct a berm of height as specified by application local and Government of Kazakhstan regulations and IBC for safety."

and is no longer included in the PWS.

Question: Is the safety berm a requirement?

26 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph S-1.0

2) Connection to the Existing Utility Infrastructure

- Paragraph S-1.0 states, "... This effort shall include the shoot house, safety berm, and connection to the existing utility infrastructure."

- Deleted Paragraph 1.2.11 previously stated, "... The Contractor shall provide appropriate lighting and power for the shoot house, and a connection to the existing electrical infrastructure." and is not longer included in the PWS

- Modified Paragraph 1.3 as stated, "... As applicable, these tests shall include electrical capacity, soil density and compaction tests, and 7-day and 28-day concrete break tests" and removed the requirement for "water pressure, water portability"

Question: Is capacity assessment and connection of the existing utility infrastructure (electrical or water) a requirement?

Yes, see RFP S-1.2.11.

27 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph S-1.2

3) Catwalk

- Paragraph S-1.2 states, "... The shoot house structure shall consist of a ground level shoot house with a second story cat walk for observational purposes."

- Deleted paragraph 1.2.8 states "The second floor shall consist of a 4' wide timber observational catwalk supported by SH walls."

Question: Is the observation catwalk a requirement?

Yes, see RFP S-1.2.8

28 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph

S-1.2.7

4) Timber Staircase

- Paragraph S-1.2.7 states, "... The shoot house shall be accessible from both the ground floor and from an exterior timber staircase with galvanized expanded metal stair treads.

Question: If observation catwalk is no longer a requirement, is the exterior timber staircase required?

See response to Question #27 above.

29 Para. L-9.1.1

Labor Rates

Question: This paragraph states “Proposed loaded labor rates will be the maximum allowable rates used throughout the life of this contract for FFP type T/Os; however, they may be discounted by the

Contractor at the T/O level. Labor rates for Cost Reimbursable labor will be negotiated at the T/O level, with proposed loaded labor rates serving as the basis for negotiation.” 1.) How does the Government intend to use these rates in terms of ceilings for the various types of Fixed Price CLINs other than FFP, such as FPI and FPAF? 2.) Do the rates still serve as ceilings off which Offerors may discount but may not exceed on T/Os or may Offerors exceed these rates with contract types other than FFP? 3.) How does the Government intend to handle the FFP-LOE CLIN rates? 4.) Do the proposed rates serve as the

FFP-LOE rates on which task orders must be based or are Offerors permitted to adjust the rates based on T/O requirements?

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, an offeror may be required to provide supporting data in order to use a higher labor rate than originally proposed at the

ID/IQ level.

30 Table B-1, Pricing Table

Question: Table B-1 Indirect Rates Table does not have provisions for the addition of profit to the items shown. Standard practices on FFP task orders generally allow for the addition of profit to all items of cost. Does the Government intend to allow profit to be added to these items for FFP task orders? Will profit be permitted on FPI, FPAF, CPFF, CPIF, CPAF task orders for these items?

Profit shall be already included in the rates. Profit may be included at the task order level, if applicable.

31 Table B-1, Pricing Table

Question: If an Offeror’s accounting system defines DBA insurance as part of its indirect cost structure and includes DBA insurance cost in its indirect burdens, may Offerors change the DBA Insurance

Multiplier shown in the table to $0, removing the double costing of DBA insurance? If not permitted on the IDIQ master proposal, will Offerors be permitted flexibility on task order responses to bid DBA insurance costs according to disclosed practices?

The Government identified DBA Insurance as an expense that can vary significantly based on

OCONUS locations. If Offeror includes DBA as an indirect cost, and understands their ceiling rates are fixed ceiling rates for the life of the contract, the Offeror may assume the risk for rate differences within their labor ceiling rates proposed. Identify accordingly. Offeror’s shall not change the Multiplier.

32 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.6

RFP Paragraph L-5.3.6 Pages Not Included in Page Count. “The organizational chart, acronym list, ISO registration verification, and overview section (for exceptions) will not be included in the page count.

Covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.”

Comment/Question: Will the Government allow Offerors to provide a 1-page Cover Letter with

Volume 1 to be excluded from page count and from evaluation?

No, see paragraph L-5.3.6.

