GPMS Industry Day Contractor Q&A-SAM Posting (4 Dec 19).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Global Prepositioned Materiel Services (GPMS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-19-RA004
About this file
This document contains questions and answers from an industry day related to a forthcoming Global Prepositioned Materiel Services solicitation. The solicitation will support prepositioned war reserve materiel assets for Pacific Air Forces and U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa across multiple locations in the USINDOPACOM and USEUCOM/AFRICOM areas of responsibility. Services may include receipt, storage, inventory, maintenance, outload and reconstitution of assets. The questions and answers provide additional details on requirements such as contract type and period of performance, access to government systems and data, transition plans, and past performance evaluation. Responses are intended to help industry understand requirements for supporting this enterprise-wide prepositioned materiel program.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Global Prepositioned Materiel Services (GPMS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Government | ||||||
| Doc | Pg # | Par. # | Reference | Comment/Question/Recommendation | Government Response | |
| USAFE & PACAF PWS | ||||||
| 1.3.4 - 1.5 | Given the cost, schedule and performance benefits of a Single Award Contract, such as the ability to: sync policies and procedures across theaters, share continuous improvement initiative between Theaters/MAJCOMs, and support functions and personnel as required to support surge efforts; has the USG considered a Single Award Approach vs. an MAC/IDIQ? In addition to the benefits of a Single Award Contract, an MAC/IDIQ Award will increase cost in oversight, management, and contract administration for USG agencies and may also introduce transition risks amongst awardees. | Yes | ||||
| General | Previous RFI’s have discussed the need for periodic support for CONUS-staged assets at Holloman AFB, NM. Is the USG still considering this requirement, and if so, what kind of Contractor support would be envisioned at Holloman AFB? Is it only to maintain staged assets for other MAJCOMs or support some core 635th MMG WRM mission requirements? | At this time there are no GPMS requirements from 635 MMG. It is possible that PACAF and/or USAFE assets may be staged at Holloman and, if so, may be included as a GPMS requirement. It is also possible that alternative CONUS locations may be used to stage PACAF and/or USAFE assets. | ||||
| USAFE & PACAF PWS | ||||||
| Page 19, 3.1.7 | Will the contractor be provided access to the Nuclear Certified Equipment List and provided any reported deficiencies or incidents by users on equipment which maybe coded as Nuclear Certified under this contract. | The Government is working to fully define this requirement and determine exactly what information must be provided to the contractor to store and maintain nuclear certified assets. | ||||
| Recommend as part of the requirement, Industry should provide you innovations, ideas, suggestions. | ||||||
| Recommend include in the requirement the option for each company to propose two (2) innovated ideas, suggest improvement areas. (if 10 bidders, you will get 20 ideas, suggestions) | Concur, although implementation needs to be determined. | |||||
| Recommend to help level the playing field regarding cost, recommend the Government include a Plug number for all ODC's to include OCONUS Uplifts (COLA, Danger Pay, Hazard Duty Pay) and the Transition. | ||||||
| The Government will take that into consideration and make the proper determination in the final RFP. | ||||||
| Recommend the entire GPMS contract be awarded to one contractor and incentivize the performance. |
Jacobs believe we are very capable of managing and performing at a very high level today. Benefits of one ( 1) Single Contractor Award:
- Reduces risk
- Efficiencies and cost reductions
- Shared Best Practices Globally, multiple contracts/companies will not share and consider information proprietary.
| - More with Less. One ( 1) Management team vice 3 or 4. | Disagree with a single contractor being awarded the entire GPMS contract. This could result in single point of failure. In this first iteration of GPMS we believe the efficiencies gained within each theater, combined with the standardization of Government program/contract management is a big step. | |
| Small Business recommendation |
- We have a portfolio of small business partners that we team up with on multiple contracts
- We talked with a few small business at your Industry Day, and look forward to seeing all interested companies for this opportunity.
- Believe there would be too much risk for any small business to take on this large effort.
