20Feb08.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP FA8530-08-R-21758

20 Feb 08

Question: Reference 1 February 08 Q&A Answer for Wage Determinations. Your answer stated that “Offerors must identify to the Government which labor categories it has proposed as being covered by the SCA and which are not.”

Since the SCA may or may not be applicable to specific labor categories depending on the job to be performed on the D/TO, how do we identify SCA applicability without some sample Task Orders to identify applicability? Reference, PWS for C-130 applicability: We do not believe that the SCA clause applies to this type of work since the work being performed is "remanufacturing" under FAR 22.1003-6 and is subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, rather than to the Service Contracting act.

Work such as that required for C-130 work does not comply with the SCA requirements due to exemption as "manufacturing or remanufacturing".

Contracts for maintenance/modification of C-130 aircraft are typically issued under the provisions of the "Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act" in lieu of the Service Contract Act. The rationale for that conclusion is that the level of aircraft overhaul services performed at the contractor depot facility is so extensive as to constitute "manufacturing". As such, those services are labeled "remanufacturing" and are subject to the Walsh-Healey Act as identified in FAR 22.1003-6.

We recommend issuance of a sample D/TO to determine which labor categories would be SCA covered in specific circumstances.

Answer: As stated in Questions and Answers dated 15 Feb 08 and RFP Amendment 0006, offerors will be required to identify SCA-covered labor categories in their proposals at the D/TO level and not at the basic contract level. No sample task will be issued.

Question: RFP Reference: B-2(**) Special Contract Requirements, AI 52.7 Contract Delivery Requirements; AI 52.8 Mandatory Shipping Instructions – Iraq; AI 26.4 Reporting Contractor Compliance with Support of Iraq Socioeconomic Program; AI 25.3 Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Per the above references, the contractor is asked to comply with certain requirements for performance in IRAQ and other locations, but there seems to be no specific language in the solicitation that requires the US military to provide for the physical security of contactor personnel in Iraq or any other hostile OCONUS locations. We would expect the same level of security as that found in other contracts for efforts performed in these locations. Is it the Government’s expectation to provide for contractor personnel security or will contractors be expected to provide their own security and charge it back to the contract?

We recommend the following DFARS clauses in the solicitation and each D/TO for performance in Iraq or any other hostile ONCONUS location:

252.225-7043 Antiterrorism/Force Protection for Defense Contractors Outside the United States as prescribed in 225.7403-2.

252.225-7040 Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed outside the United States, as prescribed in 225.7402-4(a).

We also recommend inclusion of the following in the solicitation and each D/TO for performance in Iraq or any other hostile ONCONUS location:

The following paragraphs address the deployment of contractor personnel into the theater of operations in support of a contingency:

The Government may direct the contractor to perform in support of a contingency or exercise, as provided by law or defined by the applicable Service Component Command. Services may be performed in the identified area of operations, also known as theater of operations, or in support of the contingency or exercise. In the event contractor employees are deployed or hired into the area of operations in support of a contingency or exercise, the following items and conditions will apply unless otherwise noted:

As required by the operational situation, the Government will relocate contractor personnel (who are citizens of the United States, alien residents in the United States or third country nationals, not resident in the host nation) to a safe area or evacuate them from the area of operations. The U.S. State Department has responsibility for evacuation of non-essential personnel.

While performing duties in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, the Service will provide force protection to contractor employees commensurate with that given to Service/Agency (e.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)) civilians in the operations area.

The contractor shall be available to work on-call to perform mission essential tasks as directed by the contracting officer. The contracting officer, or his/her designated representative, will identify the parameters of on-call duty. The contractor shall be available to work extended hours to perform mission essential tasks as directed by the contracting officer. The contracting officer may negotiate an equitable adjustment to the contract consistent with pre-award cost negotiations concerning extended hours, surges, and overtime requirements.

If required, the Government shall provide to the contractor all military unique organizational clothing and individual equipment. (Types of organizational clothing and individual equipment may include Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical defensive equipment.) Upon receipt of organizational clothing and individual equipment, the contractor shall assume responsibility and accountability for these items. The contractor or contractor employee shall sign for all issued organizational clothing and individual equipment, thus, acknowledging receipt and acceptance of responsibility for the proper maintenance and accountability of issued organizational clothing and individual equipment. The contractor shall ensure that all issued organizational clothing and individual equipment is returned to the government. Upon return of organizational clothing and individual equipment to the Government, the contractor shall be responsible for requesting, maintaining, and providing to the contracting officer documentation demonstrating the return of issued organizational clothing and individual equipment to Government control. The contracting officer will require the contractor to reimburse the Government for organizational clothing and individual equipment lost or damaged due to contractor negligence.

