GPMS Industry Feedback Consolidated from DRAFT RFP FINAL.pdf

GPMS Draft RFP Industry Questions / Comments

Draft RFP Reference

Industry Questions/Comment Government Response

1. USAFE/PACAF

Appendix C

Appendix C lists documents which are mandatory however many are not applicable to the PACAF or USAFE contracts. Will the Government revise Appendix C?

The Government is updating each Appendix C to remove publications that are not applicable to USAFE or PACAF.

2.

USAFE/PACAF

Appendix O and M

There are conflicts between Appendices B, C, G, M, and O. For instance, PACAF lists no TRAP in Appendix O however Appendix M requires certifications for positions in TRAP. Will the Government update the appendices to resolve conflicts?

The Government is updating the Appendices to remove conflicts and items not applicable to a particular theater.

3. USAFE Appendix C Multiple munitions references are listed as mandatory however there are no munitions requirements other than MMHE. Will Appendix C be updated?

The Government is updating Appendix C.

4.

USAFE Appendix C There are no mandatory or advisory publications for Force Protection, RADR or Red

Horse equipment/material. Will publications be added for these specific commodities?

The Government will update Appendix C for RADR (USAFE & PACAF), SF equipment (USAFE), and RED HORSE (USAFE), as applicable.

5.

PACAF PWS Para.

4.2 Traffic

Management

This requirement is listed as TBD. Will there be a traffic management/container management requirement?

The GPMS contractor will be a customer to local Traffic Management Offices in Korea, Guam, and Alaska; GPMS contractor’s Container Management responsibilities will include inspection/certification of containers for which they are responsible for storage.

6.

USAFE Provisions and Clauses

Since the PWS states future work may be performed in the US – recommend the Government add applicable FAR clauses to the contract. 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards; 52.222-55 Minimum Wages under Executive Order 13658; 52.222- 62 Paid Sick Leave under Executive Order 13706

Para 1.2. Scope mentions the potential for other locations in CONUS that would directly support the USAFE GPMS program; if that is required and executed through a contract modification the required FAR clauses will be added with the mod.

At this time the USAFE locations are all OCONUS. If CONUS locations are added in the future then the applicable clauses will be added via modification.

7.

PACAF Provisions and Clauses

Will the Government add the following applicable FAR clauses to the contract?

52.222-55 Minimum Wages under Executive Order 13658; 52.222-62 Paid Sick Leave under Executive Order 13706

Clauses 52.222-55, & 52.222-62 have been added to address the performance in Alaska.

8.

4.7.2. Client Support

Administrator

(CSA).

“The contractor shall serve as CSA to perform IT level 1 support functions IAW DoD 8570.01-M, AFI 33-210, paragraph 2.8 thru 2.8.2 and 2.14.”

Typically, IT level 1 access requires a TS investigation – yet the DD254 indicates only Secret. Please clarify the security requirements.

CSA requirements are removed from the requirement.

9.

2.1.1.10.4.1.

National Agency Checks (NACs).

PWS Section 2.1.1.10.4 Personnel Security contains information regarding National Agency Checks (NACs). Can the Government confirm whether there is a requirement of NACs, as NACs are typically not used anymore in favor of NACIs? Further, if NACs are required, could the Government outline the NAC process, and if they intend for them to be performed for local nationals?

National Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI) and credit check will be used.

A NACI-equivalent process should be conducted for Local Nationals (LNs) or Other Country Nationals (OCNs).

10.

L-3 Submission of Proposals

Will the Government provide links so that Offerors may upload proposals in the DOD SAFE system?

Submit a point of contact name and corporate email to recieve the DOD SAFE link to submit your proposal to the PCO and CM’s identified in L-2.1. The Government will then provide links for Offerors that send an email requesting a drop-off in DOD SAFE.

11.

L-5.1.1 and L-5.4.5 Organization/Page Limit.

Are the page limitations shown in L-5.4.5 for both proposals combined or for each proposal submitted?

The page limitations are for each proposal submitted. One

(1) proposal for PACAF and one (1) proposal for USAFE.

12.

