GPMS Industry QA FINAL AMD 3.pdf

GPMS RFP Industry Questions / Comments (Amendment 3)

RFP Reference Industry Questions/Comment Government Response

1. L-7.4.1.1, 3rd bullet A significant amount of detail is needed to answer the requirement for providing minimum qualifications for each labor category. Will the Government consider excluding this information from the page limit for Volume I?

No, it will not be excluded from the page limit.

2. Will the Government post the Pre-Proposal slides from November 4, 2020 to beta.sam?

Pre-proposal slides loaded on Beta

SAM.

3. L-9.1, L-9.2.3 Regarding the added language at the referenced RFP Sections, “A plug number will be provided for all Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the Offerors proposal.

No fee is allowed. Offerors shall propose indirect cost rate in accordance with (IAW) approved forward pricing rate agreement from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The pre-established amounts will not change. The proposed/approved indirect cost rate will apply to invoicing only. This rate will not be evaluated.”

1. For Offerors who do not have forward pricing rate agreements with DCMA, please confirm that we should supply forward pricing rates, developed in accordance with Disclosed practices, and as proposed to DCMA.

2. The statement “pre-established amounts will not change” appears to contradict FAR 52.216-7(e) Billing Rates. It is unreasonable to "cap" indirect billing rates when the risk cannot be offset with fee on these Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINS. Please confirm that the procedures outlined in FAR 52.216-7 apply to the indirect rates billed under the CR CLINs, including contractor ability to bill at DCMA-approved provisional billing rates, and invoicing/billing rates are not “locked” until settlement of contractor’s final annual indirect rates.

1. Yes, the Offeror should supply forward pricing rates developed IAW disclosed practices and as proposed to DCMA.

2. The indirect billing rates will not be capped. That is in reference to the plug amounts.

4. USAFE GPMS PWS, Section A para

3.2.6 MMHE

Section 3.2.6 references “Appendix K”. However Appendix K is a key personnel list that will be included after the award.

Question: Will the Government provide corrected reference?

Reference should be Appendix L.

PWS revised.

GPMS RFP Industry Questions / Comments

RFP Reference Industry Questions/Comment Government Response

5. PACAF PWS Section A, para 3.2.5.3.1

Appendix B

There are conflicting statements related to Deliverable #10.

Appendix B lists Deliverable 10 as the BEAR Inventory Report.

PWS Section A 3.2.5.3.1. refers to both reports Deliverable #32 and Deliverable #10 as the AGE Status Report: The contractor shall develop and submit a status report IAW Appendix B, Deliverable #32, AGE Status Report. The Deliverable #10, AGE Status Report shall include all Munitions Materiel Handling Equipment (MMHE) identified on the Appendix L, Authorizations and addressed in PWS Section A, Paragraph 3.2.6.1.

Question: Will the Government correct the deliverable references?

The second reference should also be Deliverable #32. PWS revised.

6. PACAF PWS Section A, para 3.2.6.1

Appendix G

PWS 3.2.6.1. states: “MMHE Readiness Rates. The contractor shall maintain a minimum average monthly mission capable (MC) rate as identified in Appendix G, Level of Effort for stored MMHE assets across each GPMS location. To determine the average monthly MC rate, the daily MC rate shall be averaged out using the calculation in Appendix G.”

However, Appendix G issued with the Final RFP did not provide level of effort for MMHE assets, and a new Appendix G was not provided with Amendment 2.

Question: Will the Government provide an updated Appendix G?

Para 3.2.6.1 states “Unless the Government provides a critical asset list, assets described by PWS para

3.1.8 shall be considered ‘critical assets’ for the purposes of this requirement.”

Unless otherwise specified, the MC rates for a functional area (e.g.

AGE, MMHE, etc.) is 95%.

Appendix G revised.

7. PACAF PWS Section A, para 3.2.5.1

Appendix G

PWS 3.2.5.1. states: “PWS 3.2.5.1. AGE Readiness Rates. The contractor shall maintain a minimum average monthly mission capable (MC) rate as identified in Appendix G, Level of Effort for stored AGE assets across each GPMS location. To determine the average monthly MC rate, the daily MC rate shall be averaged out using the calculation in Appendix G.”

Steve: Para 3.2.5.1 states “Unless the Government provides a critical asset list, assets described by PWS para 3.1.8 shall be considered ‘critical assets’ for the purposes of this requirement.”

However, Appendix G issued with the Final RFP did not provide level of effort for AGE assets, and a new Appendix G was not provided with Amendment 2.

Question: Will the Government provide an updated Appendix G?

Unless otherwise specified, the MC rates for a functional area (e.g.

AGE, MMHE, etc.) is 95%.

Appendix G revised.

