Q A 6 Apr 2012.doc

TINKER ADVISORY & ASSISTANCE SERVICES PROGRAM (TAASC)

FA8100-12-R-0003

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: 06 Apr 2012

Q1. Section L, Instructions to Offerors, attachment A-5, Sample Client Authorization Letter is missing.

A1. The Government has posted to www.fbo.gov RFP Amendment FA8100-12-R-0003-0002 which corrects this omission in Section L, Instructions to Offerors. A revised Section L is also attached to the amendment and is posted as well.

Q2. Would the government consider changing the version of MS Word from Word 2007 called out in Section L, paragraph 2.2.2 to Word 2010 for electronic submission of files? Compatibility of file data issues occur during conversion between MS Word 2007 and MS Word 2010 when it comes to continuing pagination, formatting, comments, auto-numbers etc.

A2. No, the systems currently in use by the Government all use Microsoft Office 2007 and all electronic submissions should be readable by this office suite, as defined in Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.

Q3. Referencing Section L in regards to applying G&A on Travel, is the Government stating that applying G&A is double billing or is it stating that if another indirect rate pool in addition to G&A applied to travel would constitute double billing?

A3. It is possible that a contractor's Disclosure Statement includes accounting systems or cost estimating systems that allocate a travel factor as part of their G&A rate. While this can be an allowable, acceptable practice, including a travel factor as part of the proposed G&A rate applied to travel costs (CLIN 0014) would in effect be charging the Government twice for travel. There is nothing unacceptable about applying G&A to travel costs under CLIN 0014. However, if that G&A includes a travel factor which is then applied to travel costs or expenses, it would in effect be essentially billing the Government twice for travel.

The solution to avoiding this potential travel double billing would be demonstrating to the Government that:

1) if your established corporate G&A rate includes a travel factor, this travel factor has been removed from your proposed G&A rate applied to CLIN 0014 in response to this solicitation & therefore does not constitute double billing travel to the Government;

2) or if your proposed G&A rate (as applied to CLIN 0014) does not include a travel factor, so state that your proposed ceiling G&A applied to travel does not include any travel factor & therefore does not constitute double billing travel to the Government.

Q4. Will the Government be releasing a contract-level DD Form 254?

A4. The DD Form 254, if required, is released on the individual task order level.

Q5. Can offerors include an OCI plan in Volume V, Contract Documentation (Unlimited Page Count), to demonstrate the ability to identify, asses, mitigate, and report OCI-related issues over the contract period of performance?

A5. The Government will not require an OCI plan as part of Volume V, Contract Documentation. However, all Offerors shall be in compliance with all OCI clauses contained in the RFP (5352.209-9000 and alternates I, II, III, IV, and VI).

Q6. RFP, Part I – The Schedule, Section H, Special Contract Requirements, (a), (1) - page 10 of 44: Will the government consider changing the reference to a standard 5 working day response period to a 10 working day response period (keeping the caveat of "unless otherwise specified from the date of the RFOP)? The increased response time would allow Industry to increase the pool of qualified candidates from which to choose and ultimately reduce risk, reduce cost, and increase quality of service to the customer. (As a side note: my personal experience in similar A&AS environments is that a win-win situation occurs when the customer conducts an Industry Day 1-2 weeks in advance and combines it with a 10-day turn on an RFOP. This allows Industry time to identify some incredibly qualified candidates, negotiate cost among those candidates, and deliver a best-value approach to the customer that meets the intent of LPTA.)

A6. The concern The Government has determined that the five (5) day RFOP response time is adequate.

Q7. Section L, 6.2 Cost/Price Information Requirements, page 13, paragraph 2: references FAR Clause 15.404-4(c)(4)(I) which applies to Cost Plus Fixed Fee type efforts and maintaining a ceiling fee of 10%. Can this paragraph be removed in full as it does not apply to the T&M and FFP type rates the government requested? Additionally, would the Government please clarify what regulations that they are using to impose a 10% fee limitation on T&M efforts?

A7. The Government has rewritten paragraph 6.2 in Section L in order to clarify profit/fee limitations on future T&M task orders. See RFP Amendment FA8100-12-R-0003-0002 and revised Section L.