The U.S. Government (USG) is responsible for providing information on all requirements necessary for deployment.

The contracting officer shall identify to the contractor all required mission training and the location of the required training. The contractor shall ensure that all deploying employees receive all required mission training and successfully complete the training.

The contracting officer shall inform the contractor of all Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) equipment and Chemical Defensive Equipment (CDE) training requirements and standards. The Government shall provide the contractor employees with CDE familiarization training for the performance of mission essential tasks in designated high threat countries. This training will be commensurate with the training provided to Department of Defense civilian employees.

When applicable or IAW with a standing contract, the Government may provide to contractor employees deployed in a theater of operations emergency medical and dental care commensurate with the care provided to Department of Defense civilian deployed in the theater of operations.

Whether contractor personnel will be permitted to carry a Government furnished weapon for self-defense purposes in the Area of Operations (AO) is at the discretion of the Theater Commander. However, contractor personnel will not possess personally owned firearms in the area of operations. The Government may choose to issue military specification, personal weapons and ammunition (M9 Pistols) for self-defense to the contractor employees. Acceptance of weapons by contractor employees is at the discretion of the contractor and the contractor employees. When accepted, the contractor employee is responsible for using the weapon in accordance with the applicable rules governing the use of force. The contractor employee must be aware that they may incur civil and criminal liability, both under host nation law or U.S. criminal and civil law, for improper or illegal use of the weapons. Also when accepted, only military issued ammunition may be used in the weapon. The Theater Commander is responsible to ensure that armed contractors receive training in the rules of engagement, the rule governing the use of force, and the law of war. Upon redeployment or notification by the Government, the contractor shall ensure that all Government issued weapons and ammunition are returned to Government control.

The contracting officer will determine and stipulate the allowability and allocability of payment for entry/exit duties on personal items in possession of contractor employees per U.S. Customs Service rates and restrictions. Contractors are required to register all personnel with the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

The contractor is responsible for obtaining all passports, visas, or other documents necessary to enter and/or exit any area(s) identified by the contracting officer for contractor employees. All contractor employees shall be subject to the customs processing procedures, laws, agreements and duties of the country in which they are working. The contracting officer will determine and stipulate the allowability and allocability of payment for entry/exit duties on personal items in possession of contractor employees.

The Government shall provide to contractor employees deployed in the theater of operations the equivalent field living conditions, subsistence, emergency medical and dental care, sanitary facilities, mail delivery, laundry service, and other available support afforded to Government employees and military personnel in the theater of operations, unless otherwise specified in the contract.

Answer: The RFP already contains DFARS 252.225-7043 and 252.225-7040. All required clauses for performance in Iraq are included in the RFP, with additional required language in the PWS. The AI clauses in the RFP cannot be modified or deleted. The AI clauses in the RFP and the AI language in the PWS address the concerns raised in this question, with no need for additional clauses or language.

Question: Reference Government Q&A dated 11 Feb 2008, within the Government’s answer to the first question the following was stated:

While it is entirely up to each Offeror to build its team in the manner it believes best responds to the requirements set forth in the RFP, one reason the Government has implemented the rate limitation is to counter the ability of an Offeror to “buy in” by proposing low rates for the critical subcontractors who make up its team at the time of award, and then coming back later to add much higher priced subcontractors when there is no competitive pressure on the rates of the subcontractors being added. This rate limitation is being used to continue competitive pressure on rates added after award.

NOTE: the question makes reference to other Q&A which addressed the same or similar concerns at earlier points.

We believe that positive actions taken by government representatives to limit amounts actually paid by the government for goods or services received are laudable and proper.

We believe that the logic contained within the government’s answer above is seriously flawed, and does not properly take into account amounts being proposed, and the total logic of individual bidders, and ultimately the real world transactions to be procured by the government, and the potential impact of support that could or should be provided to the war fighter.

The concept of BUY IN infers that a bidder would prepare a proposal to the government for a particular event conceptually at a probable loss or at a profit rate much less than what is “normal” for a particular effort. Again conceptually, the bidder would assume that follow on efforts, or additions to scope / volume / or whatever impending actions would enable that bidder to attain profits on the additional efforts to offset the BUY IN quotation.

When one understands the concept of BUY IN, coupled with the task order Bids and Proposals required to be submitted in execution of the F2AST program, the concept of BUY IN noted in the answer above is invalid.