33 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.6

RFP Paragraph L-5.3.6 Pages Not Included in Page Count. “Covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc.”

Comment/Question: Based on our understanding of “section divers/tables”, as referenced by the

Government in RFP Paragraph L-5.3.6, Offerors can include a section table that tells proposal evaluators where they can find responses to specific RFP requirements, solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Is our understanding correct? If so, our understanding is that if Offerors choose to provide a section solely for this purpose, it should be provided on a blank page prior to the start of the referenced section, much like a section divider is inserted prior to the first evaluable page of the ensuing section, is our understanding correct?

Yes, this is correct.

34 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4

RFP Paragraph L-7.3.4 Subfactor 4: Scenarios:

· “Provide an integrated master schedule for each scenario, to include timelines / milestones for:

o Approvals o Clearances o Adherence to applicable guidance o Documentation / deliverables o Hiring, training and mobilizing a qualified workforce o Procurement, Shipment and delivery of training support equipment, training materials, and provision of training o Completion of each scenario within one year

No, IMS and WBS are not excluded from the page count.

o As otherwise described in each scenario requirement”

Comment/Question: A proper Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) should include all the required elements above and be connected with a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This is typically included as a Microsoft Project document or Excel Spreadsheet that would consume a significant portion of the

15-page limit allotted each Scenario. Will the government consider excluding the IMS from the

Scenario page count to allow the Offeror’s to comply with the requirement by including a proper

Integrated Master Schedule? Or, will the Government allow Offerors to exclude a WBS from the required IMS?

35 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.2

RFP Paragraph L-7.3.2 Subfactor 2: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan (per FAR Subparts

9.5 and 9.6): “Provide OCI Plan per PWS paragraph 3.5.4.3 and Section H, paragraph H-2 that explains:

Approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, mitigating, and neutralizing OCI issues/risks at the ID/IQ and T/O levels;

Any intentions to serve as subcontractor or teaming partner with another Prime and OCI approach for when companies propose as both a Prime and subcontractor or teaming partner on another Prime's proposal;

Any known cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements;

Processes that will be implemented to resolve OCI identified in the course of contract execution, to include separate physical locations, work forces, management and computer systems;

Representation that there will be no “cross-talk” or information shared between affiliates in connection with all identified OCI;

Process to provide employee conflict of interest training and ensure compliance with non-disclosure policy

Comment/Question: The term “affiliates” as referenced by the Government is often interpreted in very different and broad manners. It is our understanding that “affiliates” refers to subcontractor or teaming partner organizations to a prime contractor, and does not include the different business units or subsidiaries of a prime offeror, is our understanding correct?

This is correct. See RFP Amendment 0002 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

36 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.2

RFP Paragraph L-7.3.2 and “Ops&Logs RFP Qs&As” (released March 5, 2015), Question Number 11 and Government Response: “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.”

Comment/Question: In order to comply with the Government’s requirement as found in RFP

Paragraph L-7.3.2, and discussed in the Government’s response to Question 11, Prime Offerors who obtain the required information regarding the teaming arrangements of their subcontractor teaming partners may be severely restricted in presenting required information to the Government within the 45-page limit allotted for Volume 1, Subfactors 1-3, and will almost certainly be severely restricted in presenting the required information while also trying to respond to other RFP requirements of this solicitation, in accordance with Section L instructions. Will the Government allow Offerors to disclose required information about subcontractor teaming arrangements as an appendix to be excluded from the

45-page count for Volume 1, Subfactors 1-3?

See RFP Amendment 0002 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0002 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide Subcontractor List per

PWS paragraph 3.5, Table 2 and paragraph

3.5.4.5.

The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

37 Government Government response to question number 11 from “Ops&Logs RFP Qs&As” (released March 5, 2015): See RFP Amendment 0002 for update paragraph response to question number 11 from

“Ops&Logs

RFP Qs&As”

(released March

5, 2015)

“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.”

Comment/Question: The government’s response to Question 11 regarding organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) states that each proposed subcontractor must reveal what other teams it is part of in order for the Prime contractor to comply with requirements of RFP paragraph L-7.3.2. As noted by the original question, a typical NDA or teaming agreement will consider this information to be proprietary and confidential, and requiring it also may itself create an OCI issue (see FAR 9.505-4). In addition, due to the large number of subcontractor teaming partners necessary for most small businesses to meet the varying requirements of this contract, any modification or revelation of the meaning of L.7.3.2 less than two weeks before proposal submission creates a burdensome information requirement, especially for small businesses.