RFP Section L-

7.4.2.3 Subfactor C:

Outload & Reconstitution

Section L-7.4.2.3 references PWS 2.2.1.9 and 2.2.1.9.1, but those PWS reference cannot be found. Will the Government provide the missing PWS references?

The PWS references will be updated. Language will be added to Section L.

13.

L-8.1, L-8.1.1 Summary, L- 8.1.2.1.3, L-8.1.2.1.4 Summary

Each of these references contain requirements for the past performance summary that conflict with one another. Can the Government clarify the requirements for the past performance summary?

The Government requires two types of summaries. One for the overall Past Performance volume (L-8.1.1) and one that is more specific to each PPI reference (L-8.1.2.1.4.)

14.

L-8.1.2.1.7 Offeror and (if applicable) Subcontractor, Proposed Partner, and/or Proposed Joint Venture Partner

- Past and Present Performance Contract References

Will the Government consider limiting the subcontractor contract reference requirement to only include major subcontractors, such as those who perform 20 percent or more of the work, or a critical task?

The Government has updated Section L to define a major subcontractor as one who will perform 20 percent or more of the work.

15.

L-8.1.3 Subcontractor/Teami ng Partner Consent Letter (Attachment 1).

Consent letters are required for major subcontractors/teaming partners. Can the Government clarify what it considers to be a major subcontractor, such as those performing 20% or more of the work?

See number 14.

16.

L-8.2 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Attachment 2).

It is unclear whether the contractor has any responsibility to fill out or send any portion of the PPQ to its contract references that lack CPARs. Can the Government clarify the instructions?

The offeror is responsible for sending out PPQs to its references that lack CPARs. Language has been added to Section L.

17.

L-8.4 Relevant Contracts

Relevancy shall be detailed in each PPI Reference Sheet (Attachment 1). However, Attachment 1 is the Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter. Does the Government intend to provide a PPI format?

Section L has been updated to incorporate Section L, Attachments 4 and 5 for PPI’s.

18.

L-5.4.2 What Counts as a Page.

L-5.4.3 Pages Not Included in Page Count.

Foldouts (11” x 17” pages) count as two pages. The organizational chart is limited to 1 page. Are offerors permitted to present the organizational chart on 11 x 17? If so, will the organizational chart count as one page or two?

For the organizational chart, and 11” x 17” foldout will count as one page.

19.

PACAF Draft PWS In 6.3.2 Fire Prevention Program the Government references AFI 91-203, however this has been replaced by AFMAN 91-203. Could the Government clarify or update the reference provided?

The correct reference is AFMAN 91-203.

20.

PACAF Draft PWS “PWS 6.3.2.2. Welding, Cutting and Brazing Permit. The contractor shall establish, maintain and enforce a welding, cutting and brazing permit program for appropriate activities at the GPMS sites IAW AFI 91-203. “

Can the Government clarify if all GPMS sites provide a dedicated Welding, Cutting, and Brazing permitted designated area or are Offerors to operate by individually assigned AF Form 592, USAF Hot Work Permit IAW AFI 32-2001 for each task?

Per AFMAN 91-203 para. 27.3.13. “AF Form 592 is required when cutting, welding or brazing is being accomplished outside of the designated shop area.” If GPMS shop areas can be designated and approved by host base FES Flight, Occupational Safety and Bioenvironmental, an AF Form 592 not required. If work outside designated/approved areas, the AF Form 592 will be required and must be routed through host base agencies prior to start of work.

21.

PACAF Draft PWS In the PACAF Draft PWS, Section 6.3.1 Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) the Government provides a requirement for EPPs but doesn’t offer a reference to for which EPP should be written. Typically, EPPs are based on the ISO 14001 standard.

Can the Government confirm that an EPP IAW ISO 14001-2015 would satisfy this requirement?

Reference UFGS 01 57 19 to develop EPP. EPPs typically address known/potential environmental issues and how the responsible person(s) will deal with them; whereas EMPs align with ISO14001 Environmental Management System Standard. Intent of the EPP is to address how contractor will maintain compliance with environmental media programs.

22.

L-8.1.2 Past Performance Information (PPI).

If the PPI reference is an overarching Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ level and not performance on each individual underlying task/delivery order. If Offerors would like assessment of an individual task/call/delivery/purchase order, the Offeror shall submit that as a separate PPI reference.

