OPS - Q_and A Responses June 2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Overhead Production Support (OPS) Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA822422R0006
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a draft request for proposal for Overhead Production Support Services. The solicitation seeks to award multiple indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts to provide personnel support services at Hill Air Force Base, AMARG in Arizona, and Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. The period of performance is expected to span seven years from June 2023 through June 2030. Pricing will be evaluated based on fully burdened labor rates submitted in a Total Evaluated Price matrix. Relevant past performance must have been performed within the last seven years and have a cumulative value of at least $2.5 million under an IDIQ contract. The incumbent contractors are Aerospace Engineering & Support, Allsource Global Management, Siertek, and Young's Engineering Services. Questions covered key aspects of the requirement such as labor categories, pricing structure, evaluation factors, and security clearance needs. Release of the full solicitation is planned for August 2022 with award anticipated in June 2023.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Basic PWS
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - June 2022 | ||||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Source Selection Team Assigned | ||
| to Answer Question | Government Response | |||||
| 1 | Attachment 01 OPS DRAFT PWS | Appendix D - Skill Categories/Description | Will Offerors receive a notional Skill Category - Hours - Location - CLIN analysis to propose to? | Contracting Team | Notional hours will not be provided. The TEP Matrix has been attached to Draft Solicitation in SAM.gov. |
52.212-1 Addendum
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - June 2022 | ||||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Source Selection Team Assigned | ||
| to Answer Question | Government Response | |||||
| 1 | Attachment 3 Page 6, Table 1: Proposal Organization | Past Performance Volume page limit clarification. | Will the Government please verify that the 4.2 Past Performance Summary is limited to 5 pages and that the past performance contract submission (PPI)(Attachment 5) is limited to 3 pages per past performance contract? | Past Performance Team | Table 1: Proposal Organization for Volume III Past Performance has been updated. | |
| 2 | Attachment 3 Page 7, 1.3.6 Cross-referencing and Page 8, 1.3.9 Electronic Offers | Attachment 3, 1.3.6 states: "Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity but must be hyperlinked IAW Section 2.1.3" and 1.3.9 states: "Also, any reference within the body of the proposal volume that refers the reader to another location within the referring document shall be hyperlinked in the manner described above." | Will the Government please verify that the inclusion of hyperlinks within the Table of Contents and as cross-referencing within a Volume will not cause an issue with the email submission in regards to security and anti-malware stripping out the hyperlinks. | Contracting Team | The Government isn't aware of any issues that will cause this. | |
| 3 | Page 6; 1 PROPOSAL FORMAT; 1.3.1 General | Table 1: Proposal Organization depicts the Total Page Limits for Volume III Past Performance at "3 pages per submission". While the Description states "Summary sheet - 5 page limit". | Can the government please clarify the discrepancy between the 3 and 5 page limitations. | Contracting Team | See response to question #1 | |
| 4 | Page 8; 2 VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: COST/PRICE; 2.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Section J Attachment 2 |
Page 14; 5 VOLUME IV, FACTOR 4: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION; 5.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices Page 14; 5 VOLUME IV, FACTOR 4: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION; 5.1.4 Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments Volume 1 section states "Offerors shall input into the TEP Matrix, located in the Section J Attachment 2, fully burdened rates (regular rate, overtime rate) for all labor categories and years." Attachment 2 is the Ops DD254.
| Volume IV sections states "The offeror shall not propose prices for each CLIN in Section B of the solicitation. All required rates shall be provided in TEP Matrix of Section J, Attachment 2." and "The offeror shall complete and provide the following attachments: A. Attachment 2 – TEP Matrix" | Can the government provide guidance on the TEP Matrix Location. | Contracting Team | Attachment 10 TEP matrix is posted. |
| 5 | Page 9; 2 VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: COST/PRICE; 2.3 Cost/Price Data |
Page 11; 3 VOLUME II, FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL; 3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience; Para B(i) The Volume I paragraph states "Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal."
