FA4890-14-R-0023_Ops_ _Log_Qs As_4_Feb_15.docx

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-14-R-0023 CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support

L-1.2 Millennium Engineering and Integration Company, and its subcontractor, Deloitte Consulting LLP will serve as advisors to the technical evaluation team during this source selection. Any issues or concerns shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer no later than the proposal due date and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for issues or concerns. Millennium Engineering and Integration Company and its subcontractor, Deloitte Consulting, LLP, are bound contractually by Organizational Conflict of Interest and Non-Disclosure clauses with respect to proprietary information. In accordance with the Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC 1905, Offerors are encouraged to protect their interest by signing Non-Disclosure Agreements directly with Millennium Engineering and Integration Company and Deloitte Consulting, LLP. Failure to implement will not eliminate the Government’s use of the aforementioned advisors.

Question: Could the government please provide a point of contact at Millennium Engineering and Integration and Deloitte Consulting LLP in order for prospective offerors to execute Non-Disclosure Agreements?

Mr. Duane Beatty will be the POC and will ensure the Non-Disclosure Agreements get routed appropriately within Millennium and Deloitte:

Duane Beatty Program Director, CN&GT Millennium Engineering and Integration Company

(540) 644-9409

(571) 308-4381

Question: Is this a single 5-page summary addressing all PPIs (for PPI 1 through PPI 6), or 5-page limit per PPI?

This is a single 5-page summary addressing all PPIs.

Question: The Multiplier cells/columns of Pricing table B-1 are blank in the Draft RFP. When will offerors receive Table B-1 with populated Multiplier cells/columns?

The multiplier cells/columns have been populated by the Government. The multiplier is 1,920 for CONUS (hourly) Rates (based on 4 weeks off (2 weeks of federal holidays and 2 weeks of vacation time)) and 240 for OCONUS (daily) Rates (also based on 4 weeks off per previous). The updated Table B-1 has been posted to FBO.

Questions:

1) Due to the nature of this work being performed outside of the United States, how will the government apply FAR 52.219-9, or does CN & GT have an exemption from the FAR where overseas work can be counted toward the SB Goals?

2) AMIC has also placed an emphasis on Primes taking on more direct performance to ensure effective integration of all aspects of the work over subcontracting it with the attendant risk to cost and schedule when a prime is forced to step in or change subcontractors. How does this SB Goal support AMIC’s effort to reduce risk and improve contract performance through greater direct performance?

3) Would the government considering modifying the language to “40% of subcontracted work must be performed by small businesses”?

FAR 52.219-9

(l) The Contractor shall submit ISRs and SSRs using the web-based eSRS at http://www.esrs.gov. Purchases from a corporation, company, or subdivision that is an affiliate of the prime Contractor or subcontractor are not included in these reports. Subcontract award data reported by prime Contractors and subcontractors shall be limited to awards made to their immediate next-tier subcontractors. Credit cannot be taken for awards made to lower tier subcontractors unless the Contractor or subcontractor has been designated to receive a small business or small disadvantaged business credit from an ANC or Indian tribe. Only subcontracts involving performance in the United States or its outlying areas should be included in these reports with the exception of subcontracts under a contract awarded by the State Department or any other agency that has statutory or regulatory authority to require subcontracting plans for subcontracts performed outside the United States and its outlying areas.

Prescribed in 19.708(b)

(a) Insert the clause at 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold unless --

(1) A personal services contract is contemplated (see 37.104); or

(2) The contract, together with all of its subcontracts, will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas.

1) The subcontracting plan will be utilized to ensure that Offerors have a plan to meet the requirement to subcontract at least 40% to SBs. Please note that this is a requirement vs. a goal.

2) The emphasis is for Primes to ensure they are effectively managing their subcontractors. The SB Requirement has no bearing on this emphasis.

3) The requirement remains 40% of total contract value.

Question: For prime contractors that participate in the DOD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan Program, is it anticipated that their respective Corporate Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to satisfy the requirement for a Small Business Plan?

FAR language addressing SB Plans and FY 2014 performance against the Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan, FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, paragraph d(1):

(d) The offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following:

(1) Goals, expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors. The offeror shall include all subcontracts that contribute to contract performance, and may include a proportionate share of products and services that are normally allocated as indirect costs. In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1626:

Offeror’s Corporate Comprehensive Plan does not satisfy the Requirement for a Small Business Plan, due to the 40% Subcontracting requirement vs. goal.

