CFT_-_Q A_-_29_May_14.docx

Questions and Answers from Draft RFP and Pre-solicitation conference for CFT

I. Teaming/sub-contracting/joint ventures as pertinent to the CFT acquisition (See Section L ITO Attachment 2.1)

There have been multiple questions surrounding teaming, cross teaming, sub-contracting and joint ventures. Instead of answering all of these questions individually, the Government will explain our expectations for each of the categories as pertinent to the CFT acquisition.

1. FAR 9.601 defines a Contractor team arrangement as an arrangement in which --

(1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

(2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

The first definition does not represent a prime/subcontractor relationship, and no team member is a subcontractor of another. However, the team itself might have subcontractors. The second represents a typical prime/subcontractor relationship.

2. Teaming defined for the CFT acquisition: A teaming arrangement is when Prime Contractor ABC wins an IDIQ Basic Contract and then subsequently teams/subs with Contractor XYZ. At the same time, Contractor XYZ wins another IDIQ Basic Contract as a Prime Contractor and then subsequently team/subs with Contractor ABC.

For this acquisition limited cross-teaming will be allowed. The descriptions of what this entails are as follows: If a company is awarded a Prime Contract in one competition pool you are allowed to be on one other team in the opposite competition pool. This means companies with CFT are allowed to be on a maximum of 2 teams.

The following limited cross-teaming scenario is allowed:

I. Large Business ABC wins a prime contract in the F&O Pool and has teamed with Small Business XYZ. These same two teams are allowed to team in the Small Business competition pool. Now Small Business XYZ wins the prime in the SB Competition Pool and is allowed to team with Large Business ABC. At this point, these two companies can no longer be on any other teams.

I. Large Business ABC wins a prime contract in the F&O Pool and has teamed with Small Business XYZ. Now Small Business XYZ wins a prime contract in the F&O Pool and teams with Large Business ABC in the same competition pool. This is not allowed.

II. Small Business ABC wins a prime contract in the small business pool and teams with Small Business DEF. Then Small Business DEF wins a prime contract in small business competition pool and teams with Small Business ABC in the same competition pool. Here you have two companies teaming with each other in the same competition pool and this is not allowed.

Teaming Note: If Contractors decide to team then a formal teaming agreement, between all members, must be submitted. This agreement must state that all team members will operate under one NTE for each job classification. Each team member will NOT have its own NTE rate for each job classification.

3. Subcontracting defined for the CFT acquisition: If a company wins a prime contract they are allowed to be a subcontractor for one other company in the opposite competition pool.

4. Joint-ventures: will be allowed under this acquisition, FAR 4.102(d) applies. The Government views joint-ventures the same as teaming. This means if two companies enter into a JV agreement and are awarded a Prime Contract in one competition pool then they are allowed to be on one other team in the opposite competition pool. Again, companies within CFT are allowed to be on a maximum of 2 JV agreements/teams.

After award, a Contractor is allowed to add subcontractors and/or teaming partners. Any addition or replacement in terms of a CFT contract team’s subcontracting/teaming arrangements will be accomplished subsequent to prior Contracting Officer approval. Note that changes to the original subcontract/teaming arrangement shall not result in any upward adjustment of the contractual hourly rates – rates established in the basic contract in RFP/Contract Attachment 02, Labor Category Rate Matrix will serve as maximum rates for the duration of the ordering period regardless of subsequent changes in ANY (i.e. subcontracting, teaming, joint ventures) arrangements.

Contracting Officer approval for additions or replacements in terms of subcontractor/teaming arrangements will be based on the following criteria:

I. The Contracting Officer will ensure that the proposed subcontractor/teaming addition or replacement is not currently aligned with another CFT contract team in the same competition pool. Additionally, The Contracting Officer will ensure that the proposed subcontractor/teaming addition or replacement has not reached the maximum 2 team limit. If the Government determines either of these conditions are present than the proposed teaming/subcontracting addition or replacement will be denied. Note if the proposed subcontractor does not have a prime contract in either competition pool this does not apply.

II. The Contracting Officer will ensure, through queries of the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), that proposed subcontractor/teaming additions or replacements are not suspended or debarred. The Contracting Officer will deny any addition/replacement requests should the proposed subcontractor(s)/team(s) be found to be suspended or debarred.

Part II. Questions and Answers

1. Would the Government consider allowing cross teaming of a small business sub provided the sub is not going to bid as a prime?

Answer: See cross teaming definition.

2. Is the Government considering any financial repercussions for Large business if they do not meet their small business subcontracting goals?

Answer: Yes, the Government will add clause 52.219-16 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - SUBCONTRACTING PLAN as a provision/clause.

3. Could the Government provide clarification on HUBZone pricing benefits (if they even still exist) and whether the HZ-certified company has to be a prime or if they can be a first tier subcontractor?

Answer: IAW FAR 19.1307(b) The CO shall give offers from HUBZone small business concerns price evaluation preference. To achieve this evaluation preference the HUBZone offeror must be the prime contractor (not subcontractor).

Additionally, IAW as DoD Class Deviation 2010-O0006 to FAR 19.1307 titled “Immediate Cessation of the Use of Price Evaluation Adjustment…” there is no Price Evaluation Adjustment for HUBZone concerns.

4. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-17 and Section L paragraph L.3.2.7.

Does a Small Business that decides to compete for both Full & Open and Small Business awards have to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

Answer: No, Small Businesses do not have to submit a subcontracting plan.

5. Will Task Orders be issued to support Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirements?

Answer: Yes, however historically this has been a small percentage of the overall CFT work.

6. Will any of the OCONUS Task Orders require registration with the Department of State (DOS)?

Answer: State Department requirements are fluid and beyond our control, we cannot provide an answer for the life of the contract. It is the responsibility of the contractor to determine when/ if State Department Registration is required. Please review PWS paragraph 5.3.4.1 “The Contractor shall comply with, and shall ensure that its personnel and subcontractor personnel at all tiers obey all existing and future U.S. and Host Nation laws, Federal or DoD regulations…”

7. Reference Draft RFP Section L, Table 2.2.

Is the Technical Proposal allocated 250 or 150 pages?

Answer: The technical volume is allocated 150 pages, with the exception of subfactor 4, scenario application. Elements a & b identified in Section L, paragraph 4.2.6, (subfactor 4) will have specific page limits indicated in the applicable attachment of RFP section J (scenario Fair Opportunity Notices). Element d, Quality Control Plan, is unlimited.

8. Reference Draft RFP Section L, Table 2.2.

Are there specific page limitations for each section of the Technical Proposal or is that the offeror’s decision?

Answer: The applicable page limits are identified by volume, along with associated page limits for specific paragraphs, in Section L, Table 2.2.

9. Reference Draft RFP Section L, Paragraph 2.5, 7th Row which states offeror shall submit “volumes I through V….” Table 2.2 only identifies four (4) Volumes.

Please correct as required.

Answer: This has been corrected. There are 5 volumes.

10. Reference Draft RFP Section L, Paragraph 3.2.6.

How many pages are allocated for each part (a. through e) of the scenario response?

Answer: Elements a (Management plan) & b (Transition Plan) identified in Section L, paragraph 4.2.6, (subfactor 4) will have specific page limits indicated in the applicable attachment of RFP section J (scenario Fair Opportunity Notices).

Element d, Quality Control Plan, is unlimited.

11. Reference Draft RFP Section L ITO Attachments 1.4 and 1.5.

If a company is currently supporting U.S. Government requirements as a subcontractor to another company, does the subcontractor submit a Consent Letter or Client Authorization Letter for that effort?

Answer: The Government does not fully understand this question, See FAR 44.2 Subpart 44.2 -- Consent to Subcontracts.

12. What is the average size (FTE & Value) of an Unrestricted Task Order? A Small Business Task Order?

Answer: The government can only speak to historical data; we cannot speak to what future task orders will look like. The number of task orders and customers supported in CFT is fluid.

Historically, the sizes of Full and Open (F&O) task orders have ranged in size from 1427 FTEs to 51 FTEs. The largest value of a Full and Open task order was approximately $760M. Historically 50.35% of task orders awarded have gone to the F&O Pool. Historically, the sizes of Small Business task orders have ranged in size from 50 FTEs to 2 FTEs and in value from approximately $13M to $437K.

However, these numbers and dollars will change based on the change in competition parameters for this acquisition (see special provision H-9). This information is based on historical data and in no way represents limits for future task orders.

Note: Based on the new SB Parameters (special provision H-9) the maximum estimated value for a single small business task order is $25M (See clause 52.216-19 “Order Limitations”).

13. What is the average period of performance for a Task Order?

Answer: 2-3 years

14. What percentage of the projected Task Orders will be for CONUS Work? For OCONUS?

Answer: The government can only speak to historical data; the % of (F&O) task orders awarded to CONUS was 63% and OCONUS was 37%. This information is based on historical data and in no way represents percentages for future task orders.

15. What percentage of the projected Task Orders is expected to be set-aside for SB?

Answer: The government can only speak to historical data; 49.65% of task orders under the current contract have been awarded to SB. This 49.65% will increase based on the increase in small business set-aside parameters for this acquisition. This information is based on historical data and in no way represents the percentage breakout for future task orders.

16. Will the Government allow for cross-teaming? What about cross-teaming between Full and Open and Small Business Suites?

Answer: See Part I above.

17. Recent Case Law has supported Subsidiaries using the Past Performance of their Parent Companies when submitting proposals in response to requirements, but must demonstrate the involvement of the Parent Company in the performance of the effort. Are there any specific CFT requirements for demonstrating the involvement of the Parent Company, if a subsidiary primes CFT?

Answer: The government can examine any contract that is relevant or recent in regard to this effort. The Offeror should submit contracts that are considered recent and relevant on the part of the offerors company that will be doing the work.

18. Is a CFT Prime Contractor allowed to add bid team members/subcontractors after award? If yes, what is the process for doing so?

Answer: Yes, see Part I above.

19. Can the Government provide a listing of the current 70 or so task orders for CFT? The information that would be useful to include on that spreadsheet would be (if possible)?

Answer: The Government will not provide a detailed list of “current” task orders.