It also creates the risk that proposed subcontractors will, for various reasons or motives, refuse to provide or disclose all relevant data to one or more of its Prime partners, thus creating uneven disclosure and leaving the Prime contractor in the position of either removing a subcontractor from its team with mere days to adjust its teaming arrangements and team member roles, as well as its proposal, or proposing the subcontractor without being able to provide teaming information beyond its participation on the Prime’s team. In lieu of these issues, we would greatly appreciate responses to the following questions:

1. The Government’s response to Question 11 states that disclosure of subcontractor teaming arrangements as part of proposal submission is necessary to avoid any OCIs. However, given that no work is being awarded as part of the base contract, what OCI does the Government intend to avoid by virtue of its response to Question 11? Why is an OCI Plan and disclosure of the Prime contractor’s team not sufficient to address any potential conflict at this stage?

2. Does the Government anticipate excluding a Prime from a base contract award or exclude a subcontractor from participating on a Prime’s team due to the subcontractor’s participation on multiple teams? Will the government provide the Prime contractor an opportunity to address any OCI issues with its team prior to an award decision?

3. Section L-7.3.2 states that the Prime’s OCI Plan must disclose “Any known cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements.” Does the Government’s response to

Question 11 amend or modify this RFP requirement by saying that “Each proposed subcontractor has to reveal what other teams it is on in order for Primes to comply with this requirement”? Or is the disclosure limited to known cross-teaming arrangements and exclusive teaming arrangements as stated in L-7.3.2?

4. Will the Government permit – and thus accept as compliant, a Prime to disclose its teaming arrangements, along with other cross-teaming and exclusive teaming arrangements to the extent known and then in its OCI Plan, address how it will identify and resolve possible teaming-related subcontractor

OCI issues when they arise? This information, when compiled from all Primes, will allow the

L-7.3.2.

1) Amendment 0002 requires Offeror’s to provide: Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide

Subcontractor List per PWS paragraph 3.5, Table 2 and paragraph 3.5.4.5.

2) The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

3) Offerors are not required to reveal each proposed subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

4) A subcontractor list is the only thing required for the Prime’s subcontractors.

5) The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

6) The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

7) The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

8) The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements.

Government to identify subcontractors that appear on multiple teams without requiring Primes to negotiate with all proposed subcontractors at the last-minute disclosure of other teaming arrangements.

5. If a subcontractor refuses to provide or disclose its teaming arrangements to the Prime due to it being considered proprietary and confidential, would the Government accept this information in a sealed package or otherwise directly from the subcontractor as part of or after proposal submission?

6. Would the Government be willing to allow small business Primes bidding on the small business portion of this RFP to limit their disclosure to the presence on teams competing for a small business award? In other words, the small business Prime would disclose their team and subcontractors, along with any subcontractors on its team that are participating on the teams of other small business Primes.

7. If the Government’s response to Question 11 amended the meaning of L-7.3.2, and a Prime must disclose every teaming arrangement for every subcontractor or team member, will the Government be modifying the RFP and extending the deadline for the submission of proposals in order to permit

Primes to gather the required information?

8. It is our understanding that in lieu of the Government’s response to Question 11, in order for Prime contractors to comply with the Government’s requirements regarding disclosure, Prime contractors must engage all subcontractor team members to not only obtain the necessary information about each subcontractor’s teaming arrangements, but also obtain legal permission in writing to disclose those arrangements to the Government. These activities often and almost always require the involvement of the respective legal counsel for both the Prime and subcontractor organizations in the review, drafting, and amending of any proposed or existing legal document necessary in order to allow the subcontractor to disclose its teaming arrangements to the Prime and permit the Prime to disclose those teaming arrangements to the Government. As is customary when dealing with legal agreements and the legal counsel of entire organizations, this process often takes several weeks, and in some cases, depending upon the size of the subcontractor’s organization and resources, can take months. Will the Government extend the due date for proposal submission in order to allow adequate time for Prime contractors to legally obtain this information and so comply with the Government’s requirements?

