Q A _RPA_Combined_Synopsis-Solicitation_-_15_July_15.pdf

FA9401-15-R-0002-0002

RPA COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A)

DATE: AS OF 15 JUL 2015

1. Is the offeror required to possess a facility clearance at the Secret level? Attachment 3, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 3,E, states the offeror must possess a facility clearance equal to the highest classification on the attached DD Form 254. There was no DD254 attached.

Paragraph 4.5.1.1 states Contractor employees shall maintain a Secret clearance.

Response: See the Attachment 8 – DD254 with Continuation Sheets of Final Combined Synopsis/Solicitation.

2. Can the government confirm that the offeror should leave blank CLIN 0003 (and the other travel CLINs) when filling out the costing (Attachment B). There is no information provided to determine the cost of travel and the government has placed NTE in the amount line. Are we to include any specific amount for the Travel CLINs or leave them blank?

Response: See the Attachment 1 – Schedule B. The Government has provided a not-to-exceed amount for each of the travel CLINs.

3. Can the government confirm that offeror’s can leave CLIN 0005 (and the option year contractor manpower reporting CLINs) blank if they are not priced separately?

Response: See Attachment 3 – Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items for instructions.

4. Can the government provide further information on the Transition Period responsibilities and activities? The requirement for a transition plan is stated on Pages 10 and 14.

Response: See Attachment 3 – Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items for instructions.

5. Can the government clearly identify Key personnel? Are the positions in paragraph 2.5 of the PWS meant to be the key personnel? The term Key Personnel is used several times in the PWS but they are not identified.

Response: The positions identified in Section 2.5 of the PWS are the key personnel.

6. Can the government confirm that the Budgetary Information referenced in Attachment 4 is the CLIN structure provided in Attachment B? Paragraph 4,c (Price Factor), (6) of Attachment 4 (Evaluation) states the price evaluation will be done using the “budgetary information included in the solicitation”.

Response: The requirement has been deleted from Attachment 4.

7. Can the government define what is meant by “Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees”? Paragraph 4,c (Price Factor), (6) of Attachment 4 (Evaluation) states the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total compensation plan for Professional Employees.

Response: Refer to the incorporation-by-reference of Provision 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (as well as the prescription in FAR Subpart 22.1103) in Attachment 6, Provisions and Clauses.

8. In Attachment 3, it indicates that a completed SF1449, Attachment 1-Schedule B, and fill-ins and certifications are required for Part II – Price. However, in Attachment 4, it includes an evaluation factor for Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees. Is a Total Compensation Plan required for Part II? If so, where is it to be included and what information is required to be included in it?

Response: See both Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 to the Final Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. Refer to the incorporation-by-reference of Provision 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (as well as the prescription in FAR Subpart 22.1103) in Attachment 6, Provisions and Clauses.

9. In Attachment 3, Part II – Price, item (b), indicates that “the extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.” Are we correct to assume that the proposed unit price and extended pricing shall be rounded to nearest whole dollar?

Response: Yes

10. On Attachment 4, under the Technical Approach Factor, Subfactor 1.2, it requires us to do provide “redacted resumes of proposed candidates” for key personnel.

a) Are all of the positions considered to be “Key Personnel”?

b) If not, which ones are considered “Key”?

c) What is to be redacted on the resumes? Is it the candidate’s name or the name and companies worked for?

Response: The positions identified in Section 2.5 of the PWS are the key personnel. Redact the “candidate’s” name.

11. Section 2.5.4 RPA/Aviation Human Factors SME states that this person must have a Master’s Degree in human factors. Is it a requirement that that Master’s degree be accredited by the HFES?

Response: Assuming the reference is to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), the response is no.

12. Ref: PWS Para 2.5.1 System Safety Engineer: The System Safety Engineer assigned to this contract must possess at least a Bachelor’s of Science in Engineering and have at least ten years systems engineering and system safety engineering experience working with RPA or other aircraft. Additional on-site System Safety Engineer(s) shall possess a Bachelor’s of Science in Engineering. Does the Additional on-site System Safety Engineer, in addition to a BS Engineering, require any specific number of years in experience working with RPA or other aircraft?

Response: No

13. Ref: PWS 2.6.2 Hours of Work: Normal workdays are Monday through Friday except US Federal Holidays. Normal hours of work are from 0730 to 1630 daily. Workers typically work eight (8) hours per day, 40 hours per week. Short-term situations, such as supporting mishap investigations or answering short notice higher headquarters taskers, may make performance in excess of 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week necessary on occasion. All employees are expected to be available during normal hours.