It is impossible for a bidder to BUY IN when it submits its quotation to the government for the solicitation at hand. Additionally, award of any contract resulting from the solicitation will not result in any materiel sale to a bidder. Task Order proposals produce revenue to bidders. A Task Order Proposal could result in a BUY IN being submitted by a particular bidder. We suggest that labor prices are only one element of a total bid submitted to the government. Other amounts, factors, rates, and any number of other elements are submitted to the government as part of a particular task order bid.

Establishment of criteria at this point intended to limit government financial exposure on upcoming task order bids by limiting hourly labor prices for companies considered by a bidder to be non-critical in the response to the at hand solicitation is counter productive to future potential government as well as contractor endeavors.

We believe and fully support the concept of Task Order Proposals fully disclosing adequate data and information to allow government representatives the insight into bidders pricing computations and hence the ability to commit government funds based upon sound knowledge. However that process is conducted as task orders are being solicited.

Ultimately, support to the war fighter will probably be restricted when well intentioned bureaucratic stipulations are imposed. We believe that additional approved subcontractors should be allowed to compete for real world work efforts at labor prices that enable that particular company to operate on sound financial principles. Competitions conducted by the government at the task order level will produce awards, and non-awards, that prove to be acceptable to the government including financial reviews in accordance with appropriate government regulations. At that point, actual government funds are appropriately committed.

Suggest that the present restrictions on the addition of non-critical subcontractors being subject to median computations be removed from the solicitation and resulting contracts. We suggest that the government take into consideration a concept that allows for issuance of prime contracts to responsible bidders that have produce acceptable technical at prices that appear to be reasonable prices and other financial attributes.

Answer: The median restriction for subcontractors added after contract award will not be removed from the RFP or resulting contracts.

Question: Reference Government Q&A of 15 Feb 2008. The 2 questions and answers below were issued by the government on 15 February 2008.

Question: Can a Subcontractor submit a composite rate for all 3 levels of particular labor category?

Answer: No. All proposed rates must be commensurate with the requirements of each labor category. Rates will be evaluated for balance. Please see M-900(2)(c)(ii).

Question: Can a Subcontractor submit a composite rate for all labor categories? The same rate for every labor category bid.

Answer: No. All proposed rates must be commensurate with the requirements of each labor category. Rates will be evaluated for balance. Please see M-900(2)(c)(ii).

The answers, especially to the first question above appears to ignore that many major DOD contractors, in accordance with their government approved disclosure statement, government approved pricing and proposal techniques, as well as the constant government audit and review of proposals, do in fact consider all 3 level of a labor category per the F2AST RFP, as a singular labor type for pricing / quotation / billing purposes. Such labor prices are not un-balanced.

It should be noted that such quotations were prepared by various companies. These prices were audited, approved, and accepted by the government on at least one of the current FAST prime contracts.

The “composite price” (term for this correspondence) is a government approved practice and thus a requirement. Otherwise the individual business could be considered to be non-compliant to its approved practices.

Recommend that the question be re-reviewed taking into account that prices submitted by bidding Primes and Subcontractors, must be in accordance with the particular companies adherence to government approved techniques, which appear to be at variance to the considerations taken into account in the government provided answer or answers.

Answer: An answer will be provided in the immediate future.

Question: Reference RFP Section L-900.2.e.ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities a. In response to an Industry question regarding the requirement for “DCMA or other Government approval” of plans and processes contained in Section L-900.2.e.ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities a. and Section L-900.2.e.iii. Subfactor 3, Processes, the Government indicated an RFP amendment revising this requirement would be posted. Subsequently, Amendment 0001 to the solicitation was issued which deleted the requirement for “DCMA or other Government approval” text contained in the Subfactor 3, Processes paragraph, but not in the Subfactor 2, Facilities paragraph. Are Offerors still required to provide documentation evidencing DCMA or other Government agency approval of the Offeror’s Fire Suppression Plan for each proposed facility?

Recommend the Government change RFP Section L-900.2.e.iv.ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities a. and Section M-900.2.a.ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities a. to require Offerors to: “provide documentation evidencing the Offeror’s Fire Suppression Plan for each proposed facility.”

Answer: Offerors are required to provide documentation evidencing DCMA or other Government agency approval of the Offeror’s Fire Suppression Plan for each proposed facility.

Question: RFP, Section L.900.2.e.iv.ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities, a. requires Offerors to: “provide documentation evidencing DCMA or other Government agency approval of the Offeror’s Fire Suppression Plan for each proposed facility.” The Minimum Capabilities Specification (Attachment 5) states: “All facilities where U.S. Government property will be stored, worked, maintained, repaired, modified, or used shall have an automatic fire suppression system…” However, note 3 of the MCM (Attachment 4) indicates that only one input in the three “Fire Suppression” cells will satisfy the minimum requirement. Should Offerors assume that documentation evidencing DCMA or other Government agency approval of the Fire Suppression Plan need be submitted only for one subcontractor in each of the three categories of the MCM?