38 Table B-1, Pricing Table

Question: Will the Government define items anticipated to be part of the DSSR Differential cost element (i.e. Danger/Hazard Pay, COLA, Housing, etc.) shown in Table B-1? Does the Government anticipate that items such as End of Service Gratuity will be proposed as part of the DSSR Differential cost element? Please clarify.

DSSR only includes those cost elements identified within Department of State Standardized

Regulations. End of Service payments are not included as part of the DSSR. Offerors should account for any anticipated bonuses within their ceiling rate structures.

39 Table B-1, Pricing Table

Question: DSSR Differential appears to include items which would ordinarily be included as labor cost for some Offerors (Hazard/Danger Pay, COLA, etc.). Previous responses to questions indicate the

Government will not permit the addition of fee to non-labor cost elements on CR CLINs. Will the

Government permit the addition of fee to the DSSR Differential cost element as it appears to be an extension of a labor cost element.

Recommendation: Consider modifying the Indirect Rate(s) table to allow the addition of fee to the

DSSR Differential cost element.

Fees, if any, for Cost reimbursable items will be determined at the task order level.

DSSR is not applied to or related to labor.

40 Table B-1, Pricing Table

Question: The Indirect Rate(s) table identifies DBA Insurance as a separate cost element to be proposed. May Offerors which do not define DBA Insurance as a direct cost item, i.e. it is included in

Overhead/G&A, change the Multiplier amount for this item from $3,000 to $0, according to Offeror’s disclosed accounting practices? Please clarify the appropriate handling of DBA Insurance cost

The Government identified DBA Insurance as an expense that can vary significantly based on

OCONUS locations. If Offeror includes DBA as an indirect cost, and understands their ceiling rates are fixed ceiling rates for the life of the contract, the Offeror may assume the risk for rate differences within their labor ceiling rates proposed. Offerors shall clearly identify the proposed approach in the Price proposal. See responses to Questions #21 and #116 from 5 Mar

15 posting.

41 Table B-1, Pricing Table

Question: Table B-1 does not include any input for fee on DSSR, DBA, Material, travel or subcontractor costs. Will fee be allowable on those cost elements at the Task Order level?

Fees, if any, for Cost reimbursable items will be determined at the task order level.

42 PWS paragraph

7.3

Question: Regarding Labor Category “Experience In Lieu of Education,” what are the Government’s procedures and/or considerations for education and training certifications when hiring Host Nationals

(HNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs)?

That will be specified at the T/O Level. The

CONUS and OCONUS rate shall be priced as if it were a US employee. See PWS paragraph

6.2.8.1.3.

43 6.2.8.1 Direct labor.

In order to ensure that the government receives appropriate, accurate, relevant and comparable ceiling rates to meet all of their mission requirements, will the government please provide direction that

OCONUS rates should be priced either assuming US employee deployment?

The OCONUS rate shall be priced as if it were a

US employee deployment. See PWS paragraphs

6.1.2.17 and 6.2.8.1.3.

44 RFP paragraph

L-8.1.1.2

Types of References states, “For cases in which the Offeror was a subcontractor performing under a

Prime on an ID/IQ or BPA, the Offeror shall submit each related task/delivery order on a separate PPI sheet and shall not submit the ID/IQ or BPA as a reference.”

Can an Offeror submit as a past performance the contract that they hold with the Prime, which is a business-to-business contract and not a business-to-government contract? For instance, we have multi-year contracts with Primes under which we perform multiple Task Orders (TO) for the U.S. Govt. We would like to submit the entire business-to-business contract with the Prime to be evaluated and not just an individual TO performance.

For that instance, Offerors shall submit the individual T/O performance per language in RFP paragraph L-8.1.1.2. A business-to-business contract is not a recognized Government contract like and ID/IQ or BPA.

45 RFP paragraph

L-8.1.1.3

Recency Determination. “Each relevant contract shall have active work/services that was/were performed during the last five (5) years from the final solicitation release date. This includes contracts that were awarded prior to this period, but still had a minimum of six (6) months of active performance during the previous five (5) years.”

If a contract had an initial Period of Performance of 1 year, but was completed in fewer than 6 months, would it meet the recency threshold?