The Government will provide historical data. To date, there have been 282 task orders awarded under the current CFT Basic Contracts. Of those 282, 142 task orders have been awarded under the full and open competition and 140 have been awarded under the small set aside portion.

20. Reference Draft RFP PWS paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.1 which requires a milestone based transition plan that must be accomplished within a specified transition time period defined with in a Task Order. The transition plan must be executed within the specified time frame whether there is an incumbent contractor in place or the Task Order is a new start-up. When the awarded Task Order is a follow-on effort an incumbent contractor, in many cases, is charged with continued performance of the previous Task Order during the transition period of the new Task Order.

Where there is an incumbent contractor in place and is responsible for contract performance until the start of the new Task Order POP, will the follow-on contractor have reasonable access to:

1) The facilities to ascertain the breadth and depth of GFE/GFP in order to schedule appropriate inventory schedules?

2) The incumbent workforce to evaluate employee willingness to remain on the contract and ascertain the qualifications/certification of the workforce in order to execute the transition plan of the follow-on contractor?

Answer: The government will make every effort to ensure reasonable access is available to any contractor who is taking over an incumbent CFT effort.

21. Reference Draft RFP Section L paragraph 3.2.7 Subfactor 5.

Should this be H-17 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN?

Answer: Yes, you are correct. The incorrect H-Clause was referenced in this section. This will be fixed on the formal RFP.

22. Reference Draft RFP PWS paragraph 4.8 Performance Summary.

Since the Government will be utilizing the CFT 104 process to grade Contractor performance as discussed in the Performance Work Statement, would the Government consider clarifying the area associated with the CFT 104 process?

Please clarify scoring metrics received by the Contractor when the Government cannot provide enough work for the Contractor to meet minimum Performance Measurement requirements i.e. will this situation be scored no-score, +1, or 0?

Answer: PWS paragraph 4.8 states, “Circumstances or external influences beyond the control of the Contractor that impact the ability of the Contractor to meet performance standards will not affect Contractor performance measurements. The Government will determine which circumstances or external influences are beyond the Contractor’s control.” The government cannot speak to what circumstances or external influences would be beyond the contractor’s control, but it should always be a part of the CFT 104 scoring process to do a “no score” or “N/A” on metrics when the contractor was not given a fair opportunity to meet a metric in situations like this.

23. Reference Draft RFP PWS paragraph 3.1.

The current draft Performance Work Statement lists 8210.1C as a Technical Reference item.

Has DCMA Instruction 8210.1 dated 1 March 2007 been updated to 8210.1C?

Will this be the only updated reference or will NAVAIR 3710.1, AFI 10-220, AR 95-20, and COMDTINST M13020.3 also be updated?

Answer: Yes. The 8210.1C was signed on 21-AUG-2013 and Chapter 7 applies to all GFR & GGFRs. DCMA 8210.1C is synonymous with NAVAIR 3710.1G, AFI 10-220, AR 95-20, and COMDTINST M13020.3.

24. Reference Draft RFP PWS paragraph 4.3.2.1.1.

This paragraph has caused confusion concerning the exact timeframe of submittal to the Government during the current CFT Contract by both the Government and the Contractor in multiple cases. Could the Government please define paragraph 4.3.2.1.1 in respect to “deemed compliant within 30 calendar days of each task order award”?

Answer: The government cannot determine how long it will take the government QAR to review contractor LOIs, nor how long it will take the contractor to submit LOIs after TO award. The expectation is that the contractor shall submit LOIs in a timely enough fashion that whatever back and forth may be required between the QAR and contractor has occurred so that the LOIs can be deemed compliant by the government QAR within 30 calendar days. The government QAR will notify the contractor in writing when LOIs are deemed compliant. If the contractor has not received this notification in writing by the government QAR within 30 calendar days of the start of the Task Order Period of Performance and the government was not given sufficient time to review LOIs, the minimum standard for submission of LOIs is not met for that task order and will not be met at the basic contract level either since the minimum standard at the basic contract level is that ALL LOIs must be deemed compliant within 30 calendar days. If the government QAR was given sufficient time to review the submitted LOIs and the contractor has not received notification in writing from the QAR by 30 calendar days, this will not be held against the contractor for performance.

25. Reference Draft PWS paragraph 5.3.1 Government Furnished Property which first states that an appendix B will be provided; the very next sentence states “if” an Appendix B is provided. Currently less than 25% of CFT Contracts have sound GFE inventories, which require long lead times getting inventories to match. Providing accurate Appendix B’s is the key, if this is the Government’s plan.

Will GFP be provided as an Appendix B in all cases?

Answer: Currently, not every task order has a Government Furnished Property Appendix B, because not all task orders have GFP requirements. Additionally, there are GFP requirements in some task orders that require an inventory in which an appendix B was not provided. It is the government’s intent to ensure an appendix B is provided to the maximum extent practicable whenever GFP requirements are included in task order PWSs. This is the responsibility of the CFT customer to provide.

26. Reference Draft RFP PWS paragraph 4.1.2 and Section H Special Clause H-1.

Is it still specified by the Government, “If any FTE is going to be absent for longer than 30 days, it is expected that there will be a backfill that will meet the Minimum Team Complement” or has this specification been rescinded in the new PWS?

