Q&A_3.pdf

1) As the Government has removed all references in the SOW to Program Manager, is it the Government’s intent that this contract provides personal services whereby the government will direct the individual employees? No, these are NOT personal services. The USG will give workload to Contractor Work Lead, per PWS paragraph 1.1.14, and they will dissemenate as the Contractor sees fit. We will not be directing Contractor personnel to work in any way.

2) In follow up to Governments response to question 7 in the 22 Oct 2019 Q&A release. Government states:

Question 7)

On the Production_Support_YR_Rates_Price_Worksheet, CLINS 0004, 0006, 0011, and 0012 encompass multiple labor categories. It appears the government wants the offeror to use an average hourly rate for these CLINS. However, the labor categories have different qualification and experience requirements resulting in significantly different fully‐burdened hourly rates.

Government Response

“It has been the Government’s experience that the labor categoies chosen to be grouped together to be priced at a composite rate have historically been close in nature relating not only to the requirements/qualification but also to the hourly cost associated with those labor categories. It is our desire to keept those grouped together as posted in the RFP.”

Follow on Question:

2a ‐ Please confirm that it is the government’s intent that any ordering within the stated CLIN will follow the same blending of labor categories and will essentially be treated as a LOT? The hours within these

CLINs are intended to be a maximum number of hours available, per CLIN, for use as the Government requirement determines necessary within the labor categories grouped together.

2b ‐ If it is not the government’s intent that purchasing for the distinct and significantly differing laboring categories will always follow the same labor skill blending for procurement, we requests that the government modify solicitation to enable offerors to propose individual rates for each labor category, following the same acquisition structure of the predecessor contract? It is not our intent to follow the same acquisition structure of the predecessor contract and to keep the CLIN structure as described in the

Solicitation.

2c – in the Government’s response (reference above), the Government states “composite rate have historically been close in nature relating not only to the requirements/qualification but also to the hourly cost associated with those labor categories”. Within the CLIN, the government identifies both professional engineers and technical service labor SCA categories.

1) What methodology did the Government employ in determining that the Qualifications were

“CLOSE”? The USG reviewed the history on this effort and determined that based on th way the contract has historically worked these labor categories can be combined/blended into one composite rate.

2) What methodology did the Government employ in determining that the labor cost for these significantly differing labor categories were “CLOSE” in hourly cost associated with labor categories? The USG reviewed the history on this effort and determined that based on th way the contract has historically worked these labor categories can be combined/blended into one composite rate.

3) how does the Government anticipate evaluating Technical Acceptability of the rates to ensure successful performance under the awarded contract, given that the offerors will only provide a blended singular rate for each CLIN 0004, 0006, 0011, 0012? There is no technical acceptability factor for this effort. This effort will be awarded based on lowest Total Evaluated Price.

4) It is normal for government Schedule B to have offeror provide a blended rate for multiple labor categories, though typically the government requires the offeror to provide distinct FFP

Labor Rates for individual categories in their price submission to enable the government to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed rates and ensure that an offeror is not simply electing to omit a type of labor category as a strategy to win the LPTA competition. Providing distinct rates also provides the government greater confidence for the buying organization that the successful offeror will be able to fully meet the governments expectation over the full contract life minimizing the potential that the government will be forced to recompete the contract early in order to obtain the necessary services. The USG will reiterate that this is not an

LPTA acquistision; This is price only. A hourly rate must be provided for each CLIN in the

Solicitation.

5) Given the government response, it appears that the Government has sufficient historical data regarding ordering that they feel that the Government required blending of labor categories within the CLIN are representative of anticipated future ordering. As the government is requiring offerors to provide a singular blended/composite rate for significantly differing labor categories, qualifications, and experience, please confirm that the government will not hire individual labor resources from within the CLIN pricing without ordering all categories within the blended pool represented by the CLIN structure. This cannot be guaranteed as our workload fluctuates and therefore is the reason why we have elected to use an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity vehicle for this effort.