If the period of active performance is less than 6 months then the contract would not be considered recent per language in RFP paragraph L-8.1.1.3.

46 RFP paragraph

L-9.1.1

For CONUS rates, what is the Place of Performance from which Contractors should base their rates? The CONUS rate is the maximum rate for any work performed CONUS. Offerors shall price their CONUS labor rates at their own discretion.

47 RFP Section L, Attachment 1

Acquire and Deliver Vehicles and Equipment in Multiple Countries. Toyota vehicles will be procured from OCONUS locations to meet the specifications. What are the government’s designated points of

Inspection and Acceptance?

For the purposes of the scenario, Inspection and

Acceptance will take place at the place of delivery.

48 Table B-1, Pricing Table

On the “Total Price” tab, Cell C16 is $284,000. This is the sum of B14-E14; however, it does not include F13 which is the “50% of last Option Period” in the amount of $13,000. Please confirm this is correct, or do the offerers need to adjust the formula to equal F14.

See Amendment 0002 for an updated Table B-1, Pricing Table.

49 Referencing question and answer #112 released on the 5th of March. See RFP Amendment 0002 for update to

Statement: Our understanding from the answer is that the USG wants to understand the position of Company C & D as subcontractors to Company A as well as force them to disclose their other teaming arrangements with partners (X,Y,Z) to Company A; although they are under non-disclosure with Company X, Y, Z. Company A has no right or privilege to this information.

Question:

Is this the USG’s intent, or does the Government just want to understand Company A’s relationships

(prime/sub; exclusive/non-exclusive)?

Assuming our statement above is correct; isn’t it the responsibility of Companies X, Y, Z to disclose the relationships with Companies C & D in their proposal?

Our subcontractors (Companies C&D in the example) have pushed back on disclosing this information to us; however, they will disclose this information to the Government directly via a signed letter. Will this be acceptable to the Government?

Question Reference arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide Subcontractor List per subcontractors’ teaming arrangements

50 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.2

This section states “Sections C through I. Complete the necessary fill-ins and provide any information requested. The Offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.”

Question: The 04 Feb 2015, Standard Form (SF) 33 does not identify a range of pages for section C, the Description/ Specs./ Work Statement. We have assumed that section C is the Performance Work

Statement (PWS). From our review of the PWS (60 pages plus a cover page) we have been unable to find any pages capable of accepting fill in information.

Can the Government please 1) confirm that section C of the SF 33, is the PWS? and 2) can the

Government clarify what fill-ins there are in section C that require completion?

1) Section C includes the Performance Work

Statement (PWS)

2) There are no fill-ins in Section C that require completion.

51 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.3

This section states “Section K. Complete all required Representations, Certifications and Other

Statements of Offerors, and provide a copy of information completed in Online Representations and

Certifications (ORCA) located at https://orca.bpn.gov.”

Section K incorporates FAR Clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (OCT 2014) by reference.

FAR Clause 52.204-8 (b)(1) states “If the provision at 52.2014-7, System for Award Management, is included in this solicitation, paragraph (d) of this provision applies.”

FAR Clause 52.204-8 (d) states “The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website assessed through https://www.acquisition.gov. After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph ( c ) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate , complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated by this offer by reference…”

Additionally, Section K incorporates FAR Clause 52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility

Matters (JULY 2013) by full text.

FAR Clause 52.209-7(b) states “The offeror ( ) has ( ) does not have current active Federal contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000.”

Further, FAR Clause 52.209-7(c) states “If the offeror checked “has” in paragraph (b) of this provision, the offeror represents, by submission of this offer, that the information it has entered in the Federal

Section L-9.3.3 has been updated to state the following: “State in your proposal whether your representations and certifications are accurate and correct in the System for Award Management

(SAM) at https://www.sam.gov. Otherwise, complete in its entirety, Section K of the RFP.”

See RFP Amendment 0002 https://orca.bpn.gov/ https://www.acquisition.gov/

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) is current, accurate, and complete as of the date of submission of this offer with regard to the following information:

(i) In a criminal proceeding, a conviction.

(ii) In a civil proceeding, a finding of fault and liability that results in the payment of a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more.