| The Volume II Paragraph states "How the offeror will obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives based on the minimum proposed direct labor rates and fringe rates and considering current wage determinations. The direct labor rates and fringe rates shall be proposed within the Volume I Total Evaluated Price Matrix. If there are any discrepancies in price between Volumes, Volume I: Price shall take precedence." | This paragraph in Volume II is a little confusing. Volume I provides detailed restrictions and limitations on Pricing content, then Volume II contains a discussion on Pricing. Can the government please clarify the government expectations of Pricing detail in Volume II, Technical. | Contracting Team | The conflicting information in Vol II has been removed. | |||
| 6 | Page 11; 3 VOLUME II, FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL; 3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience; Para A. (i) | This Paragraph states "How the offeror will provide qualified employees (including backfilling as needed) in accordance with PWS 9.12.1 and 9.12.2 that meet the minimum experience, knowledge and training requirements as outlined in the paragraphs under sections 4.3, 4.4, and Appendix D of the PWS." | PWS 4.3 includes many corporate contract functions such as finance and billing. Does the government intend the entire scope of PWS paragraph 4.3 to be included in this requirement or just para 4.3.1 or should this reference be Table 4.3? | Technical Team | The Government expects to see information on how offerors will provide qualified employees and meet the requirements of sections and sub sections 4.3, 4.4 & Appendix D, but does not need to see information, for evaluation purposes, regarding Billing in subsection 4.3.2 | |
| 7 | Page 11; 3 VOLUME II, FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL; 3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience; Para B. (i) | This Paragraph states "The offeror’s examples shall demonstrate how the offeror hired, retained and backfilled employees, within the last 7 years with at least one example from within the last two years (from the solicitation date) as required in PWS paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 and subparagraphs, on similar efforts." | PWS 4.3 includes many corporate contract functions such as finance and billing. Does the government intend the entire scope of PWS paragraph 4.3 to be included in this requirement or just para 4.3.1 or should this reference be Table 4.3? | Technical Team | See answer to question #6. | |
| 8 | Page 13, 4 VOLUME III, FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL; 4.5 Relevant Contracts. | This paragraph states "When making relevancy determinations, the definitions in Table L.4 will be utilized." | Table 4.5 contains the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. We recommend the government update the table reference. | Past Performance Team | Table 4.5 has been replaced with Table 4.6 and references updated. | |
| 9 | Attachment 3 Page 6, Table 1: Proposal Organization | Past Performance Volume page limit clarification. | Will the Government please verify that the 4.2 Past Performance Summary is limited to 5 pages and that the past performance contract submission (PPI)(Attachment 5) is limited to 3 pages per past performance contract? | Past Performance Team | Table 1: Proposal Organization, Past Performance Volume page limit is updated to clarify page limits. | |
| 10 | Attachment 3 Page 7, 1.3.6 Cross-referencing and Page 8, 1.3.9 Electronic Offers | Attachment 3, 1.3.6 states: "Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity but must be hyperlinked IAW Section 2.1.3" and 1.3.9 states: "Also, any reference within the body of the proposal volume that refers the reader to another location within the referring document shall be hyperlinked in the manner described above." | Will the Government please verify that the inclusion of hyperlinks within the Table of Contents and as cross-referencing within a Volume will not cause an issue with the email submission in regards to security and anti-malware stripping out the hyperlinks. | Contracting Team | See response to question #2 |
52.212-2 Addendum
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - June 2022 | ||||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Source Selection Team Assigned | ||
| to Answer Question | Government Response | |||||
| 1 | Appendix A:Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 and Attachment 6 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline | These evaluation matrix's are similar. Attachment 6 is more clearly aligned with the 7 factors to be evaluated. vs. Appendix A which has 11 factors. | Should the factors in both Appendix A and Attachment 6 be addressed, or is Attachment 6 released at a later date an update superseding Appendix A? Please clarify which Matrix will be used for evaluation of PP. | Contracting Team | There are two separate evaluations occurring. Appendix A will evaluate elements for the technical criteria, whereas The Past Performance Relevancy Baseline will evaluate criteria for the past performance element. Updates have been made to both Appendix A and The Past Performance Relevancy Baseline. | |
