Question_Set__5.pdf

Question Set #5

DATE QUESTION GOVT RESPONSE

3‐Jul‐19

Ref: PWS At Section 2.6.1.4

1. Will the government provide more detail about tools provided, if any, for training?

2. In Amendment 2 Q/As, the government clarified that Section 2.4.4.15 training is formal and any other references to training is on‐the‐job training. Is the on‐the‐job training referenced in

2.6.1.4 related to the same subject matter that would be covered in the formal training to be provided under Section 2.4.4.15?

3. Are there specific named tools the government is requiring on‐the‐job training for? If so, will the government identify those tools?

4. Which policies and procedures is the government requiring on‐the‐job training on?

5. Historically, how much time has been dedicated to on‐the‐job‐training for government personnel?

6. Have the on‐the‐job trainers historically been certified trainers?

1. There are no specific tools for this informal training.

2. No, the OTJ training subject matter is different than that which is described in 2.4.4.15.

3. There are not specific named tools the Government is requiring OJT training for.

4. The policies and procedures which require OTJ training will change over the life of the contract. The Government is unable to specify which policies and procedures will need OJT.

5. Historically, less than 5% of any individual contract employees time is spent on this type of OJT training.

6. Historically, the OJT trainers have not be certified trainers, rather they are SMEs in the particular areas being briefed.

9‐Jul‐19

Reference Attachment 8, Volume III, Past Performance: Would the Government please allow Past Performance references that have completed 1 year of performance as of anytime in the month of July 2019? Since there are a significant amount of contracts awarded in July, allowing this would greatly expand the list of contracts that could be included, and therefore would give the Government a more accurate representation of an offeror’s most recently performed work.

Yes

9‐Jul‐19

The industry standard for a full‐time equivalent (FTE) is 2080 hours per year payable to the direct employee. The 2080 less leave, vacation, and holidays equate to 1880 hours billable to the customer. Historically the Government has used an 1880 or 1920 for FTE billing hours. Based on the latest response regarding Attachment 10 using 1880 hours instead of 2080 hours as a base year starting point will yield 1792 hours as billable hours to the customer. This creates two problems: 1. Not enough billable hours to accomplish the stated task and 2. Creates a burden on the contractor to keep FTE Personnel without equivalent full‐time hours. . If you use the 1880 hours to determine the base hourly rate it will be overstated and will result in a higher cost to the government. For example, A $100,000 salary is a $48.08 base hourly rate using 2080 hours.

However, if you use 1880, hours the base hourly rate is $53.19. The rate is 11% higher and the cost would be 11% higher to the government. The 1880 hours refer to the amount of billable hours proposed on the proposal for each FTE, not in determining the hourly rate.

Will the government consider that the standard FTE year baseline at 2080 with 10 paid holidays and three weeks of PTO?

For consistency across all labor rate submittals, 1880 was selected. In this particular instance, by dividing by 1880 instead of 2080 does represent a higher hourly rate, but this is the methodology decided upon by the Government and will be consistent across all offerors. The Government believes this will not be a burden for a responsive contractor to meet, as the floor doesn't include other factors like security clearance and special skills/education.

9‐Jul‐19

On 25 June 2019 the Government answered the below question in Amendment 2;

Q:

In the Hourly Base Rate from Salary.com column, the calculation shown is the median annual salary divided by 1,792 hours. Request that the Government update the calculation to reflect 2,080 hours, which reflects total hours in a year for the calculation of the Direct Labor Rate.

A:

Attachment 10 was updated to reflect 2080 hours via Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation posted to FBO on June 24, 2019

See Below

9‐Jul‐19

On 26 June 2019 the Government answered the below question in Amendment 3;

Q:

Attachment 10, Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet Issue/Question: In cells F4 – F29 (Hourly Base Rate from Salary.com), why is the median annual salary being divided by 1792 and not 2080? A base salary is divided by 2080 in order to account for hours worked and those taken for holidays and vacation.

A:

Based on a comment (see Amendment #01), the hours were changed to 1880 hours from 1792 hours to make consistent with Attachment #03. While the Government understands the argument for 2080 hours, it has settled on 1880 hours for pricing evaluation purposes.

Can the Government please clarify the correct allocation of yearly hours to calculate the base salary?

1880 Hours shall be used to calculate the base salary.

9‐Jul‐19 Amendment 4 added CLIN 0006 for classroom facilities IAW PWS 2.4.4.15.3 with the unit price being a firm fixed price rate over the life of the contract with a Not to Exceed Amount.

Question: Can the Government explain why the 960 hours are inserted in Attachment 13 Additional CLIN documentation if offerors are to submit an NTE amount for a classroom facility?

The Government envisions having the need to purchase up to 960 hours of class room space (8 classes/year x 3 days/class x 8 hours/day x 5 years = 960 hours).

9‐Jul‐19

Reference Questions and Responses Set #3 – Can the Government clarify the answer to the following question: (3) Will the Government provide office space on the base or is the contractor to provide off‐base office space for those involved in training? The answer provided to this specific question states the Government will provide office space for all contractor employee’s under the contract.

Question: Can the Government confirm that the contractor must have a facility within 25 Miles of Lackland to conduct training as stated in PWS 2.4.4.15.3?

The Government understood the initial question to ask about office space for those designated by the contractor as "trainers". PWS 2.4.4.15.3 speaks to training facilities for classroom teaching.

Yes, the training facility referred to within PWS 2.4.4.15.3 needs to be within 25 miles of JBSA Lackland AFB.

