Industry_Day_Follow_Up_Questions.pdf

1. Will the government consider elevating past performance from the prime over that of subcontractor/team member past performance for relevance. Often in extended contract period such as the proposed 10yr POP teams will change and the Prime will be the member that remains constant. The evaluation for past performance of prime contractors and any major subcontractors will be defined in the RFP. The current plan will have past performance rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. In this instance, we do not feel there is value added in elevating the rating of a prime offeror.

2. When considering VATEP, it is recommended that the Government include direct past performances of the primes in other PMEL taskings as a factor of VATEP as though a bidder may have a slightly higher price the increased prices when considered with exceptional performance through recognized through higher incentive awards for similar activities demonstrates greater confidence in meeting metrics vs simple LPTA approach. While past performance is an important evaluation criteria, the Government is contemplating the use of VATEP for improved technical solutions. The Government feels that there is a high bar set for acceptable past performance and with the acceptability criteria set as is, the Government will receive successful performance from the primes.

3. Can a listing of attendees at the Industry Day be provided? Yes, it will be posted to

FBO.

4. Will the government consider keeping the cost CLIN the same, covering travel and operational supplies? If companies have to estimate costs for TFCU, pickup and delivery costs, gas, operational supplies, etc. the risk factor that would be added to the cost, because of the uncertainty, is likely higher than a fixed handling fee. Although it may be the intention of the government to reduce invoices, this will not achieve that result as the cost CLIN will still need to exist. An alternative would be to allow the material handling fee to be applied to parts and travel only. Cost CLINs are designed to be utilized in instances where the Government cannot fully define what the requirement will be. Based on years of historical data, the AFEC PMEL requirement is sufficiently defined that the majority of costs are well known and can be priced up front. Equipment repair/parts is the one area that the government has determined that should remain on a cost reimbursable basis via the Cost CLIN.

5. Will the government consider allowing offerors the ability to bid a scalable PMO based on bandwidth and/or number of PMELs awarded (Band 1 – 50,000, Band 2 – 50,000 – 100,000, Band 3 over 100,000)? This approach allows the government to ensure an appropriate staffing for a PMO while not overpaying for a PMO that would have to be estimated by a company to cover multiple possible combinations of awards labs and sizes of labs. A change the Government is contemplating is to include

Program Management and Management Information Data Systems (MIDS) as the minimum guaranteed task order award. The approach suggested in the question will be taken into consideration as we further define the contract structure if it can be integrated with the current way ahead.

6. Would the government consider evaluating past performance by assigning confidence levels (substantial, high, moderate, low or no) and using a lowest price technically acceptable risk performance price tradeoff in source selection? Greater than incentive monies is the fact that excellent performance will result in more awards and conversely poorer performance will limit future awards. The Government feels that there is a high bar set for acceptable past performance and with the acceptability criteria set as is, the Government will receive successful performance from the primes. Past Performance confidence levels used during lowest price technically acceptable source selection process are “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable”. No trade-off scenario is planned at the IDIQ level.

7. Does the Government consider CBA increases to be controllable costs? If so the Union’s may challenge that this value might impose a potential restriction on company/union negotiations? In addition since the Government is not a part of the negotiations what criteria will be used to determine whether or not a CBA cost was controllable? Negotiations with the union and the company are outside of the Government’s prevue. Wage increases are considered to be within the company’s control as they are a primary party during negotiations. The Government looks at whether negotiations are being conducted at arm’s length when reviewing an REA. We are considering incentivizing companies who maintain reasonable cost increases within the incentive fee plan.

8. In checking with five states each had differing criteria for an apprenticeship program.

Many states require both state specific program registration and program approval. The program approval process varies greatly as do the reporting requirements. One of the more complex issues to address is the number of apprentices who complete the program that the company will hire. As this is a fixed labor rate contract the ability to hire an apprentice, in a given state, would be based upon staff turnover. The States we talked to do not take into consideration the utilization of apprentices at out-of-state locations as the reason for approving an apprenticeship program. In addition, apprenticeship programs are generally more than one year in length, the program takes time to be approved and implemented, therefore with a task order duration of five years by the time the program is set up and running it is almost time for the Task Order to be rebid. If the government wants companies to invest additional time, money, and effort in training new PMEL technicians than we request that the government consider increasing the length of the contract so that these costs can be spread over more years (i.e., 1 year plus 9 one year options with an introduction of new IDIQ holders still allowed at year 5). We received lots of very helpful feedback on the DoL sponsored

Apprenticeship program that we introduced at Industry Day. The strategy has evolved in that the DoL program may not be the only acceptable option for proposing an apprenticeship program.

9. Will the government allow alternative solutions to a formal apprenticeship program and still allow credit in evaluating costs? Yes, we are still working out the details of how differing programs will be evaluated equally.

10. Will the government consider providing credit for real cost savings initiatives. Credit could either be awarded monetarily under a 60/40 split or allowed to be applied by the company as a offset in determining the price for award determination in a future task order. Presently there is no incentive for a company to reduce costs. Task orders consist mostly of labor cost at a Firm Fixed Price. Within that fixed price environment, the contractor reaps the entire reward of a cost savings initiative.

11. Will the government consider adding fuel charges associated with required travel for service as a reimbursable expense? This removes estimation and the government only pays for actual cost. The reason for recommending that gasoline be reimbursable is that the changing price of gasoline, especially for locations with TFCU or PND can result in higher estimates for fuel costs than actuals or should fuel costs rise consolidation or streamlining of PND activities in order for a company to remain within estimates. Cost CLINs are designed to be utilized in instances where the Government cannot fully define what the requirement will be. Based on years of historical data, the AFEC PMEL requirement is sufficiently defined that the majority of costs are well known and can be priced up front.