Q8. Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix spreadsheet includes both a G&A percentage and Profit percentage at the bottom of each tab for locations (rows 112 and 113 respectively). Because we are not being requested to propose any ODC's, we request that the G&A percentage be removed. This information is already requested within the Cost/Price Volume. Additionally, we are requesting the removal of the profit percentage field. The requirements from the government in Section L, 6 excludes, unless using as an example, cost breakdown of proposed rates and that both types of rates are T&M and FFP.

A8. The request for G&A percentages pertains to G&A applied to travel (CLIN 0014). This has nothing to do with ODCs. Although G&A information is requested in other sections of the cost/price volume, the pricing matrix request for G&A is based on your proposed G&A for each year (period of performance), each site and each location: on-site and off-site.

Similarly, profit rates are requested for each “labor rate period” set forth in RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Rate Category Matrix. If either G&A or profit rates vary within a specific period of performance, then an average rate should be provided which represents all rates (that is, average rates) for that period. Offerors shall provide an overall average profit rate and G&A rate for each labor rate period that represents an accurate overall approximation across all job categories and skill levels used in development of labor rates as well as G&A to be applied to travel.

Q9. Section L, 6.2.8 Cost/Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing, page 16, last sentence beginning with "As detailed below…" Please clarify what information is requested to explain offeror's intention of using GFP and GFE in the Cost/Price Volume.

A9. Section III in the PWS provides listing of Government provided facilities, equipment, supplies and manpower. Did such provisions affect in any way your basis of estimate used in development of proposed fully burdened labor rates? Did such provisions result in adjustment to your indirect rates or G&A applied to direct labor, or allow you to propose reduced profit rates? Did GFE or GFP allow any changes from your usual methodology in your basis of estimate used to develop proposed pricing?

Proposed pricing is developed based on a variety of factors and considerations. These amount to “Cost/Price Assumptions” which directly affect proposed pricing. Section L, paragraph 6.2.8 addresses these assumptions. You are requested to pride your assumptions used in development of proposed pricing. What was your basis of estimate in developing proposed pricing and what assumptions were used?

Q10. Section L, 6.2.11 Reduction in Proposed Pricing per Management/Corporate Decision; Can the government clarify its request in this section? Does the government desire a description of changes to prices due to management decisions, excluding such cost proposal development as historical actuals, engineering judgment, etc. to justify price changes?

A10. This section refers to your corporate/management pricing strategy put in place to win a competitive contract award. Offeror’s proposal must addresses whether management-determined pricing is proposed at discounted or lower pricing than usual, including lower costs than typically proposed, in order to increase competitive advantage.

Proposed pricing based on reductions lower than actual costs could put an offeror at risk in terms of successful performance of the requirement. Therefore, if an Offeror has undertaken the pricing strategy in terms of reducing prices due to management or corporate decisions rather than reducing prices due to historical actual, engineering judgment, etc, the Offeror must state that this is the case. Reduced proposed pricing could be based on a pricing strategy of underbidding, then “getting well” with request for equitable adjustments (REAs) after contract award.

To prevent such problems, the Government is requiring explanation of whether proposed pricing is based on a corporate decision to propose lower than typical pricing. If reduced pricing was intentionally proposed for competitive advantage based on a management/corporate decision, explain the basis for such price reductions and explain how this pricing strategy will not put the Government at risk regarding performance.

Q11. Reference ITO Attachment A-1, PPIS, the font size on the government's form is 9-pt. Section L, paragraph 2.2.1(a) states the minimum text size is no less than Times New Roman 12-pt. Does the government desire offerors to use the font size provided in the Attachment A-1 format or comply with the requirements stated in Section L? Also, should the form use 1.5 line spacing? Additionally, may any part of the Word version of this Attachment be manipulated with any additional formatting, such as tables or color?

A11. The Government has updated ITO Attachment A-1, PPIS to reflect the desired 12-pt font. The forms spacing should be left alone and the form should be used as is. The directions in Section L, paragraph 2.2.1(a)only apply to Contractor created documents. To ensure uniformity, manipulation of the Attachment is not permitted.

Q12. Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph 2.3.2.2, Scope, addresses personnel administration requirements which are not applicable here. Should this paragraph instead provide definition/clarification of the relevancy assessment category “Scope?”

A12. Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2, Scope, has been clarified and is attached via RFP amendment 0002.

Q13. Section L, Instruction to Offerors, paragraph 5.3.1 requires offerors to “Categorize the relevance information into the specific technical subfactors and Cost/Price assessment used to evaluate the proposal.” Technical subfactors presented in Section L refer to prime contractor responsibilities across the board – e.g. resource management and program management. How does the Government wish these to be allocated to team members when presenting their contract relevancy information?