8. Section I (PACAF and USAFE) The following clauses are not included in the Solicitation for either PACAF or USAFE as prescribed by the FAR or DFARS:

• FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data – General (prescribed by FAR 27.409)

• FAR 52.246-23, Limitation of Liability (prescribed by FAR 46.805)

• FAR 52.246-25, Limitation of Liability-Services (prescribed by FAR 46.805)

• FAR 52.242-15, Stop Work Order Alt I (prescribed by FAR 42.1305)

Recommend the above FAR/DFARS clauses be included in the Solicitation as prescribed by the FAR.

Otherwise, please provide rationale for their exclusion.

FAR Clauses 52.227-14, 52.246-25, & 52.242-15 Alt I added to Section I.

9. PACAF FFP CLINs: X001, X002, X009

USAFE FFP CLINS: X001, X002, X008

FAR 52.232-1

Question: With regard to the firm fixed price CLINs, what is the frequency of payment? We recommend fixed bi-weekly payments, consistent with the other CLINs.

FFP CLINs will be invoiced on a monthly basis.

10. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+ -+FINAL+AMD+2, response to question #145

PACAF PWS, para 3.2.2.5

Response to question #145 states: “Logistics Cost Sharing (LCS) is a U.S.-R.O.K. agreement that provides contractor support with Host Nation manpower.”

Question: Can the Government provide detailed information as to what type of Host Nation manpower will be provided?

No Host Nation manpower will be provided to the GPMS contractor.

The “Host Nation manpower” mentioned is on the LCS contract, who will still have a presence at the COBs maintaining the rest of the 7AF WRM stored at the COBs.

11. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+ -+FINAL+AMD+2, response to question #47

RFP Section L-7.4.2.2, pg 9

Industry question #47: "It is our understanding that the DABS program is a USAFE developed initiative and specific to their area of responsibility (AOR). Will the Government confirm that Offerors are to provide a contractor furnished mission support vehicle proposal

No. All assets known at this time are identified in Appendix L, Authorizations, and Offerors should develop their proposal using that information.

(with type and quantity identified) for the USAFE proposal and not the PACAF proposal?

Response to question #47 states: "DABS are a USAFE construct, not PACAF. For each PACAF locations (e.g.

Guam, Daegu, Gimhae, etc.) the GPMS assets to be supported by the contractor are identified in Appendix L. Offerors should determine the CFV based on the location information and the GPMS assets to be supported there. See question #47"

Question: Can the Government provide detailed information on the number of ancillary palletized assets associated with USAFE DABS by location in USAFE?

12. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+ -+FINAL+AMD+2, response to question #47

RFP Section L-7.4.2.2, pg 9

Industry question #47: "It is our understanding that the DABS program is a USAFE developed initiative and specific to their area of responsibility (AOR). Will the Government confirm that Offerors are to provide a contractor furnished mission support vehicle proposal (with type and quantity identified) for the USAFE proposal and not the PACAF proposal?

Response to question #47 states: "DABS are a USAFE construct, not PACAF. For each PACAF locations (e.g.

Guam, Daegu, Gimhae, etc.) the GPMS assets to be supported by the contractor are identified in Appendix L. Offerors should determine the CFV based on the location information and the GPMS assets to be supported there. See question #47"

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to make equitable adjustments to the contractor with the fluctuation in the European exchange rates to include the cost of fuel in the option years?

CFVs is a FFP CLIN. The price quoted should be inclusive of all costs and profit and should be proposed in US dollars.

13. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+ -+FINAL+AMD+2, response to question #47

RFP Section L-7.4.2.2, pg 9

Industry question #47: "It is our understanding that the DABS program is a USAFE developed initiative and specific to their area of responsibility (AOR). Will the Government confirm that Offerors are to provide a contractor furnished mission support vehicle proposal

Evaluation criteria is detailed in M- 3.1.2.3, Subfactor C: Outload & Reconstitution.

(with type and quantity identified) for the USAFE proposal and not the PACAF proposal?

Response to question #47 states: "DABS are a USAFE construct, not PACAF. For each PACAF locations (e.g.

Guam, Daegu, Gimhae, etc.) the GPMS assets to be supported by the contractor are identified in Appendix L. Offerors should determine the CFV based on the location information and the GPMS assets to be supported there. See question #47"

Question: Can the Government provide detailed information as to how a DABS outload will be evaluated consistently?

14. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+

#48

L-7.4.2.2, pg 9

Industry question #48: "L-7.4.2.2 states “Identify the specific type and quantity of contractor furnished mission support vehicles proposed to support the mission based on the quantity of DABS sets (from 1-4) stored at a location.”

In the USAFE GPMS Appendix – L Authorizations document, DABS-FEV sets are identified, however in the PACAF GPMS – Appendix L file DABS sets are not identified.

Can the Government clarify how Offeror’s should respond to this requirement for their response to the PACAF Solicitation?