(iii) In an administrative proceeding, a finding of fault and liability that results in—

(A) The payment of a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more; or

(B) The payment of a reimbursement, restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000.

(iv) In a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, a disposition of the matter by consent or compromise with an acknowledgment of fault by the Contractor if the proceeding could have led to any of the outcomes specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this provision.

(2) If the offeror has been involved in the last five years in any of the occurrences listed in (c)(1) of this provision, whether the offeror has provided the requested information with regard to each occurrence.

Question: 1) If an offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website assessed through https://www.acquisition.gov and reviewed and updated the information within the last 12 months, are not the representations and certifications currently posted electronically incorporated by reference to this offer?

2) If an offeror has checked the “has” in paragraph (b) of FAR Clause 52.209-7, has not the offeror represented, by submission of the offer to this RFP, that the information it has entered in the Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) is current, accurate, and complete as of the date of submission of this offer?

3) If the answers to questions 1) and 2) above are yes, is it also necessary to complete section K in its entirety, provide copy of information completed in ORCA, and verify that we are compliant with FAR

52.204-8?

52 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.2

L-5.3.2 states that “Offerors may use .jpeg images for charts.” It also states that “all charts, tables and diagrams in the proposal shall be searchable.”

Question: Can we conclude that the Government has the capability to search .jpeg images? If not, can offerors provide the title, figure number, and caption in a searchable format to meet this requirement?

.jpegs shall not be used in the proposal, due to the lacking capability to search a .jpeg. The statement in L-5.3.2, “Offerors may use .jpeg images for charts.” has been removed. See RFP Amendment

0002.

53 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.2

Will the Government clarify what tool they will use to search our electronic submission so we can ensure our proposal is in the proper format?

The “Find” or “Search” (or other applicable) feature (Ctrl + F), depending on the document submission format.

54 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.1.3 and

PWS paragraph

3.5.4.8

L-7.3.1.3 requires a Quality manual outline per PWS 3.5 and PWS 3.5.4.8 that summarizes the

Offeror’s Quality Management System and identifies the Offeror’s approach for maintaining a Quality

Control process/ QMS that is compliant per PWS paragraph 3.1.1 and integrated into the overall management approach and meets the requirements of PWS paragraph 3.0 and Table 3, Services

Summary.

PWS 3.5.4.8 states that the “Contractor shall provide an outline of its Quality Manual, describing its

Quality Control process / Quality Management System as part of the ID/IQ proposal. … At a minimum, Contractor’s Quality Manual shall contain evidence of the Quality Management Representative’s ISO

See RFP Amendment 0002 for updates to RFP paragraph L-7.3.1.3 and PWS paragraph 3.5.4.8.

Offerors shall provide a Quality Management approach that is compliant with and meets the requirements of PWS paragraph 3.0 and subparagraphs, and Table 3, Services Summary, https://www.acquisition.gov/

9001:2008 Lead Auditor or ASQ CQA certification as well as documented processes and procedures to monitor and control:…”

The request for a Quality Manual outline… that summarizes (L-7.3.1.3) the Offerors QMS (L-7.3.1.3) and describes its QC process (PWS 3.5.4.8) appears to be contradictory.

Question: Is the Government requiring an outline of the Quality Manual in addition to a summary and description of the QMS, approach for maintaining a QC process, and documented processes and procedures to monitor and control the requirements in the 3.5.4.8 bullets? Additionally, is the

Government requiring the draft Quality Manual summary and description to specify compliance with, and address every requirement under 3.0, including inherently Government activities such as 3.4, 3.5.4.7.1, and 3.6.1-3.6.3?

and is integrated into the overall management approach.

55 RFP

Amendment

We have identified requirements in L and M that were deleted in the Amendment and not highlighted.

Because the Amendment contains an abbreviated RFP, we want to verify that these deletions were intentional. Question: Will the Government provide a conformed RFP?

There were requirements in L and M that were deleted that did not allow for highlighting.

56 RFP Paragraph

L-9.1.1 Labor

Rates

Discussion: RFP states “Offerors shall propose loaded CONUS (hourly) and OCONUS (daily) Basic

Labor and associated cost elements (Fringe, Overhead (OH). G&A), and Profit for each labor category.

The Government has included two “Optional” columns for both CONUS and OCONUS Labor Rates in each…