A13. Relevancy information for team members should be categorized into the specific technical subfactors and cost/price assessment just as Offerors shall do for their own relevancy information.

Q14. May any part of the Word version of ITO Attachment B-1, Proposed Team List, be manipulated with additional formatting, such as color?

A14. No. In order to maintain uniformity, the Attachment shall not be manipulated with additional formatting.

Q15. Regarding references to PWS 1.8 in Section L and M for Subfactor 1 (Resource Management) and Subfactor 2 (Program Management) under Factor 1 (Technical), can you confirm that the Technical Volume is solely a Resource Management and Program Management Volume and there is no requirement to describe how each of the 14 Functional Category Requirements will be performed, and that the contractor’s ability to perform the 14 Functional Category Requirements is to be demonstrated in the Past Performance Volume?

A15. The Technical Evaluation criteria in Sections L and M require Offerors to demonstrate their approach to providing and maintaining a workforce capable of providing A&AS support in all of the 14 Functional Categories in proposal Volume II, Technical. The method in which an Offeror chooses to describe that approach is at the Offeror’s discretion. Technical Subfactor 1, Resource Management, has been updated in Sections L and M via RFP amendment 0002 in order to clarify this requirement. Note: Volume III, Past Performance is not considered as part of the Technical evaluation.

Q16. Paragraph 1.8.8.1 (Logistics Management) includes support of Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Does the government require offerors and their subcontractors to be International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) registered with the Department of State?

A16. No, ITAR registration is not a requirement of TAASC.

Q17. On page 11 of the PWS, paragraph 1.5, second sentence states in part: “Contract Clause TBD” and “Date/TBD”. Does the Government intend on updating this with the contact clause and date?

A17. PWS paragraph 1.5 has been revised to correct this error. The PWS has been updated via RFP amendment 0002 and posted on www.fbo.gov.

Q18. On page 25 of the Performance Work Statement; Section IV Government Requirements paragraph numbering is confusing. For example Section IV starts with paragraph 4.1.and then the paragraphs following paragraph 4.1 start with paragraph 1 and go through paragraph 5. Shouldn’t all these paragraphs start with 4. X? Does the Government intend on renumbering this section?

A18. The concern is noted, however, the Government does not intend to re-number this section.

Q19. On page 27, paragraph 5 of the Government’s PWS this paragraph references Operations Security. However, Paragraph 1.2.4 of the PWS only discusses Contract and Industrial Security and paragraph 1.3 Applicable Documents does not reference any documents pertaining to Operations Security in the Title. Also, in paragraph 1.2.4 of the PWS a search of the document DOD 5220-22-M resulted in no information on “Operations Security”. However, a search for “Operations Security” in DOD 5220.22-R resulted in only Chapter 10 pertaining to “Operations Security”. Will the Government clarify what is intended to be communicated in paragraph 5?

A19. Page 27, paragraph 5 indicates that Operations Security (OPSEC) will be specified IAW the individual task order PWS and that the task order PWS will reference the TAASC basic contract PWS paragraph 1.2.4, Security Requirements. At the TAASC II Basic Contract level, the information mentioned in paragraph 1.2.4 references DOD 5220.2-M and DOD 5220.22-R. Operations Security and includes the Industrial Security programs and regulations found in DOD 5220.22-M and DOD 5220.22-R, which deal with handling classified information.

After the Basic Contract is awarded, each individual task order PWS will contain information that is specific to each task order’s requirement in regards to OPSEC. The information will be located in Paragraph 1.2.4 of each individual task order PWS.

Q20. Section L, Table 2.2 has an entry under the Past Performance Volume section named "Narrative" and refers to Section 5.3.1 of Section L for guidance. We provided this information under section I of the Past/Present Performance Information Sheet (Attachment A-1) and therefore the "Narrative" section seems redundant. Is this a correct interpretation or are you looking for additional information in the "Narrative" section?

A20. Section L, Table 2.2 and paragraph 5.3.1 have been revised via RFP amendment 0002 in order to more accurately reflect the past performance narrative requirement. The interpretation presented in the question is correct – the Government does not require “double narratives” on each contract submitted as past performance information. Offerors need provide narrative for each contract submitted as past performance one time as part of the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS - ITO Attachment A-1).