Response to question #48 states: Para L-7.4.2.2. is updated to reflect requirements for both USAFE & PACAF. For USAFE, offerors must propose Mission Support Contractor-Furnished Vehicles (CFV) required to support a location with 1 DABS, 2 DABS, 3 DABS, and 4 DABS. For PACAF, offerors must propose Mission Support CFV required to support the GPMS assets for which the contractor is responsible at each location."

Assets included in a complete DABS set are identified in Appendix L. Origin & destination are not required to describe the processes/procedure associated with a notional outload.

Question: Would the Government consider providing industry with a notional outload of a complete DABS with the number of containers, vehicles, and ancillary assets, with a point of origin and delivery to destination for balanced proposal evaluation?

15. General Question: Given the amount of revisions set forth in the amendment and additional clarifications required (as indicated in these follow-on questions), would the Government consider an additional one-on-one virtual call with industry after the holidays period to answer proprietary question?

No, the Government will not consider an additional meeting.

16. General Line haul companies cannot provide industry with adequate pricing without knowing specific destinations and number of days to deliver to final destination.

Question: Can the Government provide a destination of each DABS outload?

See Question #14.

17. L-8 Instructions for Volume II, Past Performance (Factor 3)

L-8 states “Offerors shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following instructions:

a. Table of Contents: Not to exceed one (1) page

b. Past Performance Summary: Not to exceed two (2) pages

c. Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter

d. Organization Structure Change History

e. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms used”

However, this list of content does not mention the PPI sheets.

Question: Please confirm that a separate PPI sheet with associated CPARs is required for each citation following section - b. Past Performance Summary.

Yes.

18. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+

#202

USAFE PWS Section A para 6.2.1.7, 6.1.1.1.2

Industry question #202: "Requirement to handle refuse collection for all GFF. At which locations do Host Units provide refuse collection as part of any Host Tenant agreements? Is USAFE PWS 6.2.1.7 an exception to

PWS 6.1.1.1.2? "

Response to question #202 states: "Typo in 6.1.1.1.2 Appendix H should be Appendix J. Yes, section 6.2.1.7 is an exception to PWS 6.1.1.1.2 in that any facility where contractor is sole occupant, contractor will be responsible for refuse collection."

Question: Can the Government state in which facilities the contractor is the sole occupant?

All planned USAFE locations are geographically separated sites. It is anticipated that the GPMS contractor will be the sole occupant of all facilities at each location. In some cases (e.g. Opel) the landlord or host nation may have a presence at the site, but the facilities from which the GPMS contractor operates can be assumed to be solely occupied by the GPMS contractor.

19. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+

#202

USAFE PWS Section A para 6.2.1.7, 6.1.1.1.2

Industry question #202: "Requirement to handle refuse collection for all GFF. At which locations do Host Units provide refuse collection as part of any Host Tenant agreements? Is USAFE PWS 6.2.1.7 an exception to

PWS 6.1.1.1.2? "

Response to question #202 states: "Typo in 6.1.1.1.2 Appendix H should be Appendix J. Yes, section 6.2.1.7 is an exception to PWS 6.1.1.1.2 in that any facility where contractor is sole occupant, contractor will be responsible for refuse collection."

Question: With an unknown volume waste, would the Government consider a modification to the contract when facilities come online?

When a new site is added to the GPMS contract, a contract modification will be executed via an RFP with the requirements as they exist at that time.

20. GPMS+Final+RFP+Industry+Questions+ -+FINAL+AMD+2, response to question #237

RFP Section L-7.4.1.1

Question: Will the Government confirm that the key personnel table to be submitted with the proposal does not require naming the key personnel?

Names are not required.

21 Section I PACAF Provisions and Clauses Final AMD 2 document

1. In Section I PACAF Provisions and Clauses Final AMD 2 document, DFAR 252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services states that the Mission- Essential Contractor Services Plan is required to be

The actual plan is not needed as part of the proposal. The awardee must submit the plan after award with the transition plan.

submitted by the Contractor. Do you require a Mission Essential Contractor Service Plan with the proposal?

And if so, what Volume would you like this plan submitted? And is this considered out of page count?

22 "Section I - PACAF Provisions and Clauses FINAL (Section G and Section K) AMD 2, pgs 6-56 "

Section I Provisions and Clauses has multiple insertions of ”\n” throughout the document. This makes a thorough legal review and completion of this document difficult.

Will the Government please provide a clean, formatted document that has these insertions removed?

This is a system glitch and cannot be corrected at this time.

23 Section I PACAF Provisions and Clauses Final AMD 2 (Section G and Section K), 252.237-7023(c)(1), pg 56

"In Section I PACAF Provisions and Clauses Final AMD 2 document, DFAR 252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services states that the Mission- Essential Contractor Services Plan is required to be submitted by the Contractor.

