3PEP RFP Questions and Responses - Final.pdf

3 PEP QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

FROM THE DRAFT RFPs

The following questions and answers are provided for informational purposes only and intended to assist in clarifying issues raised by potential offerors regarding the draft solicitation prior to release of the official solicitation. Please note, the official solicitation will set forth and establish the actual terms and conditions of this acquisition. Any discrepancy between the official solicitation and these questions and answers must be resolved based upon the parameters of the official solicitation. It is the intent of the

Government to resolve the majority, if not all, of the issues raised by these questions and answers within the context of the official solicitation; however, additional questions may be raised after its release if necessary.

1. In Section L, “II Volume Organization,” in the table of volumes on page 2, there is a double-asterisk following “Price Proposal” but there is no corresponding footnote. Is a footnote missing?

In reference to L-900, section II Volume Organization, the double asterisk in this Section has been changed to a single asterisk which corresponds to the info in the Section footnote.

There is not a footnote missing. NOTE: The number of electronic copies for Volume III is changed from 2 to 1.

2. In Section M, “II. Proposal Evaluation,” “C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor,” “2.e Confidence Assessments” (page 11), there is reference to “offeror’s Volume II.a”. What is “Volume II.a”? The reference to Volume II.a in Section M, “II. Proposal Evaluation,” “C.

Volume II, Past Performance Factor,” “2.e Confidence Assessments” is corrected and now reads “Volume II”.

3. In Section M, “II. Proposal Evaluation,” “C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor,” “2.e

Confidence Assessments” (page 11), there is reference to the offeror’s “three contracts” used for Past Performance. Elsewhere in Sections L & M, offerors are instructed to use four past efforts. Are we correct in assuming this reference to “three contracts” should read “four contracts?” Four contracts will be considered for Past Performance Assessment. The reference to three contracts has been changed to “four (4) contracts” in Section M, “II.

Proposal Evaluation,” “C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor,” “2.e Confidence Assessments”.

4. In our review of the current pricing spreadsheet there appears to be a number of items that are obsolete. How will the Government handle items that are obsolete? Will they be removed prior to evaluation? In accordance with the Statement of Work, paragraph 5.5, Item Obsolescence/Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS), there is potential for some items under this contract to be obsolete. So as part of the supply chain management function, the 3PEP provider shall maintain market awareness to determine if there are replacement items available. When the 3PEP provider becomes aware of existing or impending obsolescence or diminishing manufacturing issues, the 3PEP provider shall notify the PCO. The technical approach recommendation and supporting documentation or rationale for resolving obsolescence or diminishing manufacturing issues shall be documented on the Technical Support Request (TSR) Form, per Statement of Work (SOW) Appendix B and Attachment A, Section I. They can also submit a TSR for an alternate item for evaluation.

a. If obsolete items are not removed, how will the Government evaluate the requirement that offerors price 70% of the items? Will that 70% be inclusive of or exclusive of the obsolete items? Section M states “Any items with a Technical Support Request (TSR) submission will not be included in the subset.”

5. Is the Government able to provide drawings for those obsolete items? The Government’s ability to provide drawings for obsolete items is determined on a case by case basis. The Government may/may not possess the drawings. If the item drawing is not available, a TSR should be generated.

6. What version of the non-manufacturer rule will be included, so small businesses can provide products from a large business when a large business is the best or only source? We are only allowed to use the current version of the clauses and Deviations embedded into Federal Acquisition Regulation non-manufacturing rule, as of today the version in use is FAR 52.219-33 Non-manufacturing rule Deviation 2020-O0008 as well as FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting Deviation 2020-O0008.

7. Would the government consider permitting commercial items from the FSCs listed on p. 20 of the

SOW to be purchased through 3PEP? In the SOW, Appendix C – Scope, the third paragraph in Section A, states “These items are limited to the 97 Federal Stock Classes identified in Appendix D.” Therefore, only the FSCs listed on pages 20 – 21 can be purchased through

3PEP.

8. Does the government plan to charge usage fees for the FMS, Navy, Army customers who use the contract? If yes, what is the percentage? The government does not plan to charge usage fees.

9. Is there a minimum response rate? If so, what is that percentage? In accordance with M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award, paragraph II, section D, sub-section C, para c, the minimum response rate is 70%.

10. What is the “on-time” delivery rate for the current version of this contract? The requirement for the current effort is 100 percent on time delivery.

11. Of the 2,900 NSNs referenced, how many individual NSNs on average were purchased annually on the current contract? Please refer to the table below for the average annual award on the current 3PL contracts:

FY 8A

NSNs

SB

NSNs

Grand Total

2015 193 429 622 2016 133 357 490 2017 156 298 454 2018 196 492 688 2019 107 328 435 2020 76 157 233 Avg 143 344 487

12. What is the historical average order for the existing contract, by revenue and quantity? The

FY20 historical average revenue by Order is $151K (range of $348 to $997K) with an average quantity of 14 each.

13. Ordering process: How does it work in general? Is every delivery order competed under fair opportunity? What is the average time a DO RFQ is open? In reference to SOW paragraphs 5.13.1, 5.13.2 and 5.13.3, there are up to 3 pricing actions each year during contract performance. The initial pricing action, also referred to as Price List 1, and subsequent smaller requirements lists will be sent out to the 3PEP provider for pricing, referred to as Price List 2, Price List 3, etc. As referenced in the SOW Attachment A, Section I, paragraph A, NSNs are competed under fair opportunity requirements of FAR Part 16.505(b)(1). The NSNs that each contractor wins as a result of this competition, will be added to their contract thru modifications. These NSNs will be valid thru the end of the then current calendar year. As a requirement generates for each NSN, a Delivery Order will be issued to the successful contractor. There will not be Delivery Order RFQs.

14. Consolidation: Is there a plan to consolidate the lower-cost NSNs to maximize value for 3PEP contractors and the government? There is not a plan to consolidate the lower-cost NSNs to maximize value for 3PEP contractors and the government.

15. In Section M, II.C.2.c, Critical Joint Venture Members, it states that present/past performance will not include the work of any subcontractor(s) even if they perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. This section heading will be changed to “Subcontractors”.

a. Please confirm this applies only to subcontractors to the joint venture and not the joint venture members themselves. For example, a joint venture with no past performance could use the past performance of each joint venture member. Correct, it is only applicable to subcontractors. They can rely on the individual joint venture members past performance submittals.

b. Please explain why major subcontractor performance will not be evaluated. The Government was not able to clearly identify a definition of what constitutes a critical subcontractor for purposes of this effort to ensure a value-added evaluation.

The Solicitation limits offerors to providing no more than four (4) most recent and relevant contracts for the past performance section and if any are ordering type contractual vehicles then offerors must submit “individual order (or series of orders) under the basic ordering contract.”

16. Is there any limit to the number of orders, or series of orders, an offeror may submit in an effort to achieve a Very Relevant determination? Section L-900, paragraph II, section C, sub-sections 3 and 3.1 discusses the orders/series of orders. When submitting orders as efforts, there typically isn’t a limit on the number of orders an offeror can submit. The only limit is the number of total efforts, which is limited to 4. In other words, one “effort” can constitute an unlimited number of orders under a single ordering-type contract.

17. Would orders for the same, or similar, FSCs, as identified in the 3PEP SOW issued under a GSA MAS SCH Contract be considered relevant? We cannot answer this at this time without a full submittal of the information for evaluation, as other information goes into the relevance determination other than just the FSCs.

18. Do the “over $40 average” orders have to fall under the four contracts provided in our past performance submittal in PPI? Yes, M-900, C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor, paragraph 4 Relevancy Definitions states “A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts”. For example, to be considered Very Relevant, each contract at a minimum shall demonstrate each factor listed, including minimum per unit cost.

19. p. 8 SOW states the Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. Is cost in this context, the contractor’s cost of the product or the price to the customer? It is related to being within cost and schedule as agreed to with the customer via their contract/order.

20. Please clarify how the Government will establish a total evaluated price that includes both the CLINS and the product pricing included in Attachment 7? M-900, D. Price Factor, paragraph C states the total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated for award purposes only and will be calculated by using the average of FOB Destination and FOB Origin unit prices entered in Attachment 7. Offerors will not submit pricing for individual CLINs at this time.

21. There are product duplicates on Attachment 7. Will the Government be eliminating duplicate lines? The duplicate item, ELIN 2329, will be removed from the Attachment and a replacement added, ELIN: 3498, NSN: 5975-01-433-9999KV.

22. The Government asks for 2 electronic copies of the price proposal on p. 1 of Section L. Is there a separate submittal that requires a second copy of the price information? The final RFPs will state 1 electronic copy in L-900, Proposal Requirements.

23. P. 1 Section L states that the proposals will be submitted via DoD SAFE but also indicates that encrypted emails will be used for source selection information transmission. Please clarify the requirements for communicating with the Government? Submission is via SAFE and other communication is via encrypted email? As per L-900 Para. I, Section A, all proposals will be sent via DoD SAFE, and L-900 Para. I, Section B states email may be used to transmit any other exchanges, only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email.

24. Please clarify - What will be the Governments' minimum and maximum quantity for purchase less than 50k? The minimum and maximum quantity depends on the Governments yearly requirements.

25. Is the Government intent for the requirement to specifically utilize only small business manufacturers? Paragraph II (Small Business Vendor Participation) in attachment A to the Statement of Work states: Although the ID/IQ contracts are a result of small business set-asides based on competition, it is imperative each 3PEP provider ensure that the items, as specified by the Government requirements, are obtained from small business sources when practicable.

26. Paragraph 5.14 Surge/Micap Requirement: To address any surge requirement, the contractors should price labor associated costs. Is this the Government’s expectation? This is not the Government’s expectation. As stated in the SOW para. 5.14, “For any applicable SURGE/MICAP requirement, the 3PEP provider shall have right of first refusal. The number of items to be managed and priced will determine how much time the 3PEP provider shall be allowed to return prices and delivery schedules to the PCO.”

27. Please clarify, will the Government require third party vendor sources utilized to be permanent go-to suppliers or is there the option to change vendor sources? The 3PEP SOW Attachment A, section I, para. 1 states “The 3PEP vendor orders items from identified source(s) using JEDMICS or other authorized government sources to determine if the item is currently in the USAF inventory. If all sources are unavailable, the 3PEP vendor may submit a TSR for an alternate source (if identified), which must be approved by the engineering authority”.

28. Paragraph E: Government has stated that the 3PEP provider may receive a positive CPAR for satisfactory work. Can the Government define what will cause provider to obtain a positive CPAR for satisfactory work? Government has stated if performance objectives are not met that each 3PEP provider will receive a negative CPAR. Why is the Government not stating that the 3PEP shall or will receive a positive CPAR in instance of satisfactory work? The 3PEP SOW Attachment A, Section IV, para D, sentence three “In Addition, each 3PEP provider will receive a negative CPAR if performance objectives are not met” is changed to read “In Addition, each 3PEP provider may receive a negative CPAR if performance objectives are not met”.

29. Please confirm that Government Section M requirement does not provide a technical factor for evaluation under Volume I and only that the completed RFP submission requirements be addressed? Volume I is for Completed RFP submission requirements only, as stated in M- 900 para. II, section B.

30. Section M-900 of the RFP states that the 3PEP Program intends to award up to three contracts to 8(a) Program participants and also identify up to three contractors who will comprise the Program Reserves. The RFP states that the “Program Reserves will consist of up to three contractors that provide the best value to the Government in accordance with the Evaluation Basis for Award provision below.”

a. There is no explanation of the Evaluation Basis of Award “below.” Will the Government select contractors for the Program Reserve based on the best value criteria stated in the above Paragraph A, Source Selection Methodology (i.e., “Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price, although price remains an important consideration in the evaluation.”)? Yes, as stated in M-900, Section I, Paragraph A. This change will be included in the final RFPs.

b. Will the Government develop a ranking among all 8(a) offerors and select the highest-ranked proposal(s) (on the basis of best value) for award of up to three 8(a) pool contracts, and then select the next highest ranked proposal(s) for inclusion in the Program Reserve? IAW M-900, C.

Volume II, Past Performance Factor, paragraph 5 the program awardees, as well as the program reserves, will be chosen based on the results of the evaluations.

c. If a ranking will not be developed, how will the Government determine which offerors will receive awards and which will be selected for the Program Reserve? The program awardees, as well as the program reserves, will be chosen based on the results of the evaluations and the integrated independent determination of the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

31. Section M-900 of the RFP states that “[i]f the PCO determines at any point within the contract period of performance that it is in the best interest to increase the current pool of 3PEP Program participants, the Government will offer contract(s) to the Program Reserves until the 3PEP Program participant pool is at a level deemed acceptable by the PCO.” The RFP also states that the “PCO has the sole and full discretion in determining the number of Program Reserve contracts to award based upon the need for increased competition, excessive workloads, poor performance, reduction in participant pool, and/or other bases deemed appropriate by the PCO.”

a. Please confirm that any new 3PEP awards in the 8(a) pool will be made only from the Program Reserve. Yes, additions to the 3PEP Participant Pool will be made from the Program Reserve Pool. If no vendors are available in the Program Reserve Pool, a new competition may occur to add new vendors, as described in M-900, paragraph I, section A, Notice to Offerors.

b. Please explain how the Government will make an award decision among the Program Reserve participants and identify the factors an criteria for selection. For example, will the Government utilize a ranking that was developed at the time of the initial evaluation, or will the Government conduct a new evaluation? The program reserves will be selected based on the results of the evaluations.

c. Please confirm that the total number of 3PEP awards in the 8(a) pool will not exceed three. The 3PEP Program intends to initially award up to three contracts to 8(a) Program participants.

However, as stated in M-900, I.A. “If the PCO determines at any point within the contract period of performance that it is in the best interest to increase the current pool of 3PEP Program participants, the Government will offer contract(s) to the Program Reserves until the 3PEP Program participant pool is at a level deemed acceptable by the PCO.”

d. Please confirm that the only way the Government can increase the number of contractors in the Program Reserve after the initial selection is through issuance of a new competitive solicitation.

As stated in M-900, I.A “the Government reserves the right to add new contractors into the 3PEP Program Reserve pool through a new competition.” A new competition may occur to add new vendors to the reserve pool.

32. Section M-900 of the RFP states, “Also, if deemed appropriate by the PCO, 3PEP providers in the 8(a) pool that graduate from the 8(a) program during performance of this contract may be afforded the opportunity to be included into the Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) Program Reserve pool.”

a. Small Business Administration (SBA) regulation states, “Generally, a concern that is an eligible 8(a) Participant at the time of initial offer or response, which includes price, for an 8(a) contract, including a Multiple Award Contract, is considered an 8(a) Participant throughout the life of that contract.” 13 C.F.R. § 124.521(e)(1). SBA regulation also states that for long-term multiple award contracts, “[w]here a concern fails to qualify as an eligible 8(a) Participant during the 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the contract, the option shall not be exercised.”

13 C.F.R. § 124.521(e)(2). Please confirm that if a 3PEP provider that receives an award in the 8(a) pool, it will remain eligible for options in the 8(a) pool consistent with 13 C.F.R. § 124.521(e). Since the entire contract will not be priced upfront, this regulation is not applicable because the pricing is done on a yearly basis.

b. If an 8(a) pool contractor is unable to recertify as 8(a) after the fifth year of the contract due to program graduation, but otherwise remains small, will the contractor be eligible to compete for orders under the small business pool? If not, why? IAW M-900, paragraph I, Notice to Offerors if deemed appropriate by the PCO, 3PEP providers in the 8(a) pool that graduate from the 8(a) program during performance of this contract will be afforded the opportunity to be included into the Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) Program Reserve pool.

33. Section M-900 of the RFP sates, “If Program Reserves are no longer viable (i.e. graduate from program, etc.), the Government reserves the right to add new contractors into the 3PEP Program Reserve pool through a new competition.” However, SBA regulation states that “a concern that is an eligible 8(a) Participant at the time of initial offer or response, which includes price, for an 8(a) contract, including a Multiple Award Contract, is considered an 8(a) Participant throughout the life of that contract.” 13 C.F.R. § 124.521(e)(1). In addition, a “concern that has completed its term of participation in the 8(a) BD program may be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract if it was a Participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of offers contained in the contract solicitation.” 13 C.F.R. § 124.507(d).

a. Please confirm that if the Government selects a contractor from the Program Reserve for award of an 8(a) pool contract, that the award will be based on the offeror’s initial offer including price in response to the RFP. The Program Reserves will be selected and identified at the time of original award based on the same criteria used during this solicitation as outlined in the RFP. The highest rated offeror(s) who are not selected for award may be identified as program reserves in order of their ratings. For example, if three contracts are awarded to the three highest rated offerors, then the fourth highest rated offeror will be identified as Program Reserve #1 and the fifth highest rated offeror with be identified as Program Reserve #2. If necessary, the PCO will determine how many Program Reserves will be added to the 3PEP program, offering that opportunity to the Program Reserves in order of their Program Reserve number. The prices submitted by the Program Reserves for the initial competition will not automatically be applied to the new contracts, but rather the Program Reserves will then be allowed to provide updated pricing and compete for orders based on the most current price list under the 3PEP program.

b. Since award from the Program Reserve is based on the offeror’s initial offer including price, 8(a) program graduation does not make the offeror “no longer viable.” Please correct the RFP so that it is consistent with SBA regulation. The last sentence in M-900, Notice to Offerors, Phase I is hereby changed to “If Program Reserves are no longer able to participate, the Government reserves the right to add new contractors into the 3PEP Program Reserve pool through a new competition.”

34. Is there an extension being issued? If you are referring to the draft RFP there will not be an extension issued at this time.

35. Do you know when the answers will be posted? The answers will be posted prior to the Final Solicitation. Please continue to watch Beta.Sam.gov for the final RFP.

36. I am inquiring regarding the 3PEP small business set aside, FA851719R0012, is there an updated release date for this, we look forward to competing and believe our company has much to offer this project. NOTE: The 3PEP small business set aside solicitation number has changed to FA8517-21-R-0002, while the 8(a) solicitation number changed to FA8517-21-R-0001.

Please continue to watch Beta.Sam.gov for the final RFP.