When a task order contract is presented, must the Offeror still provide a PPI reference for the IDIQ? This would amount to 2 out of the 5 references allotted when only the task order is relevant.

In order to evaluate the task order the contractor will be required to submit the ID/IQ or BPA number the task order is under. This will be 1 reference. If there is no task order number then the Government will evaluate the ID/IQ or BPA number provided.

23.

L-8.1.2 Past Performance Information (PPI).

If the PPI reference is an overarching Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ level and not performance on each individual underlying task/delivery order.

See response to number 22.

When the Government is assessing performance at the IDIQ level, does it consider the aggregate scope of task orders under the IDIQ in its assessment? There is generally no contract performance at the IDIQ level other than program management.

24.

L-8.1.1 Summary.

L-8.1.2.1 PPI

Contents.

L-8.1.2.1.1 Table of Contents.

L-8.1.2.1.2 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

Include a detailed matrix that depicts how each PPI meets the relevancy criteria defined in paragraph M-3.2.2.

PPI Contents. The Offerors’ Past Performance Volume shall, at a minimum, contain the following sections:

The RFP indicates that a PPI is a contract reference in L-8.1.1 however in L-8.1.2.1 PPI seems to refer to the volume.

Can the Government clarify if a PPI is a contract reference or the volume?

The PPI’s will be included in the Past Performance Volume.

25.

L-8.1.2.1.1 Table of Contents.

L-8.1.2.1.2 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

Is a Table of Contents and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms required for each PPI reference?

Section L has been updated. Offerors should have one Table of Contents and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for the entire Past Performance volume. Offerors shall only include a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms if there are Abbreviations or Acronyms that differ from the ones listed at the volume level.

26.

L-8.1.1 Summary, L- 8.1.2.1.3

Both sections require Offers to provide a table depicting the past performance contracts. Does the Government require Offerors to provide the table in both sections?

Yes, the Government does require a table in both sections.

27.

L-8.1.1 Summary.

L-8.1.2.1.4 Summary.

There are two Summary sections identified with differing requirements. Does the Government require Offerors to respond to both sections?

The Government does require both summaries. One for the overall Past Performance volume and one that is more specific to each PPI reference.

28.

Section M-3.1 Section M does not line up with Section L in terms of “Aspects”. In some cases, there is a wide disparity between the requirements of Section L and the evaluation criteria of Section M. Section M-3.1.2.3 is one of the most notable. Does the Government intend to adjust Section M to better align with Section L?

This has been corrected.

29.

1.0. Transition What is the phase-in period for these contracts? In accordance with Section L – Attachment 3, the

Government anticipates a 90-day transition period (1 Nov 2021 – 31 Jan 2022).

30.

Section L-9.1.

Pricing Tables.

Contract CLIN Structure PACAF

Under the contract CLIN structure for USAFE facilities maintenance is under CLINs X009-X018. However, the contract CLIN structure for PACAF CLINs X005, X006, X009, X010 do not have a reference for facilities maintenance labor.

In PACAF, can the Government clarify where contractors should place facility maintenance labor cost?

At this time the contractor will not be performing Facilities Maintenance in PACAF. The contractor will be responsible for Facilities Management which is included under the Program Management CLIN.

31. USAFE Appendix J Regarding the Opel facility in Kaiserslautern, is there any facility maintenance required in the lease contract?

No; facility maintenance will not be the responsibility of the GPMS contractor for the Opel facility.

32. Appendix G and Appendix O

What is the level of effort for outload and reconstitution taskings? For Korea and Guam, historical Indirect Mission Support Request (IMSR) records will be provided.

For USAFE, it is estimated that one (1) full DABS set will be used for an exercise each year; storage site sourcing will vary. Contractor should have the capacity across the program to support the outload & reconstitution at the tasked site with “TDY” resources from un-tasked sites.

33.

Section M-3.2.2 Factor 3 Past Performance (Page M-6)

Factor 3 Past Performance: Section M-3.2.2 Recommendation: Allow relevant Past Performance from non US Government contracts. Discussion: As currently written, the Past Performance relevancy only allows for contracts that are with the U.S.

Government. Impact to the US Government: This limits industry from including other relevant past performance with other Governmental or corporate entities that shows the ability to incorporate technical investments, gain process efficiencies and organizational restructures that improved the level of service and decreased overall costs. These additional relevant past performance contracts from a non US Government contract will assist in presenting experiences that will appropriately reveal to the Government past efforts thereby allowing them to reasonably assess an even lower risk for the government.

The Government will not change the relevancy table.

34.

Section L-9.1 Pricing Table(s) & Section M-3.3 (Page L-11 & M-7)

Factor 4 Cost/Price: Section L-9.1 Pricing Table(s) & Section M-3.3.

Recommendation: Allow industry to determine the staffing level for each CLIN.

Discussion: As currently written, the pricing table instructions seem to indicate that a staffing table will be provided and industry will only be allowed to submit labor rates for all the required labor categories. Impact to the US Government: The government will likely not achieve the Enterprise efficiencies as described at the October 2019 Industry Day presentation. This approach will 1) create an atmosphere for an employee high turnover rate and 2) severely limit industries ability to propose creative and cost efficient solutions. This may be the opposite of what the government seeks and what effective organizations strive to provide. Our experience has shown that when this type of staffing approach is awarded and performed, the services received by the government fail to meet performance levels and ultimately lead to early staffing issues during the transition period. This type of program eventually develops a reputation within industry that low salaries are the norm and result in perspective employees either staying away from these employment opportunities or they take a position but immediately begin a search for a different position on another contract. Leidos tries to bid realistic staffing levels and competitive salary packages for each labor category for the specific work elements.

Solicitations that direct staffing levels are evaluated very thoroughly by Industry to determine if a proposal will be submitted. Change agents typically bid a small percentage of the opportunities where the government directs a staffing solution for the reasons stated above.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to propose their staffing levels.Section L, Attachment 3 – Pricing Template can be tailored to the applicable staffing levels.

35.

Section M-3.1.2 & Factor 4 Cost Price:

Section M-3.3.3.

(Page M-4 & M-8)

Factor 2 Technical Understanding: Recommendation: Provide the quantity of personnel supporting all current sites in USAFE and PACAF. This data should include the quantities of personnel supporting this mission broken out by US Military, US Government and Local Nationals broken out by PWS areas prior to the Industry day visits. Discussion: This data is crucial to help industry develop our technical and cost solutions. Impact to Government: This data will provide a better understanding of the sites requirements and enable Industry to provide a more realistic Technical and Cost solution meeting the US Air Forces program objectives.

This is a new requirement. The Government will not provide personnel numbers.

36.

Factor 1 Program Management:

Section M.3.1.1.1 & Factor 4 Cost Price:

Section M-3.3.3.

(Page M-4 & M-8)

Factor 1 Program Management: Section M.3.1.1.1 & Factor 4 Cost Price: Section M-

3.3.3. Recommendation: Provide a list of all Collective Bargaining Agreements, Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) or any other binding agreement that mandates certain pay and/or benefits for current employees. Discussion: Documentation that mandates employee pay and/or benefits in OCONUS locations is often very complicated and requires legal review by industry to ensure they are properly interpreted and priced in the Cost Volume. Impact to Government: When these agreements are not properly understood or priced, the government is placed at greater risk of substandard contract performance and post award contract rate adjustments.

Providing these documents earlier in the acquisition process reduces these risks for the government.

See Appendix E.

37.

Section L Page L-2 Para L-2.2.1 states that site visits will not occur. Question: Will the government provide diagrams for each site that include building size, layout and distance from other buildings and storage lots? This is typical information attendees typically capture during the site visits in order to develop solutions for the PWS requirements.

Yes, the Government will provide diagrams and pictures.

38.

Section L Page L-4 Para L-5.4.5 “Copy requirements, page limitations…” Question: This statement seems to imply that hard copy submissions are still required. Question: Please clarify that only one electronic copy is required for submission and no hard copies?

Section L has been updated.

39.

Section L Page L-12 USAFE CLIN X0007 and PACAF CLIN X0007 are listed as Award Incentive Fee.

Question: Please confirm that these CLINS are “In Addition To” the Fixed Fee for all of the respective CPFF CLINS listed for USAFE and PACAF?