Does the government require a Mission Essential Contractor Service Plan with the proposal?

And if so, in what Volume should this plan be submitted?

Is this considered out of page count?

If required, which positions are mission essential? "

See question 21.

24 "Section I PACAF Provisions and Clauses FINAL AMD 2, pg 52 "

"FAR 52.247-51 Evaluation of Export Offers.

Will the Government confirm if Industry is expected to ship exclusively f.o.b. origin under a Government bill of lading? If so, can the Government confirm the locations of place of delivery? "

No, Offerors are not expected to ship exclusively f.o.b. origin.

Locations of place(s) of delivery are only known at time of execution/tasking of specific GPMS assets.

25 Section L, L-8.1.2.1.4, pg. 11 Attachment 4 – PPI Sheet Section A, does not include a row for offerors to provide “Full Address / Telephone Number”, as required by L-8.1.2.1.4.

Will the Government confirm whether offerors should include this required information in Section A, General Information table of the PPI Sheet, or another section of the PPI Sheet?

PPI sheet revised.

26 Section L, Attachment 4 – PPI Sheet "Section D of Attachment 4 – PPI Sheet require offerors to provide “a brief description of service provided under this contract”.

Will the Government provide additional instructions for the brief description of service required and if any page limitations apply in Section D? "

Attachment 4 - PPI Sheet, Section D has been revised.

27 Section L, L-8.1.2 PPI Contents, pgs 10-

11 " "Prior to Amendment 2, the PPI Tool required offerors to provide a “Brief Description of Effort” and “Explain how your performance on this contract is relevant for each applicable factor or subfactor, as instructed under Past Performance in Section M of the RFP. Include any unique aspects that demonstrate relevancy in this effort. Provide evidence to support such relevance and the ability to perform the requirements as described in the RFP.”

Section L Attachment 4 – PPI Sheet Section B seems to have combined these two sections of the PPI Tool into a summary section limited to 1-page in the PPI Sheet.

Will the Government confirm the combination of requirements and 1-page limit is as intended? "

The “Brief Description of Effort” was revised to be “Summary.” The Page limit for each PPI Summary is 1-page.

28 SF 30 Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 "Amendment P00001 and Amendment P00002 have been digitally signed by the Government, preventing our edits to Box 8, 15A, 15B, and 15C.

Will the government supply an editable copy of both SF 30 Amendments? "

Amendments revised to allow Offerors’ input.

29 PWS requirements, paras. 2.1.3, 2.1.10, and 5.1

Pertaining to Operations Tempo Increases (2.1.3);

contractor support to/for contingency planning for employment sites, budget inputs, construction planning, technical advisement for creation of Expeditionary Site Plans (ESP)…(2.1.10); and contractor support during exercise and/or contingency operations the contractor shall ensure transition from day-to-day operations tempo is performed to support exercise and/or contingency logistics support activities (5.1).

Will the government please clarify any requirement for contractors to adhere the latest guidance provided in AFI 10-403, Deployment Planning and Execution, dated 17 April 2020 and Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 10-4, Operations Planning: Air Expeditionary Force and Global Force Management?

Specifically, for GPMS, will the contractors be authorized and required to accompany the force?

The contractor shall provide support to the ESP planning process. An understanding of prevailing guidance is important to be able to do so.

The contractor is not required to accompany the force to deployed locations.

30 USAFE – Appendix J In previously asked and answered question #242, an Offeror asked:

For contractors, NATO SOFA status is associated with an approved

“Will the Air Force sponsor Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) IAW the German Supplementary Agreement to NATO SOFA for positions in Germany and other locations in USAFE?”

And the Government responded: “The NATO SOFA does not apply to contractors.”

However specific positions listed in Appendix J are designated as requiring a U.S. Secret Security clearance. Given this requirement TESA exemptions are typically used because a German National is unable to fill the position in question. Can the Government confirm whether Offeror’s will be allowed to apply for TESA status for positions requiring a security clearance, or should Offeror’s propose as if no TESA statuses will be granted?

position under an approved contract.

Section L-9.5.4.1 states, “Be aware the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) may not cover the job descriptions within the GPMS solicitation. Please note the Department of Defense Contractor Personnel Office (DOCPER)’s process exists in the following countries: Germany, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. If United States citizens are working abroad and are not covered under an approved DOCPER, then the contractor will be responsible for paying the local taxes associated with those positions at each location.”

The Government can only submit the contract and positions for approval after contract award. All Offerors should propose as if no approvals have been provided.

31 PACAF – Appendix E – Agreements

4.2 – Guam WD.pdf

The Wage Determination for Guam included an even number; however, in the AFCAP Task Order, the CO implemented an odd numbered Wage Determination;

can we incorporate an odd for the this pursuit?

Guam Wage Determination 2015- 5693 Revision 11 replaced the even numbered Wage Determination in the solicitation.