Attachment_L3_Questions_Consolidated_19 Jun 20.pdf

FA8903‐20‐R‐0003

19 Jun 2020

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

1 In Box 9 of the SF33 form, the Hour and Date are pre-filled with 2:00 PM CST on 3/17/2020. We presume Offerors are to revise this to 1:00 PM CST (or 1300 Central Time) on 6/8/2020 per the Solicitation.

RFP, Page 1: SF33 form SF 33, block 9 changed proposal due date to 15 Jul 2020; time of 2:00 PM CST is correct. Section L, page 22 of 41, paragraphs 2.3.10.2 (a), (b), (d), (d)(i) and (f) changed proposal due date and time.

2 Regarding content and organization of Volume I – Contract Documentation:

There is a discrepancy between items listed in Table 2.2 Proposal Organization on page 19 and Section 3.1 Volume Organization on page 26, sub-items a) through p).

Please confirm the required items, item numbers, and the order of presentation required in Offerors’ proposals for this volume.

Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization / Volume I on page 19 of

Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Section 3.1 Volume Organization, items a) through p) on

No discrepancy exist in Section L, Table 2.2, page 19 of 41 and Section 3.1, page 25 of 41.

Section L, page 19 of 41; Table 2.2 Proposal Organization provides Instructions to Offerors (ITO), identifies paragraph numbers, titles for each Volume, along with page limitations and number of copies, Pages 25 - 28 of 41, paragraphs 3 - 3.9 details the required contents for Volume I, as identified in Table 2.2.

Proposal submission shall include contents identified in paragraphs 3 - 3.9 for Volume I - Contract Documentation.

The order of presentation shall follow Table 2.2 Proposal Organization at page 19 of 41 and contents required on page 25 of 41 for Volume I - Contract Documentation, paragraph 3.1, Volume Organization

3 Regarding method of delivery in Contingency Option 2, please confirm that "Mail" includes the use of delivery service such as FedEx; further please confirm that such delivery service should be submitted to the "Courier" address listed in Section 2.4; or, if different, please provide the correct address for delivery service.

Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Section 2.3.10.2 (d).ii, page 23 of 41

Section L, page 22 of 41; method of delivery changed to electronic copy via DoD SAFE, due to COVID-19, social climate conditions. Section L, page 25 of 41 clarifies the mailing address for U.S. Postal Service Mail and Courier/Parcel deliveries

4 Regarding the stated Small Business Subcontracting Goals, we note the absence of a subcontracting goal for Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) which would appear to be required per FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, section (c)(1). Please advise whether a VOSB subcontracting goal applies for this contract.

Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Section 4.10.1, pages 32–33 of 41

Small Business Subcontracting Goals table in Section L, page 32 of 41 identifies goal for Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business as 3% of total subcontracting dollars

5 Attachment L-5 Past Performance Information Tool instructs offerors to download a PPI Tool from the solicitation posting on the BETA SAM site (beta.sam.gov). Currently, the solicitation posting does not include a link to download the PPI Tool. Please clarify when the solicitation posting for FA8903-20-R-0003 will include the referenced link to the PPI Tool?

Attachment L5 Past Performance Information Tool, page 1, Downloading the PPI Tool

Section L, Attachment 5 revised to provide instructions regarding PPI tool. Section L, Attachment L13 Past Performance Information Tool was added.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

6 Section L, for Volume II, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization indicates a 16-page limit for Housing and a 10-page limit for EUL. Based on this, we would assume that the Air Force would like to see Technical Subfactors 1.1–1.4 presented once for Housing with a 16-page limit and presented again for EUL with a 10-page limit.

However, on page 30 of 41, 4.1 (f) Technical Proposal Organization, Technical Subfactors 1.1–1.4 are shown only once which would imply a combined Housing/EUL write up in TAB A.

Please clarify the Air Force's requirements for presentation of TAB A. We believe that a combined Housing/EUL presentation with Technical Subfactors 1.1–1.4 shown only once, and with a combined limit of 26 pages will eliminate a significant amount of duplication in TAB A and allow for the most clear and concise presentation possible.

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization / Volume II on page 19 of

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, page 30 of 41, 4.1

(f) - Technical Proposal Organization

Section L, page 19 of 41, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization for Volume II - Factor 1: Technical, changed page limitation for Tab A: Housing and EUL to a total of 26 pages

7 Section L, for Volume III, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization indicates a 3-page limit for 5.3 Past Performance Summary.

However, on page 33 of 41, 5.3 (a) Past Performance Summary, the instructions indicate: "Submit the corresponding Past Performance Summary in the appropriate TAB for the specific line of business," which would imply that the Past Performance section should be split into a TAB A and a TAB B, each with separate Past Performance Summaries.

Please confirm whether the intent is to have one consolidated Past Performance volume with a single, 3-page Past Performance Summary or to have the Past Performance volume split into a TAB A and a TAB B with a Past Performance Summary for each. If the intent is to have a TAB A and a TAB B, please confirm that the page limit for each TAB's Past Performance Summary is 3 pages.

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization / Volume III on page 20 of

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, page 33 of 41, 5.3

(a) - Past Performance Summary

Section L, page 33 of 41, paragraph 5.3(a) revised. The Past Performance Summary shall identify Tab A and or Tab B. Past Performance summary page limit is 3-single sided pages per TAB.

8 Regarding RFP Section L 3.9.3(g), if an offeror’s accounting system has not been approved by DCAA and the offeror proposes a G&A rate of zero per Attachment 12 of the PWS at Section 9.2, then:

a. Is a DCAA pre-award survey still required?

b. If so, please confirm that the pre-award survey is limited only to travel costs because FAR 16.301-3(a) requires an adequate accounting system only for “costs applicable to the contract.”

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, 3.9.3 - Accounting System, page 29 of 41

Offerors shall comply with Section L, page 29 of 41, paragraph 3.9.3 subparagraphs a through i regarding Accounting Systems.

a. Yes, a DCAA pre-award survey is still required regardless if a contractor proposes a 0% G&A

b. A pre-award survey is a requirement by a surveying activity of a prospective contractor's capability to perform under the terms of proposed contract. A pre-award survey is a determination regarding responsibility.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

9 Is the RFP intended to require an accounting system that is more stringent than the accounting system required by the RFP underlying the incumbent contract?

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, 3.9.3 - Accounting System, page 29 of 41

Section L, page 29 of 41, paragraph 3.9.3 is to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.301- 3(a)(3) regarding an approved accounting system to award and manage a contract other than Firm-Fixed-Priced.

The HEU RFP is a Hybrid contract type requirement with Firm Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

The underlying incumbent contract was awarded as a FFP with no cost-reimbursable CLINs.

10 Section L, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, Volume III, indicates a Section

5.9 - Specific Content.

However, on page 33 of 41, 5.1 (a) - (k) Past Performance Volume Organization, the Specific Content section is not shown.

Please confirm which organizational structure is correct. We would also note that the description of Specific Content on page 36 of 41, 5.9 Specific Content, seems redundant with the information requested in the Past Performance Summary in Section 5.3. If the Specific Content section is required, please clarify the intent.

Notices to Offerors, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization / Volume III on page 20 of

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, page 33 of 41, 5.1

(a) - (k) Past Performance Volume Organization

Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, page 36 of 41, 5.9 Specific Content

Section L, page 20 of 41; Table 2.2 Proposal Organization provides Instructions to Offerors (ITO) identifies paragraph numbers (5 - 5.9) for Volume III - Past Performance along with page limitations and number of copies.

Section L, pages 33 through 36 of 41, paragraphs 5 - 5.9 details the required contents for Volume III, as identified in Table 2.2.

The Past Performance information shall follow Table 2.2 Proposal Organization at page 20 of 41 and contents required on page 33 of 41 for Volume III - Past Performance, paragraph 5.1, Volume Organization.

11 The past performance requirements for Housing and EUL (Tab A) and current evaluation criteria with respect to technical approach (50%) and documentation management (50%) make it nearly impossible for any firm to be evaluated as highly as the incumbent because the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and evaluation factors strongly favor the status quo delivery of service, for which the incumbent who will have the most relevant and recent experience. Would the Air Force consider either:

a.adding evaluation factors related to innovation, commercial best practices and efficiencies that will allow a non-incumbent respondent to be scored on par with the incumbent?; or b.lower the weighting for technical from 50% to 25% and increase past performance from 50% to 75%

Section L -Vol III- Factor 2: Past Performance and Section M 2.2

a. Section M, paragraph 2.2, factor 2 (a) Evaluation Process and factor 2 (c) Relevancy assessment: Regarding Past Performance, the Government will consider the Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing products and services that meet the contract's requirements. The Government will evaluate how closely the products provided/services performed relate to HEU solicitation requirements.

Consideration will be given to program scope, similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks and type of effort.

Innovations/best practices and efficiencies shall be identified in the technical factor.

b. Factor 1 - Technical and Factor 2 - Past Performance does not have weights (%) assigned. Section M, paragraph 1.0 Basis for Contract Award, page 1 of 11: The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the traded sub-factors (1.1 & 1.2) are of equal importance. Subfactors 1.3 and 1.4 will not be a part of the trade-off determination and will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating.

12 The Technical Risk Ratings as described in Part IV – Representations and Instructions, Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, 2.0.b.2 heavily favor status quo approach to the work. The ratings are based on the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Retaining an incumbent contractor by definition suggests lower risk;

whereby a new firm offering new ideas and new approaches is likely to be evaluated as higher risk. Please clarify how the Selection Committee intends to evaluate innovation and commercial best practices without assigning a less favorable risk rating.

Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, 2.0.b.2

The risk ratings consider the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. To avoid a less favorable risk rating, the Offeror shall provide detailed information supporting approach for innovation/commercial best practices in their proposal with strengths to decrease risk.

Section M page 5 - Definition of Strength – An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

13 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings – Portfolio asset management is a well-defined and well-documented commercial real estate activity. While the Air Force’s privatized housing portfolio represents a unique transaction structure relative to the Air Force’s position as ground lessor and creditor and the assets’ location on active military bases, the underlying principles of commercial real estate asset management still apply. However, if the PWS is the basis upon which “relevancy” is determined, then the RFP will disadvantage respondents who clearly demonstrate asset management experience with large portfolios of commercial housing assets, as this experience would not be rated ‘Very Relevant’ as described in Part IV – Representations and Instructions, Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, DoD Table 4. Would the Air Force consider a Relevancy Rating that gives equal weight to commercially comparable experience?

Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, DoD Table 4

Section M, paragraph 2.2(c), page 7 0f 11, Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed relate to HEU solicitation requirements. Consideration will be given to program scope, similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks and type of effort. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The AF will consider all relevant projects (Government/Commercial) for program scope, similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks and type of effort.

This is NOT a FAR Part 12, Commercial Acquisition. No technical factors in this acquisition are weighted.

14 Subjective Tradeoff – In Part IV – Representations and Instructions, Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, Section 2.0, the RFP states that selection shall be made on a “Subjective Tradeoff” basis. Can the Air Force please provide greater clarity with regard to how the “Subjective Tradeoff” will be used?

Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, Section 2.0

Section M, Page 3 of 11: Subjective Tradeoff assessment of technical/technical risk associated with approach/plan is applicable to Factor 1, subfactors 1.1 and 1.2 only. Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract, if cited as a strength.

Definitions stated on page 5 of 11 in Section M will be used in the Technical Evaluation. Strength is defined as an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

15 It appears that Technical Subfactor 1.3 – Transition Plan will be evaluated separately by the Government as acceptable/unacceptable. For submission purposes, is there a separate page limit for the transition plan, or is the transition plan supposed to be located within the narrative for Tab A/Tab B and fit within those page limits?

Technical Subfactor 1.3 – Transition Plan

The page limit for the transition plan (narrative) shall be included in Tab A/Tab B as identified in Section L, page 19 of 41, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization for Volume II, Factor 1 Technical.

16 Transition Plan: (Applies to TAB A and B) sub tab (b). Does the transition plan only need to apply to the transfer of the database from the incumbent to the new contractor?

Attachment L- Section 4.9 Subfactor 1.3: No, the plan applies to all Offerors. The Transition Plan shall meet all the requirements in PWS paragraph 3.2.

PWS paragraph 3.2 describes all the information for the Plan and reference multiple sections to be included.

Section M 2.1.3 describes the requirements to get an Acceptable for Subfactor 1.3

17 Please provide the amount of the cost proposal under the current contract and the actual contract cost to date. If there have been modifications to the contract, please provide the amounts and an explanation of the modification from the original PWS.

General The cost proposal is FOUO. An estimate of $65.9M in TOs have been awarded under the IDIQ. The IDIQ number is FA8903-15-F-0035. The TOs are public record.

Detail information can be found at https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/CONT_IDV_FA890315D0035_9700

Information can also be found at FPDS-NG at https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.5.1&s=FPDS.GOV&q=FA8 90315D0035

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

18 4.16 through 4.19 Technology Maintenance/Document Management Services a.What is the current migration tool the government is using?

b.Are the current workflows processes documented?

Attachment 2 PWS- 4.16 through 4.19 a. The current migration tool is a SharePoint site.

b. The current workflow processes are documented for internal Government use.

Access to the SharePoint site will be provided at time of award.

19 4.6(f)(1) of Section L indicates that technical subfactors are to “include capabilities of Prime and Team Members.” Please clarify whether the intent is that the Offeror describe its qualifications in this subsection (and if so, how that relates to the evaluation criteria in Section M).

Section L 4.6(f)(1) Section L, page 31 of 41, paragraph 4.6 (f)(1) and (2) shall include requirements of the Prime and Team Members. The proposal shall describe the Offeror’s proposed strategic approach to meeting the requirements of each Technical Subfactor in Section M for Factor 1, subfactor 1.1 Technical Approach and subfactor 1.2 Document Management Plan on Page 6 of 11.

20 Section L specifies a 16 page limit for housing and 10 pages for EUL. Can we interpret that to mean 26 combined pages so that certain items that pertain to managing the combined MHPI and EUL effort do not have to be repeated?

Section L Section L, page 19 of 41, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization for Volume II - Factor 1: Technical changed page limitation for Tab A: Housing and EUL to a total of 26 pages. MHPI and EUL do not have to be repeated.

21 Please confirm that the “fringe” column in Attachment L10 should include *all* burdens on the unburdened cost – e.g., traditional fringe benefits, in addition to overhead, G&A, and profit.

Attachment L10 In accordance with Section L, Attachment 10 Instructions, Offerors shall provide a fully burdened Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Labor rates. Paragraph d states: Fully burden FFP labor rates shall include hourly base rates plus out-year escalation, indirect rates and profit.

22 In our experience, there is a certain volume of technical support to the Government that can be delivered economically by junior engineers who do not have a PE. For example, EITs and Engineering graduates can complete calculations or directed analysis under the supervision of more senior staff.

Will the Government consider adding a “Journeyman Engineer” category to Attachment L9, as indicated in Attachment L11?

Attachment L9 and L11 A Junior Engineer is included at Atch L-9. A Journeyman Engineer is equivalent to a Mid level Engineer, also included in Atch L-9.

Revised Atch L-9 to clarify the Junior Engineer requirements. "Professional Engineer (P.E.) and/or 5 years...."

Please refer to Atch L-9 regarding the required years/experience and/or required certifications/licenses for each labor category.

Atch L-11 has been updated to match L-9.

23 Attachment L-5 recommends a CD or other electronic copy. Does the government require a CD version of this proposal, of these PPI documents, and/or should this material be submitted as a separate file with our SafeLink submission?

Attachment L5 Section L, Attachment L-5 removed CD as Offerors are required to submit an electronic copy of the proposal.

Section L, page 23 of 41, paragraph 2.3.10.2(d)(ii) titled Contingency Option 2 Mail indicates this method may be used, should DOD SAFE becomes unavailable 15 days prior to proposal due date

24 As a result of the temporary closing of many Offerors offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic, preparation and submission of hard copy for client/vendor contracts and RFP responses will be very difficult. Until offerors' offices are re-opened, we request a waiver from the requirement to submit hard copies of proposal responses. Instead we request that the Government accept only electronic proposals with electronic signatures.

Section L, 2.2 Section L, pages 19/20 of 41; Table 2.2 Proposal Organization removed hard copy proposal request. Section L, page 22 of 41, paragraph 2.3.10.1 indicates hard copies, not required. Section L, page 22 of 41, paragraph 2.3.10.2(a) states proposal must be submitted via direct upload to DOD SAFE.

25 What is the Government's anticipatory amount for Liquidated Damages since the amount is currently TBD?

Solicitation+-+FA890320R0003+v2| 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages-Supplies, Services, or Research and Development.

2000-09

The Liquidated Damages amount will be determine at the TO level.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

26 Please confirm that each Team Member must upload a PPI using the PPI Tool or can the Offeror do this on behalf of the Team Member?