Question: Will the USG provide us how many hours per day that should be factored into the OCONUS (daily) labor rates?

The Government will not provide the number of hours per day expected 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.

Questions:

1) Will multipliers be provided by the USG for all labor categories?

2) Will multipliers represent sample hours?

3) Will indirect multipliers represent sample dollar values?

The multiplier cells/columns have been populated by the Government. The multiplier is 1,920 for CONUS (hourly) Rates (based on 4 weeks off (2 weeks of federal holidays and 2 weeks of vacation time)) and 240 for OCONUS (daily) Rates (also based on 4 weeks off per previous). The updated Table B-1 has been posted to FBO.

Question: The total CONUS labor formulae (K72) are referencing the OCONUS column. Is this a formulae error that will be resolved once formal RFP is released?

The Government has reviewed the referenced cell (K72) and any cells containing a formula and believes all items reference the correct cells.

Please note that per RFP L-9.1, “…the burden of providing mathematically accurate and complete pricing proposals (total overall evaluated price) using the format provided in Section B, Table B-1 rests with each Offeror)”

M-3.2.1.3 Quality Management System. Demonstrate evidence of ISO 9001 registration. Demonstrate an effective and efficient quality management structure and processes that is/are compliant per PWS paragraph 3.1.1 and integrated into the overall management approach and allow management of task order requirements. Demonstrate ability to maintain an inspection system integrated into the overall management approach and meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 3.0 and Table 3, Services Summary.

Question: Is the USG requiring the Offeror to achieve ISO certification after award for the CN&GT program?

Offerors shall have the required ISO certification at proposal submission in order to be considered for award.

RFP M-3.2.1.3 Quality Management System (QMS) The QMS shall include a Quality Management Representative that shall be an American Society for Quality Certified Quality Auditor (CQA) and dedicated to the CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support ID/IQ contract and all underlying T/Os.

Our Quality Management system is important to our organization. We would like to ensure we have qualified personnel to manage QA that understand our business. However, the requirement to have a certified CQA is a concern as there is only one open enrollment for the mandatory exam between now and when the response is due. This poses the following concerns:

1. The cost of flying someone to California to sit the exam for a contract that may not be awarded puts on undue burden on our company.

2. Our company would need to hire someone to fulfill this role that may not have as much experience with our work.

3. The requirement for a CQA seems arbitrary, as other auditor credentials exist, such as the ISO 9001:2008 internal or lead auditor certification. This course is available at multiple venues by various providers within the time period between now and submission. The CQA credential provides no additional value that is specific to the type of work. We would like to request that there be other optional certifications that could be achieved that would be comparable.

4. If the one available date for the CQA exam is a conflict for our management representative, our company would not be able to respond. This poses a threat to the competitiveness of this procurement.

Based on the following comments, we would like to respectfully request that this be required upon award.

Questions:

•Would you consider a comparable certification, such as holding an internal or lead auditor certificate for ISO 9001:2008?

•Could the requirement be waived for acquiring upon award?

•If the organization is ISO 9001:2008 certified, could this requirement be removed due to the emphasis the company has placed on quality at an organizational level based on standardized processes?

The Government has changed PWS paragraph 3.1.1 to reflect that the Quality Management Representative shall be an ISO 9001:2008 Lead Auditor or ASQ Certified CQA.

Can the government provide clarification as to the categories driven by task order in order for offerors to propose pricing on like categories?

Especially given the statement in Section L 9.1.1: “the proposed labor rates will be the max allowable rates for the life of the contract for FFP T/Os….”

The Government combined “multiple role” labor categories in PWS Table 4 (previously Table 5) because the descriptions were the same; however, in Table B-1, Pricing Table, each labor category is priced separately.

T/O requirements will very often provide unique specifications/experience/degrees (for instance, different types of engineers, scientists and/or architects), which would drive the level and associated rate that primes would propose at the T/O level. See PWS paragraph 6.1.2.11.

The Government has posted numerous historical T/Os so that all potential offerors can see the type of work that has been done in the past and that is likely reflective of much of the work that will be done in the future. This is, however, no guarantee of future work, in part or in whole.