| 2 | Page 5; 3 VOLUME I, FACTOR ONE: PRICE; 3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Section J Attachment 2 | Can the government please provide the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix. | Contracting Team | The TEP Matrix is posted. | ||
| 3 | Page 7; 4 VOLUME II, FACTOR TWO: TECHNICAL; 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience; Para A(i) | This Paragraph states "The offeror’s hiring and retention plan must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror will provide qualified employees (including backfilling as needed) in accordance with Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraphs 9.12.1 and 9.12.2 that meet the minimum experience, knowledge and training requirements as outline in paragraph under sections 4.3, 4.4, and Appendix D of the PWS." | PWS 4.3 includes many corporate contract functions such as finance and billing. Does the government intend the entire scope of PWS paragraph 4.3 to be included in this requirement or just para 4.3.1 or should this reference be Table 4.3? | Technical Team | The Government expects to see information on how offerors will provide qualified employees and meet the requirements of sections and sub sections 4.3, 4.4 & Appendix D, but does not need to see information, for evaluation purposes, regarding Billing in subsection 4.3.2 | |
| 4 | Page 8; 5 VOLUME III – FACTOR THREE: PAST PERFORMANCE; 5.2 Past Performance Evaluation Results | This paragraph states "The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy requirements in Section L, para L4.5 and Table L.4. | Table L.4 does not exists. Can the government please provide more guidance to Table L.4. | Past Performance Team | Section 5.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings is updated and references Table 5.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings. | |
| 5 | Page 10; APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 SUBFACTOR 1; Variety of Skill Sets/Labor Categories | The Acceptable Complexity for this Criteria requires the Offeror "Provided 10 or more skill sets/labor categories. | Recommend this be revised to "Offered 10 or more skill sets/labor categories." | Technical Team | Updated to state: "Offered 10 or more skill sets/labor categories." | |
| 6 | Appendix A:Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 and Attachment 6 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline | These evaluation matrix's are similar. Attachment 6 is more clearly aligned with the 7 factors to be evaluated. vs. Appendix A which has 11 factors. | Should the factors in both Appendix A and Attachment 6 be addressed, or is Attachment 6 released at a later date an update superseding Appendix A? Please clarify which Matrix will be used for evaluation of PP. | Contracting Team | See answer to question #1. |
TEP
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - June 2022 | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Source Selection Team Assigned | |
| to Answer Question | Government Response | ||||
| 1 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| 3 |
Solicitation (1449)
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - June 2022 | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Source Selection Team Assigned | |
| to Answer Question | Government Response | ||||
| 1 | Solicitation FA822422R0006 | Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs | |||
| (page 3 - 94 of 208) | Is it the Governments expectation that Labor 000x Series (6/23 - 6/29) and Task Order Labor 1001-50xx Series (individual 12 mo periods, starting with CLIN 1001 on 6/24 and CLIN 50xx ending 6/29) + two periods (6001 - 6 mos) and (7001 - 6 mos-1 year) all be priced, or is this section just an example of how contract and Task Order pricing will be set up after award? | Contracting Team | Pricing/rate information only needs to be filled in on the TEP Matrix. Rates included in the TEP Matrix will be used by the Government to calculate the pricing for all applicable years. | ||
| 2 | Solicitation FA822422R0006 | Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs | |||
| (page 3 - 94 of 208) | Should 000x CLIN series be the cumulative equal (possibly to include escalation of non WD labor category values) to the individually priced 12 or 6 month periods from 1001 - 7049 CLINs? | Contracting Team | See the Instructions Tab within the TEP Matrix | ||
| 3 | Solicitation FA822422R0006 | ||||
| and Attachments 07, 08 and 09 | Overall Contract Inspection/Acceptance Locations | ||||
| (page 97 of 208) | Solicitation documentation Implies that the majority of services will be provided at Hill AFB, AMARG, AZ and Randolph, TX. Will the Government be providing guidance or recommendations concerning an approximation (or Minimum Team Compliment) of labor intended specifically to these locations and to any other Geographically Separated United (GSUs) that may need a contingency of contractor support? | Contracting Team | The Minimum Team Compliment (MTC) information will be provided at the task order level. | ||