- As an out-of-the-box thinking or approach would the Government consider a phased approach to small business plan, utilization?
| Allowing a zero percent requirement on year one ( 1) and phase in up to 30% Small Business Plan by year five (5). We believe this will reduce the risk of your contractor during transition and the first couple of years. | Offerors will be required to provide a SB Sub-contracting plan with their proposal IAW FAR 19.7. The Government will not dictate SB goals. | ||||
| Recommend extending Past Performance from 3 years to 5 years. | Concur. | ||||
| We understand that you have a important decision to make concerning the acquisition strategy, and ultimately deciding who will be your next support contractor for the next ten years. Request the Government allow Industry be allowed to provide a White Paper to address the Governments | |||||
| "Industry Day Questions to Industry". This additional time and strategy will allow Industry to further review your questions and provide you additional helpful information that will only help in your decision in deciding the acquisition strategy for this opportunity. | All non-proprietary Q&A will be posted to SAM. | ||||
| If Government decides no further communication between Government and Industry, recommend | |||||
| periodic updates from Government to Industry via FedBizOps or SAM.gov. | Periodic updates will be posted to SAM. | ||||
| Recommend Government have another Industry Day, Post Draft RFP. | The Government intends to host site visits and will include a Q&A. | ||||
| General | Will all salary payment be in U.S. dollars? | Proposal and WAWF Invoicing should be in U.S. Dollars; salary payments will be made IAW local labor laws. | |||
| General | Will the Government provide a copy of all CBAs, SOFA, and Local labor agreements? | We will make every attempt to provide copies of all existing agreements that are applicable to GPMS that are releasable to Industry. Industry shall determine applicable host nation laws that apply. | |||
| General | No actual workload data is provided in the draft PWS. QUESTION. When will the Government release the workload data for bidders to review? | We are still compiling this data. We anticipate releasing it with the draft RFP. | |||
| General | Does the Government expect to use FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items for GPMS acquisitions? | No. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, Section 1.3 Location, USAFE/AFAFRICA Locations. QUESTION. Can the Government please confirm if Sanem, Luxembourg will be included as one of the USAFE locations since we believe Sanem is used for WRM storage? | Sanem, Luxembourg will not be included in the contract requirements. It is covered under a separate International Agreement with the Government of Luxembourg. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, Section 1.3 Locations. QUESTION. Can the Government please confirm if any locations will be included for AFAFRICA or the Korean Peninsula since the document references these AOR but no GPMS site is shown for AFAFRICA or Korean Peninsula?. | At this time there are no known AFAFRICA locations. There will be a requirement for Special Purpose Vehicle maintenance at four (4) Collocated Operating Bases in Korea | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 1.3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). QUESTION. Will the Government provide service summary (SS) tables defining what is needed to develop a quality control plan? . | The QASP and SS are in development. We anticipate releasing them with the draft RFP. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 1.3.4. Contractor. For the purposes of this PWS, the term “Contractor” refers to any awardee(s) of this contract, whether a single award or multiple award contract. If a MAC/IDIQ, the Contractors will have the opportunity to propose against task orders under the IDIQ contract IAW a Task Order Management Plan (TOMP).” QUESTION. When the Government says “MAC/IDIQ,” does this mean that multiple awards will be made in each defined region or for overall contract? | The Government's acquisition strategy is not final. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 2.0 Program Management, 2.1.8 Recurring Meetings. Section refers to “semi-annual Incentive Fee/Award Fee meetings when required.” QUESTION. Does the Government intend to issue the GPMS with incentive fee/award fee conditions? | We are considering an Incentive or Award Fee. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, Program Management, 2.1.10, Planning and Programming. The continually evolving nature of the world’s geo-political situation will likely involve establishing new sites for different periods of time. New sites will take time to identify, engineer, perhaps construct, establish lease agreements, and service. QUESTION. Can the Government please elaborate upon how it envisions contractors establishing new contingency bases? Can new contingency bases be awarded under cost reimbursable conditions? | At this time we anticipate this would be limited to a new site being added to the contract through modification where the contractor would occupy Government-furnished facilities to store and maintain prepositioned materiel. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 2.0 Program Management, 2.1.11.4. Enterprise-Wise Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (eCMRA). QUESTION. Will the Government provide access to eCMRA during the RFP process? | The Government will provide access to the awardee(s) after award. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 2.0 Program Management, 2.4.3, Cost and Schedule. Can the Government please clarify if contractors will be responsible for payment of all local taxes and fees to host nation entities? | Yes, the contractor will be responsible for all costs to operate in each location. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 3.0 Operations and Maintenance, 3.1.1. Storage Level. This section references a “USAFE CONOPs.” Can the Government clarify contractor requirements for USAFE CONOPS? Has the Government prepared a USAFE CONOPS? USAFE is still refining its CONOPS and “Concept of Sustainment”. Once those are developed they will enable further definition of the requirements within the PWS. The CONOPS itself may not be releasable to the contractor. | Once those are updated they will enable further definition of the requirements within the PWS. The CONOPS itself will not be releasable to the contractor. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 3.0 Operations and Maintenance, 3.2.1.6.3. This section references “7 Level equivalent and signed off on the appropriate skill level of the task(s) will sign off Red X discrepancy(s).” QUESTION. Can the Government please provide the reference document that clarifies the requirements for “7 Level” and “Red X discrepancies”? . | Specific Career Field Education and Training Plans (CFETPs) will identify “7-level” equivalent skill levels | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 3.0 Operation and Maintenance, 3.1.2, Maintenance Control Plan. QUESTION. Can the Government provide a list with age and condition codes for GFE/GFP at the different sites? | GFE/GFP lists, including age & condition, will be provided. This data is still being compiled. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 3.0 Operations and Maintenance, 3.1.2.1, Corrective and Preventive Maintenance Program. QUESTION. Can the Government provide detailed preventive maintenance (PM), and corrective maintenance (CM) information as part of historic workload? Can the Government provide a list with age and condition codes for all equipment and facilities and current workload data? . | Available life cycle date will be provided with the RFP. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 4.0 Mission Support, 4.8.6 DoD Systems. QUESTION. Can the Government confirm that various references systems will be made available to bidders during either the solicitation process or only after award?. | A bidders' library will not be provided. | |||
| PWS | Section 10.2 | Draft PWS | Section A. 6.0 Facilities Management. Contractors need reliable work load data to price work as firm fixed-price (FFP) or fixed price incentive fee (FPIF). Two types of workload data are required: (1) Government furnished equipment (GFE) (including Government furnished tools), and Government furnished property (GFP) showing locations, year acquired/erected, condition code, manufacturer (for equipment), and (2) number and type of work performed, i.e., for facilities (service work orders, urgent work orders, emergency work orders), for equipment. QUESTION. Can the Government provide both types of data covering a 1-5 year period at each GPMS location? | Most DABS equipment are in procurement and facilities awaiting construction. The Government will provide as much historical records as are available with the RFP. | |
| Atch A | 14.3 | Draft PWS | Section A, 6.0 Facilities Management, 6.1.1.2, Configuration Control. QUESTION. Does the Government intend that local utility costs (e.g., power, water, sewer, telecom, trash pick-up) will be absorbed by contractors? | No. The details are still being determined. | |
| Draft PWS | Section A, 6.0 Facilities Management, 6.1.2.4. QUESTION. Does the Government require contractors to provide their own contractor-furnished Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) or will the Government provide the CMMS? | Contractor must provide their own CMMS; the contractor must use designated Government systems of record to update maintenance/inventory data. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section A, 6.0 Facilities Management, 6.1.2.4. QUESTION. Will CMMS data from existing sites be made available to bidders as part of the solicitation process? . | If available, the Government will provide historical data | |||
| Draft PWS | Section C, Para 1.4, QUESTION. Will complete lists of all materiel be provided for each site that are to be assumed by the incoming contractor? | Yes. All known/planned materiel will be identified. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section D, Transition. QUESTION. Will new contractors be responsible for transitioning work currently performed by USAF personnel, foreign Government personnel, and/or foreign contractors? | At this time there are no known “foreign Government personnel” performing any existing work; there are, however, military personnel and contractors from which work will be transitioned. | |||
| Draft PWS | Section D, Transition. A series of important facility/equipment inventory, information system, legal, permitting, and international human resource risks will be encountered during transition at each site on the new contract. QUESTION. Would the Government consider a separate Transition CLIN that is not included in the overall evaluated price? Would the Government allow Transition periods of 60 - 120 days for each site? | No. The Government intends to make Transition FFP as a separate CLIN and will be evaluated in the TOEP. Transition will be for the initial period of performance only. New site activations will be handled separately by contract modifications. The Government is still working to determine the length of the initial transition period. | |||
| Will all work on GPMS contract be in theater or will support be required at program office as well? | Each offeror will determine the technical approach. | ||||
| Will GPMS have a small business goal for large businesses? | IAW FAR Part 19.7 | ||||
| Will deployable teams deploy with USAF assistance? | No. | ||||
| Will U.S. contractors be under U.S. SOFA? | It depends on the SOFA or labor laws in each country. | ||||
| When are responses due to the Government for the RFI published 15 Oct 2019? | Deadline is passed. There will be an opportunity for additional questions after the Draft RFP is posted. | ||||
| Please clarify question 3, regarding "One Task Order Per Customer" | No longer applicable. | ||||
| How committed is the USAF to this approach? | What approach? | ||||
| Please clarify the regional base cluster concept. How does the Government view this approach regarding countries within the AORs? | PACAF is still developing the RBCP concept. |
&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .