DRFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

PURPOSE OF NOTICE: The purpose of this notice is to diseminating information and post questions and answers in regards to the Draft RFP for the 711th Human Performance Wing (711HPW) of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

Please contact Ms. Kristina Vineyard at kristina.vineyard@us.af.mil or Mr. Joseph Glenn at joseph.glenn@us.af.mil for any additional information.

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The anticipated NAICs code for this acquisition is 541990

The estimated ceiling is $400M

The award will be competitive for 8(a) program participants only

The anticipated places of performance are Wright Patterson AFB, LAFB, TX, Ft. Sam Houston, Tx and other CONUS and

OCONUS locations.

Services include: performanced based services, to include A&AS and non-A&AS, and personal services

**This infomration is not a presolicitation or solicitation or Request for Proposal (RFP) and is not to be construed as any commitment by the Government. This information does not obligate the Government to award a contract and or pay for any bid and/or proposal preparation costs. The Government will not accept proposals at this time. This information is non-binding, is subject to change, and is not an offer by the Government to enter into a contract.

mailto:kristina.vineyard@us.af.mil mailto:joseph.glenn@us.af.mil

Questions Answers

Section L Attachment 3, Paragraph 1.3 (d) states that if proposing a prime/subcontractor team, the submission of supporting documentation shall be of the prime contractor alone. Yet, Section M

Attachment 4, Paragraph 2.4 Teaming states the subcontractors cannot substantiate more than

49% of the points. Does this mean that contract technical data can be submitted for a subcontractor as supporting documentation?

Table 1.2 is correct, the volumes were corrected throughout the rest of the RFP document to reflect the Table.

Section L Attachment 3, Paragraph 1.3, Table 1.2 refers to Volume I as the Contract Documentation and Volume II as the Technical Experience but throughout the RFP Technical Experience is referred to as Volume I. Please clarify the

Volumes.

Table 1.2 is correct, the volumes were corrected throughout the rest of the RFP document to reflect the Table.

Section L Attachment 3, Paragraph 3.1.4

Supporting Documentation ‐ can this include subcontractors/team members information?

The Prime must substantiate at least 51% of the points, subcontractors cannot substantiate more than

49% of the points ‐ "prime contractors alone" sentence removed.

What type of supporting documents would be acceptable to show contractors managed employee certifications, training, licensure, credential, background checks without assistance from the government? See Page 5 of Section M

Does medical service include clinical and non‐ clinical medical positions or just clinical positions? See Page 6 & 7 of PWS

DRAFT RFP Q & A

There are numerous non‐clinical medical services that are contracted by the Air Force Medical

Service and subordinate organizations. Does the government need to see the customer request compared to the contractor's response? See Page 5 of Section M

Does the government need to see the customer request compared to the contractor's response to prove this experience? See Page 5 of Section M

In today's society, many companies no longer have Human Resource Policy Handbooks. Instead they used websites where employees can access in a read‐only format. Additionally, the Human

Resource Manager does not sign each document but is responsible for releasing approved policies to the website. Is it acceptable to provide a memorandum from the Human Resources

Manager stating how the company provides it's

Human Resource Policies to employees, the approval process for those policies and a statement that these artifacts comply with the legal requirements vice providing a signed handbook?

The Government will consider this new information

The Technical Narrative text appears to be redundant with the Self‐Scoring Worksheet. It appears that the purpose of the Technical narrative is to list all of the supporting documentation associated with claimed points and a summary of claimed experience. According to Section L, Para 3.1.2.4, contractors are required to list all supporting documents on the

Self‐Scoring worksheet. On other solicitations that used a Self‐Scoring Spreadsheet, a Technical

Narrative was not required unless a discussion was needed to explain how the supporting documentation meets the claimed points. This could also be accomplished using pdf notes function on the supporting documentation. If both documents are required , we recommend that the listing of supporting documents should be removed from the Self‐Scoring Worksheet as it appears to be a redundant requirement.

"Technical Narrative" text removed from Section L

The automatic scoring in the self scoring sheet is faulty. For example, in section four (4), all scores are being totaled as 30 points rather than the actual value of 25 or 100 points. Will the

Government correct and confirm all point values?

The Government will correct the values for the

Offeror "checked" columns and confirm all point values on the Self Scoring Worksheet

What is the impact on this potential contract of

DHA incorporating the 711th HPW clinical and non‐clinical medical and medical research personnel into the DHA contract?

There are no current plans for the requirements for the 711th to be included in the current DHA contract

Are we to submit our signed JVA letter for approval at this point prior to the release of the

RFP? If so, what timeframe should we expect for the PCO’s approval?

SBA approval must happen prior to award.

Are both members of that JV required to have a

Facility Clearance?

Yes

Will the Government allow a prime offeror as a

Joint Venture to have additional subcontractors?

Yes

Will it still be an IDIQ in which we will have to compete at the ordering level?

The Government will award an IDIQ to multiple awardees

Will the government accept Training in the

“Developing and performing business management strategy for educational service requirements”?

"supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self‐Scoring Worksheet. A PWS for a MAC IDIQ shall not be considered as supporting documentation.

The DRAFT RFP max value of $50M where the maximum dollar amount the Government may order under this contract is 50000000.00; The industry Day briefings indicate a ceiling value of

$400M, should page 10 read $500M? Shared Ceiling $$ amount has been corrected

Is this a new requirement? Are there current or previous contractors who have performed similar services? Can the Government provide the incumbent contract or task order?

This is not a new requirement, it is a follow on to a current MAIDIQ, the list of current and previous contractors is available publically

Please clarify whether subcontractors can claim up to 49% of points or cannot claim points at all?

Subcontractors can claim up to but not more than

49%, it is clarified correctly.

Are JVA(s) required to be approved prior to proposal submittal or prior to solicitation release? SBA approval must happen prior to award.

Can Offerors use either the IDIQ contract itself or a specific individual task order as a contract reference for the "Multiple Award IDIQ"?

Removed all of the specific contract reference types ‐

"supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self‐Scoring Worksheet. A PWS for a MAC IDIQ shall not be considered as supporting documentation.

Are Offerors allowed to use one of the single award IDIQ task orders as a reference for the

"Single Award IDIQ" or only the single award IDIQ itself?

Removed all of the specific contract references types ‐

"supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self‐Scoring Worksheet. A PWS for a MAC IDIQ shall not be considered as supporting documentation.

Can Offerors use either the BPA contract/agreement itself as a reference or one of the individual BPA Call Orders as a reference?

Removed all of the specific contract references types ‐

"supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self‐Scoring Worksheet. A PWS for a MAC IDIQ shall not be considered as supporting documentation.

Can the Self Scoring Worksheet be revised to

.xls/.xlsx format to allow the Government to complete column J in validating Offerors' points? See Page 6 of Section L

How should Offerors determine geographical location (i.e., the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area

Definitions) to show "Multiple Location" experience? The Government will consider this new information

What specific business function is the

Government expecting this local office to perform which cannot be performed from the Offeror's office elsewhere in the United States?

The Government expects business and management of the contractors employees for in‐processing and other functions

Will the Government consider restatement of this requirement to: "The Offeror will be required to have local management office within 30 days of award."?

No, must have local representation during evaluation in order to receive credit on the Self‐Scoring

Worksheet‐ see page 7 of Section L for description

In regards to the local representation requirement in Section L, Attachment 3 on page

8; What is the government’s need to require the offeror to have a local PMO? Would the government consider removing this requirement as it could eliminate a competitive environment for the RFP since it is set‐aside for 8(a)

Competitive and violating FAR Part 33 ‐

PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS?

Must have ability to respond to requirements within the desired driving time of 1.5 hours from location

(WPAFB)

Please confirm the Period of Performance and

Ordering Period dates of 14 March 2020 ‐ 14

March 2026 and 14 March 2020 ‐13 March 2025, respectively. Wouldn't these dates overlap the existing contract?

Correct. The new IDIQ must be in place in order to continue services. Task Orders will be place with award.

Will the Government allow industry to form teams that allow for the inclusion of teaming partners with a broad range of capabilities that will be able to provide all of the services anticipated to be procured as part of the 711th

HPW contract? See Page 2 of Section M

Has the Government modified its plan to limit award to only five (5) awardees as was planned out during Industry Day? The Government intends to have up to 5 awardees

Currently the Self‐Scoring sheet has weighed

"local representation" at less than 2% of the overall composite score, are there any plans to increase weighting? The Government will consider this information

Should the Offeror submit both volumes in one binder due to submitting "1 hardcopy" proposal, or should the Offeror submit two separate binders?

Just one hard copy (combining all elements of proposal) shall be submitted and clearly marked, addressed and mailed ‐ Section L Page 2

Is there a size limit for the electronic copy submittal?

No limitation; however, the Government will only evaluate until validation is determined ‐ Supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self‐Scoring

Worksheet. A PWS for a MAC IDIQ shall not be considered supporting documentation.

Will resumes and LOIs be required?

The requirement will be determined at Fair

Opportunity Proposal Request

Will DCAA Pre‐Award Audit be conducted?

Yes

Do the respondents place an excerpt from their corresponding contract in the technical narrative, if so, will the Column H be lightened as opposed to the dark blue to allow content to show?

Technical Narratives have been removed

Is MapQuest the only form of justification to demonstrate local company management representative(s) exist within 1.5 hours driving distance from WPAFB? This is a sufficient method

As long as one (1) party to the JV has a secret FCL then the requirement is met, can the Government confirm this?

Both members of a JV must hold an FCL to at least the same level as the awarded DD254.

Are contractors to submit their signed JVA letter for approval prior to release of the RFP? If so, what timeframe should contractors expect for the

PCO's approval? SBA approval shall be prior to award.

Can the Government confirm the Period of

Performance and Ordering Period dates? Since they appear to overlap, does this mean some existing work will be placed on hold until new awards are made? Will these "paused" opportunities then be put out immediately to the new awardees?

Both are correct. The new IDIQ must be in place in order to continue services. Task Orders will be place with award.

Will the Government accept points from the JV‐

Team or only the prime offeror on the Self Scoring

Worksheet?

This information will be updated at RFP and will be in accordance with CFR 125.8 ( e)

Will the Government remove the page limitation instructions entirely, or will they clarify that the paragraphs do not apply to "contract references" and "supporting documents" such as PWSs' etc.?

Page count has been removed, however Government will only evaluate until validation is determined

Can the Government clarify that the "maintaining a stable workforce" determined calculation of

20% for all employee turnovers does or does not include "outside the contactor's control"? Any turnover applies

Is a CDRL submission required after every meeting, or are meeting minutes required only as requested by the COR? Will be determined at Task Order level

Can Offerors assume that despite the ceiling value of the IDIQ, an integrated baseline review would only be required if the contractor achieved over

$100M in revenues on this contract?

IBR would be for all awarded contractors: DFARS clause 252.234‐7002 within the RFP: If this contract has a value of $100 million or more, the contractor shall use an EVMS that has been determined to be acceptable by the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA).

Since this is a Multiple‐Award Contract there is a shared ceiling amongst all awarded contactors

Will the Government consider expanding the H.2

Clause to also prohibit contractors from employment practices that would discourage or disallow their employees from proposing with competing contractors?

The Government will consider this information

Would the Government consider making a hard‐ copy submission deadline of 48 hours after electronic submission? No

Does the Government intend for proposals to be hole punched on both short edge and long edge and then inserted into a three‐ring binder? Yes

Under Section L page 5: should this section title read "Volume I‐Contract Documentation" per

Table 1.2? Or is Table 1.2 in error?

Table 1.2 is correct, the volumes were corrected throughout the rest of the RFP document to reflect the Table.

Under Section L page 6: Should the section title read "Volume II‐Technical Experience" per Table

1.2? Or is Table 1.2 in error?