| 4 | Solicitation and | ||||
| Attachment 01 OPS Draft PWS | TO Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) | Solicitation indicates this opportunity is based upon a Firm Fixed Price, however Section 6.1.1 FOPR within the DRAFT PWS that "the contractor shall propose Fully Burdened Rates and (as applicable) Overtime Rates with each FOPR." and says that the Basic contract level rates will be used to evaluate price matrix for TO Base PoP. Can the Government elaborate on the process that will be used, and confirm which prices will be utilized within the establishment of FOPRs. | Contracting Team | Minimum and maximum rates will be established at the Basic contract level from the rates proposed on TEP Matrix. When FOPRs are issued, the government expects to see competitive rates within the Min/Max rates on the TEP Matrix for the applicable location and calendar year. | |
| 5 | Attachment 6 - | ||||
| Past Performance Relevancy Baseline Criteria | Relevancy Baseline Criteria | Will the Government be providing any additional detail regarding Past Performance Relevancy criteria? For example the "Awarded Contract Value" states (not just ceiling value); is the requirement to be relevant $10M delivered/invoiced on contract references? Will there be a "recency" element? Can the $10M be a cumulative of the contract references provided by Small Business Offerors? Multiple contracts of $10M or more may make it very difficult for most Small Businesses to compete - especially against Joint Ventures and ANCs, thus severely limiting intended competition. | Past Performance Team | Past Performance Relevancy criteria has been updated to remove "not just ceiling value" The total cumulative amount of task orders awarded under an IDIQ contract must be $2.5M or more. |
| 6 | Attachment 5 - | |||||
| Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet | Page formatting | PPI Sheet provides that "Page formatting shall be IAW Section L para L1.3. We are unable to find any item number L1.3 within the solicitation. Please advise. | Past Performance Team | The Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) has been updated. | ||
| 7 | Attachment 5 - | |||||
| Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet | Contract/Project Reference | Item #2 says that number of examples projects consecutively (i.e. Project 1, Project 2, 3…). How many contract/project references are allowed by Offerors? Based upon Item #7, it appears that Prime, Sub, Joint Venture and Other) references will be accepted - please clarify requirements. | Past Performance Team | The Past Performance Information Sheet has been updated. The FAR 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph 4.3 identifies that the offeror shall submit a minimum of two and a maximum of three Past Performance Information Sheets. | ||
| 8 | Attachment 5 - | |||||
| Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet | Contract/Project Reference | Please provide additional guidance regarding Item #11 - Example Project Attachments. Is there a page limitation and how would you like this data presented? Are snapshots of the data acceptable? Will the Government accept narrative descriptions of each project and if so what will the guidance/limitations be regarding Past Performance? | Past Performance Team | The Past Performance Information Sheet has been updated to outline the information and narratives required. | ||
| 9 | Solicitation FA822422R0006 | Factor 2: Technical | Evaluation Factors (page 207 or 208) indicate that Factor 2 represents Technical, however following that sentence: [Contracting Officer shall insert the significant evaluation factors, such as (i) technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement; (ii) price; (iii) past performance... What is the criteria to present Technical and what is the evaluation of that data? | Contracting Team | Clause 52.212-2 has been updated to reference the FAR 52.212-2 Addendum for the evaluation criteria. | |
| 10 | DD254 | Facility Clearance | Is FCL required upon proposal submission? | OBC Team | After contract award, facility clearance (FCL) is worked with a security SME and is not required at proposal submission. | |
| 11 | DD254 | Facility Clearance | Will USG consider sponsoring Secret FCL for an otherwise winning offeror? | OBC Team | In accordance with PWS paragraphs 4.3.1.2 and 9.1.1.3 the contractor is responsible for ensuring all personnel possess required security clearances. And any costs associated with obtaining the Secret Security Clearance is the responsibility of the contractor. | |
| 12 | DD254 | Facility Clearance | Would a Prime be able to use their subcontractor's FCL? | OBC Team | No | |
| 13 | Incumbent | Who is the incumbent, winning bid, and contract number? | Contracting Team | The following are the current contracts and incumbents, however the winning bid isn't public information. The ceiling of the cumulative contracts for OPS is $95M. |
Contract: FA822417D0005 Incumbent: AEROSPACE ENGINEERING & SUPPORT, INC.