Question: Would the government clarify the roles within the labor categories in order offerors to price the same role or be willing to separate these into separate categories?

The referenced “multiple role” labor categories are combined in PWS Table 4 (previously Table 5) because the descriptions were the same; however, in Table B-1, Pricing Table, each labor category is priced separately.

The Government has posted numerous historical T/Os so that all potential offerors can see the type of work that has been done in the past and that is likely reflective of much of the work that will be done in the future. This is, however, no guarantee of future work, in part or in whole.

Question: Can the Government please provide the multiplier and percent as stated in Section M 3.4.1 so offeror’s are able to work on pricing their response?

The multiplier cells/columns have been populated by the Government. The multiplier is 1,920 for CONUS (hourly) Rates (based on 4 weeks off (2 weeks of federal holidays and 2 weeks of vacation time)) and 240 for OCONUS (daily) Rates (also based on 4 weeks off per previous). The updated Table B-1 has been posted to FBO. The percentage columns have been removed in Table B-1.

PWS section 2.1.1 then goes on by stating “…the Contractor shall provide the resources necessary to design, build, … platforms, systems, subsystems, vehicles, watercraft, vessels, aircraft (fixed wing, rotary wing, aerostats, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)), spacecraft, electronics equipment, shelters, facilities, ground support equipment, support structures, or any other distinct, serviceable and/or replacement element, part, component, assembly, subassembly or tool…”(emphasis added) It is one thing to require NAICS 561210, Facilities Support Services contract companies to procure customer specified platforms, systems, subsystems, vehicles, watercraft, vessels, aircraft (fixed wing, rotary wing, aerostats, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)), spacecraft, electronics equipment, and ground support equipment, but it is a very different thing to require a Facilities Support Services contractor to design and build the identified list of items.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that Facilities Support Services companies that do not design or build the list of items identified in section 2.1.1 should be concerned about their ability to comply with the scope as it is written?

Is it the Government’s intent that each offeror’s proposed team can fulfill all PWS requirements.

The term “Spacecraft” was removed from PWS paragraph 2.1.1. This paragraph was also updated to reflect that the design and/or build portion only applies to equipment, shelters, facilities, ground support equipment, and/or support structures, while the ‘operate, maintain and/or sustain’ applies to the full original list, to include these items.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to include the new broad range of design build requirements in the OLS scope or, is this an overgeneralization of the section 2.1.1.6 design construction requirement?

The term “Spacecraft” was removed from PWS paragraph 2.1.1. This paragraph was also updated to reflect that the design and/or build portion only applies to equipment, shelters, facilities, ground support equipment, and/or support structures, while the ‘operate, maintain and/or sustain’ applies to the full original list, to include these items.

M-3.3 Factor 2, and M-3.3.2;

PWS Paragraph 2.1.1 and 4.3

L-8.1.1, States that offerors shall submit PPI Sheets on contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support requirements. Offerors shall save each PPI sheet in a standard name format with a number associated with the submitted PPO: Offeror Name-Volume Name-PPI X (e.g., XYZ Company-Past Performance Volume-PPI 3) to submit as part of the electronic copy of the Past Performance Volume.

L-8.1.1.2, States that offerors may provide various contracts as PPI references… M-3.3 Factor 2, states that the past performance factor evaluation provides an assessment of each Offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform as proposed.

M-3.3.2, Defines relevancy as present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort (or portion of effort) and complexities required in this solicitation.

2.1.1, Establishes the solicitation scope when it states that the Contractor shall provide personnel, services, equipment and construction as necessary to support start-up of a new, restart of a former, or conduct and sustainment of an existing program, project, process, initiative or directive. This includes procurement (purchase or lease) of necessary services, equipment and material that directly or indirectly support the mission and objectives of an operation. Specifically, the Contractor shall provide the resources necessary to design, build, and/or operate, maintain and sustain platforms, systems, subsystems, vehicles, watercraft, vessels, aircraft (fixed wing, rotary wing, aerostats, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)), spacecraft, electronics equipment, shelters, facilities, ground support equipment, support structures, or any other distinct, serviceable and/or replacement element, part, component, assembly, subassembly or tool … Question: What can an offeror do if it has relevant and recent present/past performance involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity required by PWS paragraph 2.1.1, however, it is classified and the customer has approved the use of the classified performance information in a PPI sheet for the CN & GT solicitation. RFP sections L and M and PWS section 4.3 do not describe a process for submitting classified PPIs. Please provide a process so that the contractor can demonstrate there is a reasonable expectation that the contractor can successfully submit this past performance for consideration?