Is it implied by the Government, absent FTE employees who are on LOA and/or Vacation, or any combination of these employment statuses, which exceeds 30 days will be counted against contractor in CFT104 grading?

Answer: Yes this is the intent of this metric.

27. Reference Draft RFP PWS dated 29 Mar 13 and Government’s Answer to Questions dated 3 Jun 13 Question 16.

When the contract requires following both the AS9100 and DOD regulations, which reference prevails within the contract? If DOD regulations require higher standards or are more restrictive than the FAR and/or AS9100, and DOD regulations are cited in the contract or Task Order PWS, which has precedence?

Answer: Please refer to FAR 52.215-8. The FAR order of precedence states that the Schedule would be given precedence over the specifications. A TO PWS would be a specification. A TO PWS referring to a DoD regulation would not take precedence over the basic contract quality requirement referenced in Part I, the schedule. The quality requirements (AS9100) will be referenced in the CLINs that are listed in the schedule. AS9100 is the contract quality standard to which all contractor Standard Operating Procedures must comply, which then flows down to the site/task order level. If a DoD regulation in a task order PWS conflicts with the basic contract quality standard, a Local Operating Instruction would have to be written to account for the deviation.

28. Reference Draft PWS Dated 29 Mar 13 Government’s Answer to Questions dated 3 Jun 13 Question 21. Has the value X% been determined?

Where is it stated in the Current PWS or was it completely removed?

Answer: This portion was removed.

29. Reference Draft RFP Attachment 17 PWS Scenario 3, F-15 Aircraft Modification, paragraph 2.0, 4.5.2 and Attachment A. The Team Compliment does not include FLANG, Jacksonville IAP, FL or Eglin AFB, FL. Should all locations listed in Scope be included in Attachment A?

Answer: These locations were listed incorrectly and have been removed from PWS scenario 3, para 4.5.2. All locations listed in scope should be included in Attachment A, and PWS scenario 3 now correctly reflects this.

30. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-1(c).

This paragraph provides exclusions for not meeting the Minimum Team Complement. In all cases, these excluded events are not controlled by the employer. Will the Government add an additional exclusion for Military Duty?

Answer: Yes, the Government will add “Temporary Military Duty.” If the Contractor has an employee on long-term or permanently Military Duty, the Government does not consider that as countable towards the MTC.

31. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-3(15).

The government is reserving the right to reject any Task Order proposal that appears to be unrealistic (high or low).

Does this happen in the current CFT contracts?

In a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) environment, how will the government determine if a proposal in unrealistically low?

Answer: Whether or not the Government rejects proposals for unrealistically high or low prices on the current CFT task orders is inapplicable for future CFT task orders. The Government always reserves the right to utilize price analysis techniques contained within FAR 15.404-1(b).

32. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-3(20).

In T&M Task Order Competitions, the Contracting Office often identifies the annual work hours to be used in determining the price. Often the quantity of work hours will not have any relation to the reality at the actual site. For example, the Contracting Officer requires that the contractors price 1920 hours per FTE. Due to seniority, the real work hours often ends up being 1880 or less. In this scenario, the contractor will never recover the FTE value. What mechanism will be put in place to ensure the contractor can recover the annual FTE value in situations as identified in the discussion above?

Answer: For T&M task orders the Contracting Officer identifies the “estimated” amount of FTE Hours for determining the total evaluated price only. The hours provided are estimates only as this is related to T&M work when there is no Government guarantee of any amount of hours. In the scenario listed above, the Government “estimated” 1920 hours and only requested 1880 hours, this is well within the Governments rights for a T&M task order. It is quite feasible that the Government never request any hours, let alone 1880 hours, for that particular labor category. It is the Contractor’s business decision to develop T&M rates as they see fit.

33. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-19.

The current CFT contract identifies a quantity of GOAL days that may be used per year. Will this requirement identify the use of GOAL days? If so, is there a limit?

Answer: This special clause has been moved to the PWS (See PWS 5.4.2). The Government states: “The contractor may be required to work all local safety, family, and down days. There may be scheduled down days or safety days such as: days after holiday, goal days, and other similar events where the contractor does not have access to base facilities. Every effort will be made to provide contractor access during down days; however access is not guaranteed.” The Government does not place a number on the use of goal days.

34. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-27.

SCA covered contracts have a mandatory requirement for employers to implement revised Wage Determinations at the appropriate times. Historically, CFT has adjusted the NTE rates as well as the individual Task Orders. In instances where the Task Order rates are close to NTE rates, the contractor runs the risk of not receiving the fully allowable adjustment for the Task Order due to the fact that the Task Order hourly rates cannot exceed the NTE rates in the Basic Contract.

Why is the government not allowing for a NTE adjustment to the Basic Contract when new Wage Determinations are introduced?

Answer: This requirement has been removed. The Government will allow NTE adjustments to Basic Contract NTE rates.

35. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-25(b).

This paragraph identifies that the government shall make available in OCONUS locations Logistics Support to include quarters, etc. Is this applicable for all OCONUS locations? Is this Logistics Support at zero cost to the contractor?