Answer: Please see answer provided above.

Question: RFP Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan; Questions & Answers of 15 Feb 2008, 13 Feb 2008 and 4 Feb 2008.

· FAR reference 52.219-9, Paragraph (d)(1) states “Goals, expressed in terms of percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned…..”.

· FAR reference 52.219-9, Paragraph (d)(2)(i) states “Total dollars planned to be subcontracted for an individual contract plan; or the offeror’s total projected sales, expressed in dollars, and the total value of projected subcontracts to support the sales for a commercial plan”.

· Q&A 4 Feb 2008:

Question: H-913 and H-914(b) requires all large businesses to subcontract 13% to small businesses but H-913 states the 13% is applicable to total dollars while H-914(b) states 13% of competitive dollars. Please confirm the 13% applies only to competitively awarded dollars.

Answer: The 13% small business subcontracting requirement applies only to competitively awarded dollars. Clause H-913 will be corrected via an RFP Amendment to be issued in the immediate future.

· Q&A 13 Feb 2008:

Question: Does the Small Business (SB) requirement of 13% apply to total contract value or just outsourced value?

Answer: The 13% requirement applies to competitive, obligated dollars.

· Q&A of 15 Feb 2008:

Question: The following clarification is requested relative to the requirement for 13% of competitive, obligated dollars for Small Business. Please identify which is correct:

Example 1: Prime contract value equals $1,000 therefore the SB value must equal $130

OR

Example 2: Prime contract value equals $1,000 with $500 being outsourced therefore the SB value must equal $65

OR

Is there another interpretation of this requirement that is more correct?

For the purpose of further clarification, please provide examples -following the above logic- for any other categories of F2AST dollars identified in the previous question.

· Answer: The 13% small business subcontracting requirement applies at the D/TO level, where dollars are actually obligated. If an Offeror wins a competitive D/TO with a total obligated amount of $100,000, the Offeror is required to subcontract 13% of the obligated dollars to small business, which equates to $13,000. The 13% requirement applies to the full amount of obligated dollars on competitive D/TOs.

The Government’s prior interpretations of the FAR seem confusing. Per FAR 52.219-9, only dollars planned to be subcontracted out are subject to the 13% requirement for small business subcontracting. For instance, if an offeror wins a competitive D/TO with a total obligated amount of $100,000, and the offeror subcontracts out $20,000 of that total obligated amount, then the offeror is required to subcontract 13% of it’s total subcontracted dollars (13% of $20,000=$2,600).

Recommend correction of the Government’s interpretation of the total planned subcontracting dollars IAW FAR 52.219-9 which states: “Goals, expressed in terms of percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned...”.

Answer: The 13% subcontracting requirement imposed by Clause H-913 is a contractually binding requirement that is completely separate from the requirements of FAR 52.219-9. FAR 52.219-9 requires large business offerors to submit a small business subcontracting plan that includes subcontracting goals for the various categories of small businesses. Submission of this small business subcontracting plan is separate from the contractually binding and enforceable requirement for awardees to subcontract 13% of their total obligated competitive dollars to small businesses.

Question: Both FAR 52.225-2 Buy American Act Certificate (JUN 2003) and DFARS 252.225-7000 are included in the solicitation. Which clause takes precedence and which is excluded as per FAR?

Answer: DFARS 252.225-7000 takes precedence, and therefore FAR 52.225-2 is self-deleting. FAR 52.225-2 will not be included in the resultant contracts.

Question: Both FAR 52.225-4 Buy American Act - Free Trade Agreement - Israeli Trade Act Certificate is included in the solicitation, however, this clause is not applicable where DFARS 252.225-7035 is to be used. Which clause takes precedence and which is to be excluded from the solicitation as per FAR?

Answer: DFARS 252.225-7035 takes precedence, and therefore FAR 52.225-4 is self-deleting. FAR 52.225-4 will not be included in the resultant contracts.

Question: Relative to K-99 on page 86 of 110, FAR 52.223-13 Certification of Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Part b(1) is not included in the language provided in the original solicitation. Exclusion of Part (b)1 bars this offeror from competition. Will the verbiage be included in a future amendment?

Answer: The exclusion of Part (b)1 appears to have been the result of an error in the contract preparation system. Part (b)1 will be incorporated in an RFP Amendment.