Only unclassified PPI shall be submitted.

H-2 goes on to state that “If a Contractor performing on a CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task order assists in preparing a requirement, or provides information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of a requirement, that Contractor's parent companies, subsidiaries, and any organization with which the Contractor is affiliated through an ownership or direct financial interest shall be ineligible to participate in any competition for CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task orders described within those requirements documents.”

Question: While this provision clearly applies to CN&GT Task Orders it does not appear that H-2 would apply to contractors performing legacy CNTPO Task Orders. There is a real potential that a Contractor performing on a legacy CNTPO Task Order could assist in preparing a requirement, or provides information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of a requirement under the CN & GT Operations and Logistics Support MAIDIQ. Is it the Government’s intention that such activity would not constitute an OCI violation?

Any activity where a contractor assists in development of a requirement and then also assists in development of a proposal for that same requirement would be considered an OCI violation. Any knowledge of such activity should be immediately brought to the Contracting Officer’s attention.

The Government recognizes that there is some inherent benefit to incumbent contractors on any effort under recompetition. As a result, the Government has provided information to minimize that competitive advantage as much as possible. This includes the numerous historical T/Os posted to FBO, so that all potential offerors can see the type of work that has been done in the past and that is likely reflective of much of the work that will be done in the future. This is, however, no guarantee of future work, in part or in whole.

H-2 goes on to state that “If a Contractor performing on a CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task order assists in preparing a requirement, or provides information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of a requirement, that Contractor's parent companies, subsidiaries, and any organization with which the Contractor is affiliated through an ownership or direct financial interest shall be ineligible to participate in any competition for CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task orders described within those requirements documents.”

Question: While this provision clearly applies to CN&GT Task orders it does not appear that H-2 would apply to Task Orders issued under the new CNTPO C3IDM contract. There is a real potential that a Contractor performing on Task Orders issued under the new CNTPO C3IDM contract could assist in preparing a requirement, or provides information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of a requirement under the CN & GT Operations and Logistics Support MAIDIQ. Is it the Government’s intention that such activity would not constitute an OCI violation? Consistent with this question would teaming with C3IDM contractors constitute an OCI violation or not?

Teaming with C3IDM contractors does not, in and of itself, constitute an OCI violation. However, if any contractor assists in developing a Government requirement that contractor will be addressed in the T/O solicitation using similar verbiage to that in RFP paragraph L-1.2.

H-2 goes on to state that “If a Contractor performing on a CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task order assists in preparing a requirement, or provides information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of a requirement, that Contractor's parent companies, subsidiaries, and any organization with which the Contractor is affiliated through an ownership or direct financial interest shall be ineligible to participate in any competition for CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task orders described within those requirements documents.”

Question: Some COCOM CN&GT Program Offices are executing their programs with other non-CNTPO/ CN&GT contract vehicles. While H-2 clearly applies to CN&GT Task orders it does not appear that H-2 would apply to Task Orders issued under other non-CNTPO/ CN&GT contract vehicles. There is a real potential that contractors on those vehicles may be assisting in the preparation of CN&GT requirements, or providing information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of requirements. Is it the Government’s intention that such activity would or would not constitute an OCI violation, and are the companies on other non-CNTPO/ CN&GT contract vehicles able to compete for a position on the O&L MAIDIQ without limitation?

Such activity would constitute an OCI violation. It is each contractor’s responsibility to comply with the proposed and awarded OCI Plan, RFP Section H, paragraph H-2, and applicable contract clauses. Any knowledge of a real or perceived OCI violation should be immediately brought to the Contracting Officer’s attention.

H-2 goes on to state that “If a Contractor performing on a CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task order assists in preparing a requirement, or provides information leading directly or predictably to the preparation of a requirement, that Contractor's parent companies, subsidiaries, and any organization with which the Contractor is affiliated through an ownership or direct financial interest shall be ineligible to participate in any competition for CN&GT Operations and Logistics Support task orders described within those requirements documents.”