Table 1.2 is correct, the volumes were corrected throughout the rest of the RFP document to reflect the Table.

The Contract Documentation volume does not include requirements for contract references, only the Technical Experience volume does. Is the following statement in error? If not, can you please explain the purpose? ‐ “If during the evaluation process, the Government discovers a contract was used to claim points in Volume I and the same contract was not used in Volume II, the contract reference will be removed from consideration and the offeror will NOT receive credit (i.e. zero points) for the points being claimed for those technical experience elements related to that contract reference.”

Technical Narrative text removed

Section L Table 1.2 indicates there is no page limit for technical experience: however, Section 1.3(a) indicates what pages will/won’t be counted, which implies there is a page count. Is the “No

Page Limit” value a placeholder until an actual page count is determined?

Count has been removed, however Government will only evaluate until validation is determined

Section L Table 1.2 indicates that Volume I is

Contract Documentation and Volume II is

Technical Experience. This is reversed in the narrative. Section 2.0 indicates Volume II is

Contract Documentation and Section 3.0 indicates

Volume I is Technical Experience. Please clarify.

Table 1.2 is correct, the volumes were corrected throughout the rest of the RFP document to reflect the Table.

Section L 1.3 states “Proposals shall be bound in a three‐ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. Proposals shall be submitted on “short edged” copy with two hole punch at top of page, holes must be ¼ Inch in diameter and they measure 2 ¾ Inches apart.” Does the Government request 3‐ring or 2‐hole binders?

"Proposals shall be bound in a three‐ring, loose leaf binder"

Section L 1.1‐ will Government consider page limit for technical narrative based on the requirements of the current scoring sheet?

Count has been removed, however Government will only evaluate until validation is determined

Will the Government consider providing a more detailed definition of "business management strategy" as referenced in Scoring Sheet Section

5? Section L page 5

Can the Government explain what they are seeking regarding the “development and performance of business management strategy in determination of number of individuals and schedule of performance to complete workload” as defined in the DRFP?

Clarified in Section L page 5

Will the Government consider removing the subcontractor reference listed in Section M 2.4

"Teaming"? Indicating that the Government will evaluate technical experience for prime offerors and subcontractors.

No

Section L states that the prime contractor experience is the basis for technical evaluation, but then there are statements regarding subcontractor past performance. Suggest the government remove subcontractor performance references in the scoring sheet.

Prime contractor experience is the basis for technical evaluation, even in the prime/subcontractor teaming arrangements, 51% of substantiation must be from prime contractor.

If pricing will not be required, will the

Government consider experience implementing a professional employee compensation plan or a description of the offerors employee benefits to ensure offerors have the ability to attract, recruit and retain quality candidates?

Pricing will be evaluated at the Task Order level ‐

"supporting documentation submitted shall specifically identify the requirement being claimed in the Self‐Scoring Worksheet.

If the Government does not intend to limit the number of awards, will the Government consider implementation of floor rates to enhance the likelihood of attracting, recruiting and retaining quality candidates?

No

The last sentence of paragraph 1 states, "This

Highest Technically Rated Offeror Source

Selection will result in multiple awards competitively to 8a companies or Joint Ventures."

Is this an 8(a) Set‐Aside competition? If so, will the Joint Ventures be deemed as an 8(a) Joint

Venture in accordance with 13 CFR §124.513?

yes, this requirement is set‐aside for 8(a) competition

& the Joint Ventures will deemed as 8(a) Joint

Ventures IAW 13 CFR 124.513

Will the Government hold JVs and CTAS to the same experience requirements? Yes

It states "When proposing as a prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement, the

Government will evaluate technical experience for prime offerors and subcontractor offerors IAW

FAR xx, the prime must substantiate at least 51% of the points, subcontractors cannot substantiate more than 49% of the points. If the prime offeror is a joint venture (JV), the Government will evaluate technical experience for that JV’s members, in accordance with 13 C.F.R.