Answer: This special clause has been moved to the PWS (See PWS 5.3.4). The Government, “may make available within the overseas theaters, subject to the individual capability limitations of the bases therein and the approval of the respective Theater/Base Commanders, the following items of logistics support to contractor personnel: quarters (adequate government quarters may be considered a tent), messing (including commissary), communications, banking, postal service, laundry, dry cleaning, on-base recreation, vehicle registration, base service station, base exchange, club privileges, medical and dental facilities.”

The task order PWS will specify any OCONUS logistics support that will be provided by the government. Additionally, PWS paragraph 5.15 will specify any country specific entry requirements that would be required in order to gain access to government bases/facilities.

36. Reference Draft RFP Section L paragraph 5.13 Section 3.

Offerors are required to provide evidence that the proposed Travel/G&A Handling applied to travel will not result in “Double Billing”. Please explain what you mean by “Double Billing”?

Answer: This paragraph has been removed.

37. Reference Draft RFP Section M paragraph 2.4.1 which identifies that historical CFT actuals as fully burdened labor rates for the various job categories/skill levels, as well as the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) based on recently awarded CFT Task Orders shall be the basis of labor rate comparison for price evaluation purposes and the determination of reasonable pricing. It is important to note that the offeror is required to include every possible cost element in its initial proposal submission of their respective NTE rates. The pricing of current Task Orders is based on specific locations where every cost element is known plus the fact that the current Task Orders are competed under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) competition.

How can the government compare an NTE rate that includes every imaginable cost element against a Task Order rate that is awarded in an LPTA competition? If the government is going to compare the proposed NTE rate against Task Order rates, shouldn’t they take into consideration all Task Order proposals, not just Task Order awards?

Answer: The Government has revised Section M 2.4.1 to read, “Historical CFT actuals as fully burdened labor rates for the various job categories/skill levels, as well as the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) based on recently awarded CFT Task Orders and/or current CFT Basic Contract NTE rates shall be the basis of labor rate comparison for price evaluation purposes and the determination of reasonable pricing.” Ultimately, the Government reserves the right to analyze pricing proposals using any of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b) in order to determine price reasonableness.

As stated in RFP Section L, paragraph 6.2.1.1, “Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through proposal analysis techniques.” Evaluation of price reasonableness shall be in accordance with FAR 15.404.

38. Reference Draft RFP Section M paragraphs 5.12 and 5.13 which require offers to provide a copy of their respective Strike Plan or Contractor Labor Dispute Plan as an attachment to each Task Order proposal. Would the government consider having the offeror submit these plans as an initial CDRL under the base contract vice having to submit them for every Task Order proposal?

Answer: This has been considered and as a strike plan could be different depending on the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), this will continue to remain a task order requirement. Additionally, the government recognizes that the Contractor Labor Dispute Plan will most likely be the same for every Task Order once it is submitted for the basic contract.

39. Would a small business capable of meeting necessary requirements to gain CFT admission on its own enhance their ability to be for selected for admission by adding small or large subcontractors?

Answer: The Government will evaluate your proposal from the perspective of how you offer it. Regardless if you offer a proposal with or without subcontractors, that proposal needs to meet all evaluation factors accordingly.

40. What criteria and additional submission requirements must small businesses meet in order to gain approval to pursue opportunities in the full and open competition pool?

Answer: The Government is not going to walk through everything specifically a small business would need to provide in order to pursue opportunities in the full and open competition pool. For example, Section L, 4.2.3 has two different requirements, one for the Full and Open Pool and one for the Small Business Pool.

Ultimately, it is the Contractors responsibility to review all documents (i.e. RFP, Section L, Section M etc…) and build their proposal necessary to the competition pool they seek. If a Small Business provides a proposal for the Small Business Competition Pool and also wishes to compete for the Full and Open Pool, they must provide an entirely different proposal for the Full and Open Competition Pool. The Government wants to provide the offeror maximum flexibility to develop their two different proposals accordingly. An example of this flexibility might be reflected in pricing. A Small Business company will have the option to adjust their pricing as they see fit for the specific competition pool they are seeking.

41. Will a small business improve their likelihood of being selected to compete in the full and open competition pool by adding small or large subcontractors to their team?

Answer: The Government cannot provide a precise answer to this question without knowing all elements. The Government will evaluate your proposal IAW the Evaluation Criteria in Section M. Regardless if you offer a proposal with or without subcontractors, that proposal needs to meet all evaluation factors accordingly.

42. Will subcontractors be limited on the number of CFT contracts they can provide services for at any given time?

Answer: See Part I above.

43. Will the prime contractor be penalized for not using all subcontractors listed within their basic contract for Task Orders?

Answer: The prime contractor must meet the DoD subcontracting requirements set forth in clauses 52.219-9 and 52.219-16.

44. Will cross teaming be allowed (small-large, small-small)?

Answer: See Part I above.

45. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-3 Criteria for Issuing Task Orders/Fair Opportunity Notices .

Paragraph 11 states "Offerors shall consider the most current CFT NWD when developing FON proposals." Is the most current NWD incorporated into the basic contract or the most current NWD released from DOL?