Question: In our analysis of H-2 does teaming with a contractor generating requirements or providing information predictably resulting in requirement for CN&GT through another contract (i.e., CERDEC I2WD Engineering Training Logistics and Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance Support (SETA) Task Order, Solicitation # W15P7T14RA151, under the Rapid Response 3RD Generation (R2-3G) constitute an OCI violation?

It is each offeror’s / contractor’s responsibility to comply with the proposed and awarded OCI Plan, RFP Section H, paragraph H-2, and applicable contract clauses. Any knowledge of a real or perceived OCI violation should be immediately brought to the Contracting Officer’s attention.

Topic: Contract Type Question: Instructions indicate, “**If ID/IQ or BPA, offerors shall provide a separate list showing each of the task/delivery order(s) performed under the ID/IQ contract or BPA, in addition to the period of performance, dollar value, place(s) of performance and a brief description (not to exceed 500 characters) for each underlying task/delivery order deemed appropriate to demonstrate recency and relevancy in accordance with L-8.1.1.3 & L-8.1.2.2. The limitations in L-5.3.1 apply to this list.” Our question in two parts:

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 TOs in the PPI sheets or may offerors discuss their selected TOs in the Past Performance Summary?

2. 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.

The Government will not eliminate the requirement quoted above as each PPI addresses a singular reference, while the PPI Summary addresses all PPI references (there is only one PPI Summary (total of five (5) pages) for the entire Past Performance Volume).

Per RFP paragraph L-8.1.1 and subparagraphs, as well as Section L Attachment 3, for ID/IQs and BPAs, underlying task or delivery orders “…deemed appropriate to demonstrate recency and relevancy…” shall be included in the PPI Sheet. If an offeror chooses to also utilize the five pages allowed for the PPI Summary, there is nothing precluding that.

There is plenty of space in the PPI sheet to meet the requirement for inclusion of task/delivery orders in the PPI Sheet (limited to 500 characters) without exceeding one (1) page.

Section L-5.3.6 of the most recent draft RFP states a requirement to provide ISO registration verification - identical to the previous (23 Dec) draft ("L-5.3.6 Pages Not Included in Page Count. The organizational chart, acronym list, ISO registration verification, ..."). In the previously released Q&A, Question 48 and other ISO Registration-related questions were answered, " The Government is still considering its approach for ISO registration vs. ISO compliance."

The way this requirement is stated in the Training RFP (#-24) is not consistent with the way the identical requirement is (and was previously) stated in the Ops/Log RFP (#23).

In the Ops/Log RFP (#-23), the ISO 9001 registration requirement is specifically stated in 4 places:

1) L-5.3.6 (consistent with #24), but also...

2) the table in L-7.3 (Tech Volume requirements),

3) L-7.3.1.3 (QMS requirements, part of Tech Vol), and

4) M-3.2.1.3 (QMS evaluation methodology).

For the Operations and Logistics Support ID/IQ, Offerors shall have the required ISO certification at proposal submission in order to be considered for award (see RFP paragraphs L-7.3.1.3 and M-3.2.1.3)

Please provide guidance for invoicing employee’s daily OCONUS rate to the Government:

1. For every productive day the employee is on the contract

1. For every day the employee is deployed in-country

1. For every day the employee is paid on the contract – productive days, holidays, sick days, leave days, etc.

1. For every calendar day the employee is employed on the contract The multiplier is 1,920 for CONUS (hourly) Rates (based on 4 weeks off (2 weeks of federal holidays and 2 weeks of vacation time)) and 240 for OCONUS (daily) Rates (also based on 4 weeks off per previous). The updated Table B-1 has been posted to FBO.

Invoicing for CONUS vs. OCONUS rates will be specified at the T/O level depending on the T/O requirement and contract type.

1. Maximum number of hours worked during a week

1. Payment of overtime premiums

1. Paid holidays including those associated with Ramadan

1. Payment of end of service gratuities

1. Payments regarding employment termination (severance)

1. Payment of holiday (vacation), housing, and transportation allowances

1. Payment of local payroll and/or income taxes Offerors shall propose loaded OCONUS (daily) Basic Labor and associated cost elements (Fringe, Overhead (OH), G&A), and Profit for each labor category. The Government will apply the Department of State Differential(s) for the applicable country(ies) at the T/O level for OCONUS performance.

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

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.

Application of DSSR payments will be specified at the T/O level.