§125.8(e)." First, what is the FAR reference listed as xx? Second, this paragraph is not in line with

Section L, 1.3.(d). Will traditional CTA sub‐ contractor experience be accepted as per Section

M or will traditional CTA sub‐contractor experience be eliminated from scoring as per

Section L?

The Prime must substantiate at least 51% of the points, subcontractors cannot substantiate more than

49% of the points ‐ "prime contractors alone" sentence removed. RFP updated

Section M, 3.1 Technical Experience Assessment,

pp. 2-3: the third bullet states, “Offerors will not lose points if they submit less than the maximum allowed number of technical narratives.” Will there be an artificial limitation on the number of supporting contract to reference?

This sentence has been removed.

Section M, 3.1 Technical Experience Assessment:

can the offeror use more than one (1) contract as supporting documentation to claim points for each individual item on the scoring work sheet

3(a)‐3(f)?

Yes; however more substantiation does not equal more points. The Government will only evaluate until substantiation is reached.

The draft states “When appropriate, the Contractor shall enter into Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) for any portion of the contract requiring joint participation in the accomplishment of the Government's requirement.” Does the Government consider Contractor Teaming Agreements (CTAs) to be Associate Contractor Agreements? Will the Government require offerors to submit a copy of their CTAs with their IDIQ proposal?

All legally binding agreements whether in the form of

CTAs, JVs or Mentor Protégé arrangements shall be approved before award and submitted to the PCO

H.10 Task Order Contract (page 19):The draft states “Failure to receive an award or propose after the first 24 months of the ordering period may also result in negative impact to the contractor’s past performance.” Will the Government consider revising the Clause to not penalize contractors for failing to receive an award within the first 24 months? H.10 is now H.1. Clause remains unchanged.

H.11 Task Order Vacancies (page 21): The draft states “The Contractor shall replace personnel such that vacancies will not exceed 10 consecutive business days” and “Failure will result in price decrement and negative past performance reporting.” Will the Government consider adjusting the 10 consecutive business day vacancy number?

No

Section L, 1.3 Organization / Number of Copies / Page Limits (d) Contract References (page 85) The draft states “If proposing as a prime/sub-contractor team, the submission of supporting documentation shall be of the prime contractor alone.” Will the Government consider revising proposal instructions to explain the intent of the contract references as well as how the references will be evaluated?

The Government will clarify 'references'

Section L, 3.1.2 Self‐Scoring Worksheet, 3.1.3

Technical Narrative, 3.1.4 Supporting

Documentation (pages 88‐89)

The draft states “The Offeror shall provide verifiable supporting documentation for each item claimed on the Self Scoring Worksheet.” Will the Government confirm/clarify that representative past performance and supporting documentation may be as either a prime or a subcontractor?

"When proposing as a prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement, the Government will evaluate technical experience for prime offeror and subcontractor offerors, the prime must substantiate at least 51% of the total points available and subcontractors cannot substantiate more than 49% of the total points ."

Section L, 3.2 Technical Element Criteria (page 89)

Will the Government consider adding a section to evaluate offerors subcontract management practices? No

Section L, 3.2 Technical Element Criteria, 3.

Multiple Locations (page 89)

The draft states “The Offeror shall describe its experience managing personnel at more than one geographical location.” Will the Government confirm/clarify that requirements refer to managing employees at three or more locations simultaneously, on a single contract or Task

Order?

Geographical Location is defined on Page 7 of Section

L ; Supporting Documentation is identified in Section L

3.1.3

Section L, 3.2 Technical Element Criteria, 4.

Recruiting and Placing of Qualified Personnel

(page 90) In the draft, Requirements 4b and 4c are nearly identical. Will the Government consider combining these into a single requirement for recruiting processes/practices?

No

The draft states “The Offeror shall demonstrate a local company management representative exists within 1.5 hours driving distance, from Wright- Patterson AFB, OH Area B.” For prime/subcontractor teaming arrangements, does the Government require that the prime have local representation, or may any member of the team provide local representation? The Prime provides local representation

For offerors that do not currently have a facility in the specified range, will the Government accept contingent locations (i.e., locations that will be secured upon IDIQ award)? No, see page 7 of Section L

What artifacts would the Government require to prove that a company filled positions with qualified personnel within two weeks of

Government contract start? Section L 3.1.3 describes Supporting Documentation

How can the Government expect companies within the 8(a) program to have the Technical requirements associated with 50% of a minimum score of 2745 and be in the NAICS size standard of under 15 mil?