Q: “All employees are expected to be available during normal hours (recommend adding,) unless absences have been pre-approved by the contractor Site Lead and COR.”

Response: See Attachment 2 – Performance Work Statement for updated para 2.6.2.

14. Ref: ATTACHMENT 3 ADDENDUM 1 TO 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS. Are there a page limits for cover letter and the three (3) separate parts:

Part I – Technical Approach, Part II - Price, and Part III – Past Performance.

Response: See Attachment 3 – Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items for instructions.

15. Ref: PWS Attachment 4 ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 -- EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS Para 1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection . . . . . . . . and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Ref: PWS Attachment 4 ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 -- EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS Para 4. C. (6) Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total compensation plan for professional employees to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

Q: On the one hand you want retention of the most highly qualified personnel and want bidder’s pricing to reflect that objective, on the other hand you want the LPTA bid to win which appear to be disparate and markedly lacking in consistency. Recommend the Basis of Award be changed from LPTA Award to a Best Value Award to ensure the government gets the best contractor based on technical experience and cost.

Response: The solicitation correctly corresponds with a LPTA source selection conducted IAW FAR 12.6 as well as the prescription in FAR Subpart 22.11—Professional Employee Compensation.

16. Ref: PWS 3.3.2: Maintain access to computerized maintenance resources. Computerized maintenance resources include: Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS), Predator Resource Center (PRC) to include IETMs, Joint Technical Data Integration (JTDI), AFSAS, Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), Navy Web Enabled Safety System (WESS), Navy JASPER soft, Army Risk Management Information System (RMIS), SIPRNet, and Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Manager (SUSMAN). Does the Predator Resource Center still exist? If not, could you please update PWS 3.3.2?

Response: The Predator Resource Center (PRC) has combined with the Joint Technical Data Integration (JTDI). The PWS has been updated accordingly.

17. References: ATTACHMENT 3 ADDENDUM 1 TO 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (FEB 2012) (IAW 12.302(a); paragraph 3. Part III – Past Performance; (b) Performance Surveys.

(b) Performance Surveys: The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the Offeror's past performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this combined synopsis/solicitation.

The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and any other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance. Provide a list of no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include those that are similar in scope to the RPA A&AS PWS requirements. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish documentation in accordance with Attachment 5 – Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet.

ATTACHMENT 4 ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 -- EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(JAN 1999) (IAW 12.602(a); Paragraph 4 Evaluation Factors, b. Past Performance Factor PWS.

b. Past Performance Factor The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of three (3) efforts similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the requirements as outlined in the PWS. The Offeror must also identify whether role in project was as prime or sub-contractor and the extent of support provided. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. To be considered recent, the relevant past performance must have been performed in the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this combined synopsis/solicitation.

Question: Attachment 3 states,… no more than 3 past performances, which seems to infer less than 3 past performances would be acceptable. However, Attachment 4 states, Offeror shall provide a detailed description of three (3) efforts… This is a LPTA award and Offerors with no past performance will be determined to have “Unknown” past performance, and in the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” would be considered “acceptable.” Based on your Attachment 4 requirement would a company that submits less than the required 3 relevant past performances be rated unacceptable simply because they did not submit the required number of 3? Would you allow Offerors to submit between 1 and 3 past performance references instead of requiring 3?

Response: See Attachments 3 and 4 to the Final Combined Synopsis/Solicitation.

18. Per Attachment 3, the Technical volume page limit is 40 pages. I wonder if title page, glossary, cross reference matrix and qualification summaries are included in that limit.

Response: Attachment 3 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items to clarify the page limitations for Part I. Technical has been updated.

19. As it stands now the requirement gives a clear and unfair advantage to the incumbent company.

As you know Provision 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees is incorporated by reference in the solicitation. It states that the total compensation plan must include salaries and benefits for each position. It is also clearly focused on incumbent employees and their salaries. See underlined sections from Provision 52.222-46 below.

(a) Recompetition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.

(b) Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

The current compensation levels for the incumbent professional employees supporting AFSEC are clearly the benchmark against which our price will be measured. If we guess high we will not be the lowest in an LPTA evaluation, if we guess low we are unacceptable in accordance with Provision 52.222-46.

This requirement gives a clear and unfair advantage to the incumbent company, only they know the current salary baseline we will all be evaluated against. We request that the current salaries by position be provided to everyone interested in the solicitation to ensure fair competition.

Response: The intent of the provision is to ensure Offerors are doing their due diligence when developing their final price. Determination of fair and reasonableness will be based on adequate price competition and not the current contract.