Answer: DOL will annually release updated NWD’s. Those updated NWD’s are updated to the Basic Contracts via a modification. Attachment 4 to the draft RFP showed the most recent NWD WD 99-0316 (Rev. 37) along with the past three NWD’s (Rev. 31, 33, 35).

46. Reference Draft RFP Section H Special Clause H-12 Off-Ramping.

Please provide clarification on the overall process from the off-ramping notification through the off-ramp. Will there be an advance notice provided and/or an opportunity to cure the non-performance deficiency prior to off-ramping?

Answer: Yes, the Government will provide notice. If the potential off-ramp is related to performance issues, the Contractor will have had the opportunity to cure the non-performance.

47. Reference Draft RFP Section L paragraph 6.3.3 Government Offices 4 which states: “Provide the mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, and Government Paying Office. Also, provide the name and telephone and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)” Please provide clarification on what is requested regarding the cognizant Contract Administration Office and Government Paying Office as these are contract specific and contractors can have multiple.

Answer: This requirement has been removed.

48. Reference Draft RFP Section L paragraph 6.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract which states: “The offeror shall provide the following as attachments to the model contract.” There is a list of Documents, Exhibits or Attachments however they were not provided.

Please provide clarification on the attachments requested to be provided with the model contract. Are these attachments going to be part of the final RFP?

Answer: This section has been revised.

49. Reference Draft RFP Section L, paragraph 3.2.6(d); Section M paragraph 2.2.4(d); Attachments 18 & 21 Scenario PWS paragraphs 4.3.1 and 6.8; and CDRL A009.

Section L paragraph 3.2.6.d states: "Provide a Quality Control Plan and Local Operating Instructions (LOIs), if applicable, for each applicable sample scenario IAW CDRL A009 and A010 located within section J of the RFP (PWS 4.3.1 & 4.3.2.1). The QCP and LOI for each scenario should be consistent with the approach described in subfactor 3 Quality Management. In addition, the offeror must address circumstances which would dictate the generation of site specific LOIs."

Is it the Governments intent that we provide a Quality Control Plan in the scenario with the proposal submission for scenarios 3 and 4?

Answer: A QCP is required to be submitted for all 4 scenario responses in response to subfactor 4, scenario application of Section L. For the full & open competition, an offeror will be required to submit a QCP for scenario 1 and 2 and for the Small Business set aside, an offeror will be required to submit a QCP for scenario 3 and 4.

50. Reference Draft RFP Section L, paragraph 3.2.6(e); Section M, paragraph, 2.2.4(e); Attachments 18 & 21 Scenario PWS paragraphs 4.3.2.1, 4.4, and 6.11; and CDRL A011. Section L paragraph 3.2.6.e states "Provide written Flight Operations Procedures (FOPs) and Ground Operations Procedures (GOPs) for each applicable sample scenario IAW attachments located within section J of the RFP (PWS 4.4)." The PWS for both Scenario 3 and 4 require FOP/GOPs on Day 1 of the TO PoP.

Is it the Governments intent that we provide a FOP/GOP with the proposal submission for scenarios 3 and 4?

Answer: Section L&M has been updated to remove the requirement to provide full FOPs/GOPs for any of the scenarios. There will now be an additional element under Subfactor 1, Program Management, to provide a corporate level approach to aviation maintenance which will include the development of aviation maintenance procedures.

51. Reference Draft RFP Section L, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization (Col 2, ITO Paragraph Number).

The ITO paragraph numbers are not consistent with the Section L paragraph numbers 3.0 Technical - 6.0 Contract Documentation.

Will the Government update to ensure consistency?

Answer: Yes, this table has been updated.

52. Reference Draft RFP Section L, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization (Col 2, ITO Paragraph Number);

Section L, paragraphs 4.0. Factor 3 Past Performance and 4.3. Relevant Contracts; and Section L Attachment 1.1 Instructions to Offerors Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors.

Section L paragraph 4.3.1 provides information and direction only on the submission of the PPIS. Paragraph 4.3.2, Specific Content, requests a "narrative" explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. It also provides additional information about the specific content of the "narrative". Table 2.2, column 5 provides a page limit of 5 pages per contract.

Does the Government want a narrative for each contract reference in addition to the PPIS submission? Is the contractor also supposed to provide a "Hard Copy" of the PPIS in the Past Performance volume?

Answer: Yes, the final RFP will provide clear guidance regarding the Relevant Contract Narrative. The narrative will be completed in the PPIS tool. The PPIS tool is not available on FBO yet, but will be uploaded soon. The Offeror will provide the hard copies and the disk generated by the PPI tool with the proposal. The Government will upload the offeror’s past performance information into EZ Source.

53. Reference Draft RFP Section H, Special Clause H-23 Required Insurance, subparagraph (4) which states:

“Aircraft public and passenger liability: The contractor shall provide aircraft public and passenger liability insurance. Coverage shall be at least $200,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability, and $200,000 per occurrence for property damage. Coverage for passenger liability bodily injury shall be at least $200,000 multiplied by the number of seats or passengers, whichever is greater.”

Can the government please confirm that this coverage is necessary in support of this effort? If so, will it be required for the basic contract award or task order specific?