5‐Jul‐19 Are offeror to include labor categories pricing for only the skillset listed under Appendix C of Exhibit 01 of the Solicitation or should the labor categories in the Scenario PWS also be include?

The offeror should include all skillsets necessary to complete the tasks associated with the PWS. Appendix C represents the Government's best estimate of what may be required. It is a business decision of the part of each offeror which skillsets are required after reading the PWS. The scenario is a stand alone exercise and may or may not reflect each offeror's final solution for proposed labor mix as represented in the offer.

5‐Jul‐19

Will the Government provide a Certification Matrix for the labor categories under Exhibit 01 as provided under the Scenario PWS

The Government will not provide a certification matrix for labor categories as provided under the scenario. As the Government can not fully anticipate all the potential labor mixes, it will be a business decision on the part of each offeror to identify what their "certification matrix" would look like. Certifications proposed may or may not be utilized in determining the best value to the Government in the trade‐off methodology.

5‐Jul‐19

There is a slight difference in some of the labor positions noted in the Attachment Scenario PWS and the IDIQ PWS. Should the labor categories in Appendix B of the Scenario PWS only highlight the labor skill required to perform Task Areas 2.1 and 2.2?

The Government has provided additional elements within the scenario PWS to substitute for discussions which would likely happen between the Government and the contractor. As directed, the offeror may or may not utilize all labor categories listed in Appendix B and should list all assumptions made to arrive at all decisions for the scenario.

5‐Jul‐19

Per Exhibit 01 – PWS CDRLS A001 and A008 correspond to PWS task area 2.1 and 2.2.

However, the CDRL list incorporated into the Scenario PWS under the deliverables section does not match the CDRLs list or even cover the Task Area specifically require of the Scenario. Will the Government please clarify which CDRLs aligns to the Scenario task areas and validate the PWS Para numbering?

The scenario stands apart from the Exhibit 01 ‐ PWS. Please list all assumptions made to arrive at final solution, including any assumptions made about CDRLs.

5‐Jul‐19

There are 14 CDRLs under the Scenario PWS and only 9 under the IDIQ PWS. The deliverables section under the Scenario PWS notes that Exhibit 1 of the contract identifies the CDRLs applicable to the IDIQ. Since there are more CDRLs list in the scenario task orders, we are unsure if additional tasking will be required at the task order level that is not already identified at the IDIQ contract level. Will the Government please validate the number of CDRLs for the IDIQ PWS under Exhibit‐01 and confirm that only those CDRLs presented at the IDIQ level will apply at the task order level?

There are nine (9) CDRLs under the PWS.

It is the intent that these CDRLs will cover all requirements for all subsequent task orders. Should additional CDRLs beyond the nine (9) be required due to changes in mission, this change would be negotiated between the Government and the Contractor.

9‐Jul‐19 Would the Government please confirm that past performance questionnaires are due at time of proposal submission on 22 July 2019?

That is correct. The PPQs have also been extended to 22 July 2019.

9‐Jul‐19 The July 1 PWS deleted PWS 4.2.2 without deleting Service Summary #8. Recommend the Government delete SS #8 and update the PWS

The Government concurs and the change was made in Amendment 05.

9‐Jul‐19 PWS 2.1.1.8 ‐ The contractor shall support the government equipment custodian (EC/ITEC) in fulfilling EC/ITEC duties. How much equipment is included and at how many locations? Is the government ultimately responsible for the equipment with the contractor as support only OR will be contractor serve as the primary custodian with government support?

1. This is for one location at JBSA Lackland in support of computer equipment for approximately 60 people.

2. The Government is ultimately responsible for the equipment with the contactor as support only.

9‐Jul‐19

Ref: Attachment 10. Based on salary.com salaries being divided by 1880, should the contractor use that same calculation for their Proposed Hourly Rate without Fringe. If the contractor divides by 2080, the rate is lower than salary.com, and will not be within the 5% rule. Using the Janitor example. Salary.com $30,000 / 1880 = $15.96, Contractor salary: $29,500 / 2080 = $14.18 (11.1% lower than salary.com=Unacceptable), Contractor salary: $29,500 / 1880 = $15.69 (1.7% lower than salary.com=Acceptable) Yes

10‐Jul‐19

An unpopulated joint venture serves as a vehicle by which the joint venture’s members can collectively serve as the prime contractor, with each joint venture member performing work with its own employees. Therefore only the joint venture members are able to hire the TS cleared personnel. As with all companies, a Joint Venture will not have a facility clearance until such time as they receive a contract with a valid DD254. Typically, when a Joint Venture wins a contract, the Joint Venture receives the DD254 and flows it down to the members who will actually hire the cleared personnel.

We request that the answer to RFP_Questions_and_Responses_‐_Set_4, page 2, Question 6 be changed to read that the as long as all members of the Joint Venture have a Top Secret facility clearance the Joint Venture meets the requirements of the PWS to provide personnel with Top Secret clearances

The JV as a new entity must have Top Secret facility clearance to provide personnel with Top Secret clearances.

Discussions with the SO indicate that if both members of the JV held TS Facility Clearances, the process/time to achieve facility clearance for the JV may be significantly reduced. No action is required on the noted question because it is not true that just because all JV members have TS Facility Clearance that the JV has TS Facility Clearance. Just having all members of a JV with TS Facility Clearance does not initially meet the conditions of the PWS, though the successful offeror will be able to apply for TS Facility Clearance.

10‐Jul‐19 Can the government confirm if the due date for Past Performance Questionnaires for the subject solicitation has also been extended to July 22, 2019?

That is correct. The PPQs have also been extended to 22 July 2019.