Section_L 5.5 Past Performance Information Sheets (d)

Section L, page 34 of 41, paragraph 5.5 states each Offerors must shall submit present/past performance information using the PPI tool (See Attachment L-5 for instructions). The Offeror shall provide up to a total of five (5) contract/task order (TO) summaries (narratives) for TAB A. TO summaries (narratives) for TAB A shall include at least two (2) housing, and two (2) EUL. For TAB B, the Offeror shall provide up to a total of three (3) contract/task order (TO) summaries (narratives). TO summaries (narratives) for TAB B shall include at least two (2) UP.

Section L, page 34 of 41, paragraph 5.5(d), states Past Performance Information shall be submitted for each Team Member performing the work (TAB A and/or TAB B) that the Offeror determines to be critical to the overall successful performance. Hard copy submittion requirement is deleted.

Provided the Offeror uploads the PPI on behalf of the team member, Section L, Attachments L-7 and/or L-8 maybe required

27 Since Subcontractors will have proprietary information, to include the professional employee compensation plan, that in most cases they will not want the Prime Offeror to see, will the Government grant the Team Member(s) the option to submit their proprietary information directly to the Government? If so, will the Government provide subcontractors with DoD SAFE access?

Section L, 2.3.10, Proposal Copies (b) Section L, Attachment 11, paragraph d indicates the prime shall instruct teaming partners and joint venture partners to submit their Compensation Plans (Narrative & Compensation Plan Model) directly to the Contracting Officer/Contract specialist. The subcontractor may also request DOD SAFE access. Please follow the instructions to request access.

28 Please confirm that a professional employee compensation plan is only required from the prime.

Section L, 2.3.10 Proposal Copies Section L, Attachment 11, paragraph d states the prime shall instruct teaming partners and joint venture partners to submit their Compensation Plans (Narrative & Compensation Plan Model) directly to the Contracting Officer.

The subcontractor may also request DOD SAFE access.

Section L, Attachment 11, paragraphs e and f states Offerors may propose one (1) Comp Plan Narrative and one

(1) Comp Plan Model for the entire team, however salary support data must clearly link to proposed rates in the Comp Plan Model. Offerors proposing this method shall include the Comp Plan (Narrative and Comp Plan Model) in the prime contractor's proposal.

29 "The Offeror may submit a signed copy from the System for Awards Management (SAM) website in lieu of completing the Representations and Certifications included in the model contract." Can the Government confirm they only want a copy of the FAR & DFARS report under the Reps and Certs in the Offeror SAM entity record? Since there is no signature line available on the SAM Reps and Certs section, should the offeror create a signature section at the end of the Reps and Certs?

Section L, 3.9.1 Representations and Certifications

Section L, page 28 of 41, paragraph 3.9.1 a and b allows for a signed copy of Representations and Certifications as identified in Section K (Model contract), or the Offeror may submit a signed copy from the SAM Website.

Both options regarding Representations and Certifications shall be signed.

30 Is the Government willing to provide an editable version of the Model Contract (SF 33 and Sections A though J) so that the Offers can make updates as required by the Solicitation? At this time we are only able to make edits to the SF33 form.

Solicitation+-+FA890320R0003+v2 The contract writing system does not provide an editable copy besides the SF33. The offeror can use the "Comment" tool and use the "T" (add text comment) to insert any information.

31 L5 describes upload using the DoD SAFE tool. Is the Offeror to upload the access database PPI tool as well?

Attachment L5 and Section L Yes, Offerors must upload all documents in DOD SAFE as indicated in Section L, page 22 of 41, paragraph

2.3.10.2 titled Electronic Copies.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

32 In the instructions for downloading the PPI tool, the government states that offerors can find the PPI tool on the beta.sam solicitation posting. The PPI tool does not appear to be provided on the solicitation page. Would the government please provide access to the PPI tool?

Attachment L5, “Downloading the PPI Tool.”

Section L, Attachment 5 revised to provide instructions regarding PPI tool. Section L, Attachment 13 Past Performance Information Tool was added.

33 Section 3.1 lists the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of Volume I.

However, the instructions in Volume II, Subfactor 1.3 appear to require the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to appear in Volume II. Will the Government confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should appear in Volume I?

Section L, 3.1, 3.9.2 Section L, page 26 of 41, paragraph 3.1(n) removed Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan/s for Volume I - Contract Documentation.

SB Subcontracting Plan is identified in Section L, pages 32/33 of 41 for Volume II- Factor 1: Technical at paragraph 4.10.1

34 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in order to be FAR compliant, typically takes at least 6-8 pages. Given the page limitations of Section II, would it be possible to move the small business subcontracting plan to the price volume?

Section L, 4.10.1 Section L, page 32 of 41, paragraph 4.10.1 is part of the technical evaluation for Factor 1 Technical, subfactor

1.4. This subfactor can not be moved to Volume IV Factor 3: Price.

Page limitation increased from 6 to 16 pages for Section L, page 19 of 41, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, Volume II, paragraph 4.10.

35 Is the current Data Management Tool Government-owned or Contractor-owned?

Section L, 4.8 Subfactor 1.2 and PWS 4.16

Government owned and contractor maintained

36 If the current data management tool is contractor-owned, does the tool revert to Government ownership at the end of the current contract?

Section L, 4.8 Subfactor 1.2 and PWS 4.16

The database is Government owned and contractor maintained.

37 Section 5.1 lists Teaming Arrangements of Letters of Intent as part of Volume III, but there are no further instructions in 5.0. Please confirm that copies of the TAs/LOIs from Volume I should also appear in Volume III.

Section L, 5.1 Section L, page 33 of 41, paragraph 5.2 (d) added language to clarify Teaming Arrangements and Letters of Intent for Volume II.

38 Section 5.6 asks for PPQs for each reference. If our customer has evaluated our performance in CPARS, do the government require a PPQ?

Section L, 5.6 Section M, pages 6/7 of 11, paragraph 2.2(a) titled Evaluation Process indicates the Past Performance Team will consider Offeror-provided information as well as information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

PPQ is not required, if the performance is in CPARS.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

39 At the end of this section the government states “For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter.” Section L, 5.8 “Client Authorization Letters” appears to contain the same requirement. Can the government confirm that the requirements for authorization letters do not apply to section 5.7 and should only be included in section 5.8?

Section L, 5.7 “Consent Letters.” Section L, pages 35-36, paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9. Although both Section L, Attachment L-7, Sample Consent Letter and Attachment L-8, Sample Authorization Letter appear similar, the letters provide release of information regarding past performance. As these are samples, tailoring these documents is allowed.

Section L, Attachment L-7, Consent letter allows release of team member(s) adverse present/past performance information to the Prime, so the Prime can respond to the Contracting Officer regarding such information.

Section L, Attachment L-8, Client Authorization letter allows the Government to contact the POC(s) concerning private sector contractors, subcontractors and joint venture partners. Information cannot be disclosed to the Government without their consent. Client authorization letters are required for each identified effort for a commercial customer. This letter will authorize release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance. The Government will need that consent before contacting commercial customers to assess the Offeror’s past performance.

40 Section 5.9 references Specific Content to be provided. This information appears to be reflected in the PPIs (reference Section 5.5). Does the government require an additional response to Section 5.9?

Section L. 5.9 Section L, page 36 of 41, paragraph 5.9 details the required contents concerning Past Performance, identified in paragraph 5.1, Volume Organization, page 33 of 41.

41 The description in Section 5.2 appears to focus entirely on Housing. Please confirm that this section is not applicable to Utilities.

Attachment L2, 5.2 Capital Repair and Replacement (CR&R) Visits (HE and U)

PWS, Section 5.2 does apply to Utilities. PWS Section 5.2 revised accordingly.

5.2 Capital Repair and Replacement (CR&R) Visits (HE and U): The Contractor shall conduct CR&R Visits to confirm whether adequate funding is allocated to support the capital repairs and improvements necessary to maintain the privatized housing and a privatized utility system over the near and long- term. The review will consist of ensuring the plan has all project CR&R costs adequately represented, life cycles are reasonable & consistent with industry standards for both project owners and system owners. Contractor will assist in ensuring compliance with this requirement as part of annual budget reviews (Housing only).

42 The description in Section 3.4 appears to focus entirely on Housing. Please confirm that this section is not applicable to Utilities.