Contract: FA822417D0006 Incumbent: ALLSOURCE GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC.
Contract: FA822417D0007 Incumbent: SIERTEK, LTD.
Contract: FA822417D0008 Incumbent: YOUNG'S ENGINEERING SERVICES INC 14 Attachment 5, Q8 and Attachment 3 Page 13, 4.5 Relevant Contracts Attachment 5, Q8 states: “completion date must be before OPS RFP proposal due date.” Attachment 3, 4.5 Relevant Contracts states: “Recency will be determined based on contract references reflecting past and present performance over the past five years from the date of proposal submission.” Will the Government please verify that past performances are considered relevant if they were active within the last 5 years from the date the OPS RFP is due? Past Performance Team Past Performance Recency has been clarified in the FAR 52.212-2 Addendum, para 5.3.
"To be recent, performance must be ongoing or performed within the last seven years from the date of solicitation release."
| 15 | Attachment 5 and Attachment 3 Page 12, 4.3 Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 5) | Attachment 5 states: "Page formatting shall be IAW Section L para L1.3." | Will the Government please verify that offerors should submit Volume III (Past Performances) as one document with the 11 questions from Attachment 5 for each past performance contract formatted per Attachment 3, Section 1.3 instructions? | Past Performance Team | The Past Performance attachments have been updated as well as the FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 Addendums. The Offeror is required to submit a minimum of two and a maximum of three Past Performance Information Sheets. The offeror is required to send Past Performance Questionnaires to the points of contact identified in the Past Performance Information Sheets. The Past Performance Memorandum may be used when sending the Past Performance Questionnaires to the points of contact. Subcontractor Consent Letters and Client Authorization Letters are also required as applicable. |
| 16 | Can the government provide an estimated timeline for this procurement? | Contracting Team | Tentatively the release of the solicitation is planned for August 2022 with award to be made at the end of June 2023. These dates are subject to change. | ||
| 17 | Attachment 5, Q8 and Attachment 3 Page 13, 4.5 Relevant Contracts | Attachment 5, Q8 states: “completion date must be before OPS RFP proposal due date.” Attachment 3, 4.5 Relevant Contracts states: “Recency will be determined based on contract references reflecting past and present performance over the past five years from the date of proposal submission.” | Will the Government please verify that past performances are considered relevant if they were active within the last 5 years from the date the OPS RFP is due? | Past Performance Team | See answer to question #14. |
| 18 | Attachment 5 and Attachment 3 Page 12, 4.3 Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 5) | Attachment 5 states: "Page formatting shall be IAW Section L para L1.3." | Will the Government please verify that offerors should submit Volume III (Past Performances) as one document with the 11 questions from Attachment 5 for each past performance contract formatted per Attachment 3, Section 1.3 instructions? | Past Performance Team | See answer to question #15 |
| 19 | Section “Deliveries or Performance” of the Solicitation, Line Items 6001-6049. Pages 126-131. | The 6001-6049 Series CLINs have a POP outlined as 29 Jun 2028 to 28 Dec 2029. However, per this same section table, the QTY is outlined as 6 months | Will the Government please verify the correct POP for the 6001-6049 series of CLINs? | Contracting Team | The POP will be a year and a half, which includes a six month ordering period in which orders can be issued, and one year for task order performance. |
| 20 | Section “Deliveries or Performance” of the Solicitation, Line Items 7001-7049. Pages 131-136. | The 7001-7049 Series CLINs have a POP outlined as 29 Dec 2028 to 28 Dec 2029. However, per this same section table, the QTY is outlined as 6 months | Will the Government please verify the correct POP for the 7001-7049 series of CLINs? | Contracting Team | The POP will be a year and a half. These CLINs may be added to a Task Order as option CLINs in conjunction with the use of CLINs 6001-6049. CLINs 7001-7049 may add up to an additional six months of performance to a Task Order issued using CLINs 6001-6049. |
Sheet1
| Contracting Team |
| Technical Team |
| Past Performance Team |
| Pricing Team |
| OBC Team |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .