Response_to_A AS_III_Draft_RFP_-_Section_M_Questions.doc

Government Responses to Industry Comments

A&AS III Draft RFP, FA5613-13-R-0007 Section M Questions/Comments

1) Comment: For task order evaluations, this section states, “Proposals will be evaluated utilizing Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) or Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures as outlined in the RFP’s instructions to offerors.” Section M-3 “BASIS FOR AWARDABLE TASK ORDER AWARD,” indicates the Government plans to use LPTA for the Awardable Task Order(s). We recommend that both awardable task orders be evaluated using Performance Price Tradeoff because it will allow a level playing field for all competitors to bid robust and innovative solutions based on prior experience versus a strictly LOE approach that sub-optimizes the fulfillment of the client needs by leveraging less experienced staff.

Response: The basic IDIQ and awardable task order awards will occur at the same time. Because the government will perform a past performance evaluation at basic IDIQ contract award, no further past performance evaluation will be performed on the awardable task orders. The government team did extensive analysis of the source selection procedures during the acquisition planning phase, and it was determined that for the awardable task orders, LPTA source selection procedures will yield the best value to the Government.

2) Question: Reference section M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD, page 1, indicates that the Government plans to award based upon Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable. Will the Government consider awarding based on best-value tradeoff instead? USAFE must necessarily purchase a range of services requiring labor across the personnel spectrum from high-end experienced employees with extensive experience to entry-level support staff. Therefore, the option to implement a best-value tradeoff approach to the IDIQ award ensures USAFE has access to all levels of experience and capabilities, rather than the four lowest-priced bidders. A best-value approach gives the Government the flexibility to award to the lowest priced proposals as planned, or to alternatively award to proposals showing greater value for a similar but higher price.

Response: The government team did extensive analysis of the source selection procedures during the acquisition planning phase. It was determined that for this requirement, an LPTA source selection will yield the best value to the government.

3) Comment: In contracts awarded as Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable, the Government sometimes finds itself in a risky situation by having awarded a contract to a company which submitted a minimally acceptable technical proposal by simply paraphrasing the RFP. In some cases, these offerors subsequently fail to deliver. For this procurement, such a scenario seems possible given the specification of “Acceptable” to mean “Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation” (see M.2-A). To address this, we recommend the Government modify M.2-A to be entitled “Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk” and to allow for evaluation of technical risk. To evaluate risk for each subfactor, the Government can rank each subfactor between 0 (no risk) to 5 (high risk). Measurable standards for these risks can be established as in the below examples. By establishing a maximum risk threshold (e.g., average technical risk across all subfactors cannot exceed 3), the Government will have a formal means by which technical proposals can be rejected as having too much technical risk, even though offerors might well meet the minimum requirements by simply stating they will do what the RFP requires with appropriate paraphrasing of RFP requirements.

· Example standard for measuring risk of subfactor 1 (Transition Plan): Offeror’s proposed transition approach leverages experience gained from supporting clients similar to USAFE doing similar work.

· Example standard for measuring risk of subfactor 2 (Management Plan): Offeror proposes a management approach based on managing similar ISR work conducted elsewhere by the offeror.

· Example standard for measuring risk of subfactor 3 (Sample Task Order): Offeror proposes an approach based on similar ISR work conducted elsewhere by the offeror.

Response: The technical acceptable and unacceptable ratings outlined in M-2.A are mandated by DoD source selection procedures for use in an LPTA source selection and cannot be modified to accommodate the recommendation.

4) Comment: Reference M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD, page 1, states that ‘The SSA intends to select a minimum of two (2) with a target of four (4) lowest priced offerors that received an acceptable rating on all evaluation factors and subfactors.’ It is our recommendation to increase number of target awardees to ensure robust competition at the task order level and ensure the Government has access to all contractor services necessary to meet PWS requirements. With a contract of this size and complexity, it is critical to have an adequate number of companies able to bid on each task order. Although the Government is requesting awardees to bid on every task order, this may not be feasible in an LPTA environment and with tight corporate resources. Therefore, it will be important to have a larger pool of awardees that are able to bid on each task order.

Response: The Government team did extensive research regarding the number of awardees and it has been determined that at this time, the target of four companies is in the Government’s best interest. However, in accordance with Section L paragraph M-2, “ The Government reserves the right to award more or no contracts if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest based on consideration of one or more of the following items: expected volume of work over the ordering period of the contracts, the need to sustain adequate competition and the availability of best value proposals following completion of the evaluation of the proposals received.”

5) Question: Reference M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD, paragraph A.3.a.iii, page 3, outlines the requirement to submit a price proposal for the sample task order. Earlier in the section, it states ‘The sample TO will be used to determine technical acceptability for awarding the basic IDIQ contract(s)’. Also, in section M-2, C.2, it states ‘The price for the sample TO will not be included in the offeror’s overall evaluated price.’ Will the price proposal for the sample task order be evaluated in the award of the basic IDIQ?

Response: The sample task order will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy to determine technical acceptability; however, the proposed price for the sample task order will not be considered as part of the total evaluated price.

6) Question: Section M, Paragraph C, Price Evaluation Procedures. It appears that the Government is only evaluating the labor hour pricing at the top level and not looking deeper into the build-up to determine if the compensation offered meets the requirement to be eligible for TESA/TR in Zone 1. The ability to hire and retain employees in Europe relies heavily on the ability of the employees to receive logistical support. Without knowing the base compensation for each labor category in Zone 1, the Government’s ability to make the reasonableness determination and have any confidence in the ability of the contractor to execute the mission is severely limited. Would the Government consider doing a cost analysis versus a price analysis on the Labor Categories?

Response: Because this is a FFP contract that does not require certified cost or pricing data and price reasonableness is established through competition, the government will not consider cost analysis.

7) Question: Reference Section M, Page 5, Para C.2 – Price Evaluation. Does the government intend to provide the number of expected hours that will be used for pricing purposes only? (We note that the RFP for A&AS 2 included similar evaluation language and that the pricing sheet did include estimated hours for each labor category.)

Response: Yes. The final RFP will include estimated labor hour usage per labor category, as well as estimates for training, travel and ODCs. These factors will be included in the pricing spreadsheet and will be used to calculate the total evaluated price.

8) Question: Reference Section M, Page 5, Para C.3 – Reasonableness: In the price evaluation, will the government include an assessment of total compensation packages, to include scope of benefits, to determine whether the proposed price allows compensation that is consistent with the labor category descriptions?

Response: The government will not be evaluating compensation packages as part of the reasonableness determination.

9) Question: Past and Present Performance Questionnaires within Section J, Attach 6, shows 7 Evaluation Scores are possible ranging from Neutral (N) to Exceptional (E). However Section M, M-2, B shows past performance as being evaluated as ONLY acceptable or non-acceptable. Does the Government intend to revise the questionnaire to reflect only “acceptable” and “unacceptable” scoring, or alternatively does the Government plan to translate scoring of Exceptional through Marginal and Neutral as “acceptable” and Unacceptable as “unacceptable?”

Response: The 7-point evaluation scale is taken from the Contractor Performance Ratings System. The government will translate the scoring on the Past Performance Questionnaire, along with all the other past performance information collected, into an overall past performance rating of acceptable or unacceptable.