Answer: Special H provision titled “Required Insurance” has been removed.

54. Reference Draft RFP Scenarios.

During the Pre-Solicitation conference, the government mentioned that the Draft scenarios that were released to industry were as follows:

· Albany, GA

· USARPAC

· Small Business

· F-15 Aircraft Modification

· Corrosion Control Are companies only to reply to those scenarios that apply to the size standard they are proposing to?

Answer: Yes. If a KTR is proposing in the full & open competition pool, they should only respond to Albany and USARPAC. If a KTR is proposing in the Small Business set-aside, they should only respond to F-15 and corrosion control. If a KTR is proposing in both the full & open and the small business set-aside, they should respond to all 4 scenarios.

55. Can a prime on-board a sub-contractor or teammate after award of a prime contract?

Answer: See Part I above.

56. Reference Draft RFP Section L which identifies the proposal evaluation factors as Factor 1 Technical, Factor 3 Past Performance and Factor 4 Price.

Draft RFP Section M identifies the proposal evaluation factors as Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 3 Price.

If the section L numbering is in error, please clarify.

Answer: This is in error and will be corrected for the final RFP.

57. Reference Draft RFP Section L, paragraph 3.2.7 Subfactor 5 Small Business Subcontracting.

Please verify that small business primes are not required to provide this information as specified earlier in Section H, Special Clause H-17 Small Business Participation Plan.

Answer: Small Business Primes are not required to provide a Small Business subcontracting plan.

58. Reference Draft RFP Section L, paragraph 4.0 Factor 3-Past Performance, sub-paragraph 4.3 Relevant Contracts which requires each offeror to submit up to 5 PPIS forms for the prime contractor and up to 3 PPIS for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner.

For companies participating in a joint venture relationship, since the relationship is not considered prime/sub, what are the maximum required PPIS for each partner within the joint venture?

Answer: Under a joint venture you can submit the same amount for each company participating in the joint venture. However, the relevancy and recency should be considered as well as what efforts on contract the individual companies will be performing to.

59. Reference Draft RFP Attachment 4 CFT NWD 99-0316 Rev 31 dated 6/13/2011.

This is not the most current DoL Wage Determination.

Please verify that Rev 37 dated 11/21/13 is the most recent version to be used and provided an updated Attachment.

Answer: Attachment 4 to the draft RFP showed the most recent NWD WD 99-0316 (Rev. 37) along with the past three NWD’s (Rev. 31, 33, 35). Offerors must scroll down, Rev. 31 was the first one listed, they were listed in chronological order.

60. Reference Draft RFP Section L, paragraph 5.0 Factor 4 Price, sub-paragraph 5.3.2 Proposed Ceiling Rates which states, “proposed ceiling rates proposed for out-years are considered firm, fixed rates at the ceiling rate and shall not be exceeded to include any upward adjustment in future contract out-years except as allowed under provisions of the SCLA/CBA.” This paragraph further states that “revision of proposed firm, fixed pricing will not be accepted by the Government to cover any additional costs in future out-years. Additionally, the Government will not increase basic contract NTE rates based on CFT NWD increases (See H-Clause 27). Contractors need to account for potential NWD increases when developing their basic contract NTE rates.” The Draft RFP also includes FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) (SEP 2009), which allows for labor rates to be adjusted to reflect increases based on increases in the DoL WD rates. The language in this section appears conflicting.

Please verify whether bidders should include anticipated labor escalation in the WD labor rates for each contract period, or whether no escalation should be used, but assume that labor rates may be increased based on annual DoL WD rate increases as new WDs are added to the contract by modifications.

Answer: The Government will adjust basic contract NTE rates based on NWD revisions via a contract modification.

61. Reference Draft RFP Section B, CLIN 0010 which is identified as “Transition In” and CLIN 0011 as “Transition Out”. All subsequent CLIN X011 CLINs (2011-6011) for future contract years are identified as “Transition In.” Please clarify whether this is a typo, and that these CLINS should be listed as “Transition Out” instead.

Answer: This will be corrected on the final RFP.

62. Reference Draft RFP Attachments 16 Scenario 3 FON and 19 Scenario 4 FON which states in paragraph 19 FON Evaluation Criteria that “this is a full and open FON” but Attachments 18 Scenario 3 PWS and 21 Scenario 4 PWS indicate these are Small Business Scenarios. Please verify whether the evaluation criteria in the FON attachments should also specify Small Business.

Answer: This will be corrected on the final RFP.

63. Reference Draft RFP Attachment 2 Labor Category Rate Matrix.

The Matrix appears to have the following formula errors: Tab “Total Calculated Price Page”, Cell D58 for Total Calculated Price should read “sum(D8:D35)” instead of “sum(D8:D34)”; and Tabs “Basic Period – NTE Rates, Option Period I – NTE Rates, Option Period II – NTE Rates,” sum formulas in Column AB only includes CONUS totals instead of CONUS and OCONUS totals as indicated in the Column Heading.

Answer: This will be corrected on the final RFP.