Attachment L2, 3.4 Restructure (HE and U)

PWS, Section 3.4 does apply to Utilities. PWS Section 3.4 revised as follows:

3.4 Restructure (HE and U): The Contractor shall conduct an economic analysis on project owner and system owners proposals and develop a cost summary on all the components of the proposal to include recommendations. The economic analysis should balance conservative cost estimates for developing, operating and maintaining the project and still maximize the development scope and identify the most appropriate actions to correct component deficiencies as well as a healthy out-year reinvestment plan. The Contractor will also be responsible for fully reviewing proposals and looking into Federal and Local requirements that could have an impact during the life of the project. Because this is largely a restructuring of existing projects, the Contractor will be part of a uniquely qualified team that has a thorough understanding of the installation, the condition of the housing ,and utility system the local economy and the operating and development costs associated with both.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

43 Regarding Section L: It appears that two email addresses are listed for you.

Each Offeror is requested to submit the information shown in the project summaries for each relevant project identified Factor 2 – Past Performance IAW Section 5.5. The responsibility to track and ensure the completion/submission of the PPQ rests solely with the Offeror. Offerors shall ensure that the information is submitted directly to the Past Performance Team, Michael Grasso (michael.grasso@us.af.mil), and the Contracting Officer, Linda L. Cavazos (linda.cavazos@us.af.mil). The PPQ form is included as Attachment L-6 to this solicitation. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification.

PPQ form:

To assist you in preparing your response and expediting your reply, submit the questionnaire electronically and e-mail to Michael Grasso, email: michael.grasso.3@us.af.mil and Linda Cavazos, email: linda.cavazos@us.af.mil. Please call or email Linda L. Cavazos, email: linda.cavazos@us.af.mil, Contracting Officer at M: 210-395-8730/C;

210-347-9488, if you have any questions. Title of email: RFP FA8903-20-R- 0003, Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. Your completed questionnaire will become a part of the official Source Selection records.

Section L, page 35 of 41, paragraph 5.6 corrected email address for Michael Grasso to michael.grasso.3@us.af.mil.

44 Additional time is needed, beyond the current deadline of June 8. We have submitted a number of questions on what appear to be inconsistencies in the instructions provided in Section L. The Air Force’s clarification of its intent is essential to our response. Upon receipt of the Air Force responses, we will need adequate time to review the documents, update our response accordingly and conduct all necessary coordination's.

Due to the COVID-19 crisis, additional lead time is needed for things such as printing and production. As such, meeting the June 8 deadline would require that our proposal be finalized and sent to production by the end of next week. Since we do not currently have answers to our questions and we do not know what their impact will be, finalizing the proposal in that timeframe could result in a document that is not aligned with the Air Force’s expectations.

Further, internal coordination required for information requests (professional comp data, etc.) is taking longer than usual. We are concerned that some may have difficulty coordinating these requests by June 8.

Section L, page 22 of 41, paragraph 2.3.10.2 changed proposal due date to 15 July 2020, 1400 PM Central Time to allow adequate time for proposal submission.

As a result of COVID-19, hard copy proposal will not be required, however should DoD SAFE become unavailable, Offerors shall comply with Section L, paragraph 2.3.10.2(d) on page 23 of 41.

45 There are issues with the PPI tool. The directions don’t follow how the beta.sam opportunity page is laid out and there is no link to download the tool itself.

Section L, Attachment 5 revised to provide instructions regarding PPI tool. Section L, Attachment L13 Past Performance Information Tool was added.

Attachment L‐3

# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Question

RFP / PWS

Document Reference

Government Answer

46 Section L, 6.6 (g) Professional Compensation Plan Labor Model Evaluation, page 40 of 41, requests: "recent surveys and/or studies from professional, public, and private organizations (e.g., Watson & Wyatt, Economic Research Institute, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) used to support the proposed compensation. Identify the source of the provided surveys and studies (salary support data). If not using one of the sources listed above, explain the credibility of the source providing the surveys and studies."

Several of our small business subcontractors have indicated that professional surveys or studies are not used at their firm. Please confirm that this requirement applies to all small businesses subcontractors. If so, please confirm that if a small business does not conduct professional compensation surveys, a narrative description of how compensation is determined would be an acceptable substitute.

Notices to Offerors, 6.6 (g) Professional Compensation Plan Labor Model Evaluation, page 40 of 41.

Section L, page 40 of 41, paragraph g for Attachment L-11 – Professional Compensation Plan Labor Model states: If not using one of the sources listed (e.g., Watson & Wyatt, Economic Research Institute, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) an explanation of the credibility of the source providing the surveys and studies is required.

Section L, page 39 of 41, paragraph 6.6 (b) states: Offeror, teaming partners and joint venture partners shall submit a Comp Plan Narrative and Comp Plan Model.