This is a follow‐on 8(a) contract, the points and weightings were based upon program evaluation and market research, identifying the ability for 8(a) companies to reach the computed totals.

How did the Government decide on the minimal scoring amount of 2745? Would the Government consider adding more past performance points or re‐weighing the scores if that is a minimum score for qualification?

The Government has taken into account market research as well as historical data analysis to determine the proper weighting % for each category being evaluated

Will the government release the Facility Security requirements at time of proposal submittal and allow companies to obtain their FCL when the need is required?

Security Clearance is a requirement at proposal

Labor categories and pricing wasn’t included. Is it the Government’s intent for awardees to price their labor categories after award? Pricing is competitive at the Task Order level

Is contract reference data considered “supporting documentation” to validate the self‐scoring worksheet? If so, Section M, Page 2 indicates subcontractors in a Prime/Sub offer can contribute up to 49% of the points, although

L.4.(d) indicates the contract references must of the Prime Contractor alone. Will subcontractor experience count towards points, and if so, how do we substantiate subcontractor experience given this limitation on contract references?

Section L / M have been updated

Will we be required to submit Earned Value

Management System (EVMS) documentation with the proposal?

Yes, per DFARS clause 252.234‐7002 within the RFP: If this contract has a value of $100 million or more, the contractor shall use an EVMS that has been determined to be acceptable by the Cognizant Federal

Agency (CFA).

Pursuant to FA8650‐19‐R‐4120 Cover Letter 2(c)

"Self‐Scoring Sheet: Please review, fill out and return the self‐scoring sheet. DO NOT provide any substantiation, proposal or contract data. Please comment or advise on scoring and point structure," and item #4 in Section L.3.1.2 that refers to the technical narrative; does this mean we do NOT place any technical narrative information in column H at this time? does this mean we do NOT place any Supporting

Documentation information in column I? If we are to fill in column I for this Draft submission, are we just entering the contract number here? Section L has been updated.

Do you still want a copy of our JVA/MPA letter submitted with the package?

If it is available. It must be approved by the SBA and submitted before an award can be made.

Does the JV have to have its own Facility Security

Clearance in‐place at the time of the proposal submission date; or, does it have to be in place at the time of the contract award date; or, can the

Facility Security Clearance just be processed sometime AFTER contract award?"

Both members of a JV must hold an FCL to at least the same level as the awarded DD254.

The DRAFT RFP does not include the NAICS code that the procurement will be solicited under

NAICS code 541990 ‐ All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

How does the offeror substantiate claimed points for past performance that "developed and performed business management strategy" Section L 3.1.3 "Supporting documentation"

Does the customer concern have to deal specifically with employee performance or professionalism or could it be any customer concern. To prove the contractor provided corrective action plans to fix customer concerns, does the Government want to see a Quality

Control Plan or just a response to a contract concern?

The customer concern can be any legitimate concern that is documented by the Government and reported to the contractor to handle concerning their employee. A corrective action plan would only be pursued if the contractor did not resolve the customer complaint.

How do contractors provide proof of completing

ALL travel requirements IAW JTR? Contractors can prove they have experience processing travel and claims associated with a contract based on a PWS and can provide an invoice that includes travel expenses. Does the Government want or expect to see an expense report with all of the associated receipts?

See Page 7 of Section L for list of acceptable supporting documentation

Chart 8 of pre‐solicitation slide indicates that you are tentatively planning to release the Request for

Proposal 4th Quarter of 2019. Is this 4th Quarter of FY19 (i.e. this month) or 4th Quarter of CY19

(i.e. Oct‐Dec)? 4th Quarter of CY19 (i.e. Oct‐Dec)