64. Reference Draft RFP Section L, paragraphs 3.2.3 Subfactor 1: Program Management, 3.2.6 Subfactor 4: Scenario Application, and 2.2.3, Table 2.2 ITO; SF 1447; ITO and Proposal Submission. If a small business bids both the Full & Open (F&O) and Small Business (SB) Pool, are you requiring two complete proposal submissions, one for each pool? Or are you asking that a Small Business propose to all Subfactor (SF) requirements for both large and small businesses in SF 1 (Program Management) and SF 4 (Scenarios) to meet all the requirements? If you are allowing one proposal to meet both the F&O and SB, will the Government provide additional page counts to allow for addressing both pools in SF 1 and SF 4?

Answer: If a Small Business wants to compete in both competition pools then they are required to submit two entirely separate proposals.

The Government is aware that it is quite possible there will be repetitive information in these two proposals. However, by allowing two separate proposals it allows offerors the ability to build proposals specific to the pool they are competing in. For example, if a Small Business wants to provide different composite NTE rates for each competition pool, this approach allows that.

65. Reference Draft RFP Section B and Attachment 2 Labor Category Rate Matrix. CLINs X004 are stated as being FFP in nature. Payments for labor shall be in accordance with the rates established in Attachment 2, the Labor Category Cost Matrix. Are CLINs X004 true FFP or will they be billed using O&A rates?

Answer: The Government does not understand your reference to “true” FFP. The FFP work requested under this contract is just that, FFP. The Government has described its intentions for this Over and Above CLIN in special clause titled “OVERTIME, SURGE and OVER AND ABOVE PROCEDURES”. This CLIN covers additional work, not on contract but within scope of the task order, discovered while performing on other CLINS. Contractor will propose this additional amount; Government will negotiate a price for this additional effort on the Over and Above CLIN.” If this CLIN is required, the Government and the Contractor will negotiate a firm fixed price based for this unknown but within scope requirement.

66. Reference Draft RFP Section B; Section I Clause 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment; and Attachment 2, Labor Category Cost Matrix. CLINs X0005 are stated as being Cost Reimbursement - No Fee in nature. Also this CLIN shall be subject to the limitations and instructions… Clause 52.216-7, "Allowable Cost and Payment". Finally, this CLIN is subject to the service/material handling burden rates established in Attachment 2, the Labor Category Cost Matrix.

Given that FAR 52.216-7 permits allowable indirect costs to be allocated to this CLIN, how will the Government pay for the reimbursable indirect expenses in accordance with FAR 52.216-7 in light of the “Service/material handling burden rates”?

Answer: The Government is allowing Contractors the ability to recoup allowable indirect expenses under these CLIN’(s) as long as the run under their proposed ceiling burden rates.

67. Reference Draft RFP Section B. CLINs X0005, X0006, and X0008 state that Task Orders issued hereunder will be issued with the quantity of LO (Lot). Will the quantities be billed consistent with the issued quantities, i.e. as a Lot?

Answer: It is the Governments intent to utilize LO (Lot).

68. Reference Draft RFP Section B; Section I Clause 52.232-7 Payments Under Time and Materials and Labor Hour Contracts; and Attachment 2, Labor Category Cost Matrix. CLINs X0008 are stated as being T&M in nature. Also these CLINs shall be subject to the limitations and instructions… Clause Payments Under Time and Materials and Labor Hour Contracts (52.232-7). Finally, these CLINs are subject to the service/material handling burden rates established in Attachment 2, Labor Category Cost Matrix.

Given that FAR 52.232-7 permits allowable indirect costs to be allocated to these CLINs, how will the Government pay for the reimbursable indirect expenses in accordance with FAR 52.216-7 in light of the “Service/material handling burden rates”?

Answer: The Government is allowing Contractors the ability to recoup allowable indirect expenses under these CLIN’(s) as long as the run under their proposed ceiling burden rates.

69. Reference Draft RFP Section I Clause 52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000). Will the referenced clause only apply to true FFP CLINs (i.e. X001)?

Answer: The Government does not understand your reference to “true FFP” CLINs. This Clause may apply to any CLIN where the Government requires performance. Clause 52.211-11 states this CLIN may apply when the “Contractor fails to deliver the services within the time specified in this contract…”. The CFT liquidated damage clause is in no way punitive in nature. This clause simply establishes the amount of liquidated damages will be roughly equal to the amount of damages likely to fall upon the Government for Contractor failure to deliver requested services.

70. Reference Draft RFP Attachment 2 Labor Category Matrix workbook. Regarding the Basic Period NTE Rates Tab: Column AB states it is the Total Calculated Price (FFP ST & OT CONUS & OCONUS plus T&M ST & OT CONUS & OCONUS) however it only sums up the FFP and T&M values for the straight time and overtime CONUS values (Columns L, F, R, and X)…….. it completely leaves out OCONUS values. The same occurs in the Option Period I NTE Rates Tab and the Option Period II NTE Rates Tab. Will the Government correct this for the final RFP?

Answer: Yes, this will be revised for the final RFP.

71. Reference Draft RFP Section H, and Section I Clause 52.232-7. Several references in Section H require the Offerors to include many items in their NTE’s that are traditionally accounted for as “Other Direct Costs (ODCs)”.