6) Please explain why for CLIN 0004 the government groups Engineer (E2) and Sr. Engineering

Tech (ET3) and IAW government response above, these positions “composite rate have historically been close in nature relating not only to the requirements/qualification but also to the hourly cost associated with those labor categories”, yet in establishing Rates for Indirect

Services employing the same labor categories, Engineer (E2) requires distinct pricing via CLIN

0009 and Sr. Engineering Tech (ET3) is again grouped with other categories in CLIN 0006 excluding the Engineer (E2).

RFP CLIN structure has been revised in AMD 02 as follows: ET3 Indirect on CLIN 0006 has been moved and grouped with E2 Indirect on CLIN 0009, to match grouping on Direct CLIN 0004:

CLIN 0001 – AT2 (DIRECT)

CLIN 0002 – AT3 (DIRECT)

CLIN 0003 – ET2 (DIRECT)

CLIN 0004 – E2, ET3, IT3 (DIRECT)

CLIN 0005 – E3 (DIRECT)

CLIN 0006 – TW, WCF (INDIRECT)

CLIN 0007 – ET2 (INDIRECT)

CLIN 0008 – EQC (INDIRECT)

CLIN 0009 – E2, ET3 (INDIRECT)

CLIN 0010 – E3 (INDIRECT)

CLIN 0011 – MA, PA, LNF (INIDRECT)

CLIN 0012 – SECA, SEASST (INDIRECT)

CLIN 0013 – CWLC (INDIRECT)

3. The solicitation requires offeror to provide a combination of Professional and Technical skilled labor to augment the government workforce in support of the EMXG mission. The solicitation indicates that the contractor shall provide supervision of employees, though does not require the contractor to propose a Program Manager or any other form of supervision. Please confirm that it is the Government’s intent that offer is to include the cost of supervision in it’s indirect rates for the offer? The USG will give workload to Contractor Work Lead, per PWS paragraph 1.1.14, and they will dissemenate as the Contractor sees fit. We will not be directing Contractor personnel to work in any way.

4. Is there an incumbent workforce for this contract? Yes.

5. It appears there is a discrepancy in the Amendment 1 RFP and the revised spreadsheet. The list of changes in the Amendment 1 RFP state that the hours for Sr. Engineering Tech (ET3) Overtime for each year decrease from

750 to 150. The Amendment 1 revised spreadsheet only represents this change for the base year only. Please provide clarification. This should be considered a typographical error, and a revised Pricing worksheet will be posted, as the change was intended to span all years.

6. Section M of the RFP states that a Total Compensation Plan (TCP) “will be evaluated per FAR 52.222‐46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.”, yet there are no instructions regarding submission of the TCP. Please confirm that it is the government’s intent that the TCP be provided as an attachment to the completed RFP? Per Section M, Paragraph C, of the RFP and FAR 52.222‐46 a

Total Compensation Plan will be required to be submitted with offeror’s proposal package.

7. I am a bit confused concerning the Facility Security Clearance (FSC). It clearly states in the PWS, paragraph # 4.25.3, page 16, that Orientation period shall be used to obtain security clearances, but in Questions & Answers # 2 , it states that there is not allowable time between date of award and performance commencement to allow for a contractor to go through the process of obtaining Facility Security Clearance (FSC). PWS Revision Dated 21 OCT 2019, paragraph 4.26.2 reads as follows “The transition period may also be used to obtain security clearance, complete necessary training of contractor employees and development of Contingency Plan and Procedures.” The security clearance referenced is not in relation to the Facility Security Clearance (FSC), it is in reference to the security clearances of personnel needed to perform the services.

Our FSC is currently expired without a current FSC, does that rule our company non‐responsive and, therefore, ineligible although we possess unmatched capability. Please clarify. Per Amendment 01, Section L, to be considered responsive in accordance with the Solicitation, “The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to the solicitation.”