The Award Fee is in addition to the Fixed Fee for the CPFF CLINs.

40.

Section L Page L-13 PACAF CLIN X010 is listed as CR. Similar work in CLIN X005 and X006 are listed as CPFF. Question: Should this be changed to CPFF for the CLIN Type to maintain consistency with X005 and X006?

PACAF CLIN X010 will be changed to a CPFF CLIN and a nominal workload will be provided for evaluation purposes.

If new locations are required, a modification RFP will be issued for each new/optional location.

41.

Section L Page L-13 Para L-9.2.1 “Offerors shall provide their profit rate for FFP CLINS to include the option years.” Question: Can more insight be provided on the intent for having offers disclose their Fee for FFP CLINS? FFP CLINS are usually evaluated for

Profit is financial gain minus expenses. In accordance with L-9.2, the government is requesting other than cost and pricing data to include all listed in paragraphs L-9.2.1 and buildup without the fee disclosed. FFP CLINS place all the performance risk on the offeror and this fee is designed to compensate for this risk. Because this is a competitive acquisition, industry will bid aggressive rates to achieve the best price possible overall total price. Question: Can the government please provide your definition and current understanding of profit rate? This is usually the results of performing on current contracts taking into account all the execution results.

L-9.2.2. This will allow for price evaluations in accordance with paragraph M-3 which states "Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is fair & reasonable, balanced, and realistic and to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation."

42.

Section M Page M-5 Para M-3.1.2.1.b “Clearly identify estimated unscheduled maintenance hours for each functional area as a percentage of scheduled maintenance requirements.”

Question: Please provide all the unscheduled maintenance data for all functional areas for the previous 3 years for industry to study and assess our response. This data is required to better understand the condition of the equipment and the amount of work that was previously required. It also provides a better understanding of how effective the current maintenance efforts are in order to more accurately estimate future requirements. If this data is not provided, it provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent contracts for each site.

This is a new requirement for USAFE. Unscheduled maintenance data is unavailable. For PACAF, life-cycle date will be provided where available.

43.

Section M Page M-8 Para M-3.3.5 “The offerors proposed price for all CLINS, including Transition…..”

Question: Can the government remove the Transition Phase from the total evaluated price? This gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractors since they will not have transition costs. We do recommend that the Transition Costs be part of the evaluation for realism and risk determination.

The Transition will remain in the Total evaluated price.

Most of the GPMS requirement is new work without an incumbent. Addtionally, this is not an LPTA evaluation so price is not the most important factor.

44.

Section L, L-8.1.4 Organizational Structure Change History

Question: Would the Government consider limiting the companies Organizational Changes to those changes that have occurred in the past 5 years? As currently written, this would require out proposal to describe over 50 years of organizational change. We feel that those organizational changes past 5 years are not relevant to the capabilities and skills we currently provide.

Section L has been updated to limit the organizational changes to 5 years from the issuance of the final solicitation.

45.

Section L, 9.5.4.1

SOFA

Language currently reads that "...SOFA may not cover the job descriptions...".

Typically SOFA covers a country not jobs. Recommendation: Please consider changing the language to something similar to the following: "The Government will include SOFA clauses in subsequent award for applicable countries." Question: If the Government is not able to amend the language, what is meant by "...SOFA may not cover the “job descriptions..."?

Language will not be changed at this time, industry is required to research and know all local labor laws and this statement is informing industry that labor categories in this RFP may not be covered by DOCPERS, SOFAs and other local labor laws.

46. PACAF PWS Page 14/71

Para 2.4.2 CLIN 8 (CPFF). Question: Should this CLIN be CPAF to match the intent of the Award Fee?

The PWS CLINs will be corrected to match Section L-9.1.

47.

PACAF PWS Page 18/71

Para 3.2.2 “Maintenance for each commodity shall be tracked in the MIS.”

Question: Will the government provide this specific MIS system for BEAR resources or is the contractor required to provide one?

The contractor shall use ILS-S to track MRSP assets and DPAS for equipment items. After the contractor completes the required training, access to both system can be granted.

Additional, the contractor may use a CMMS of their choice, either COTS or proprietary, to manage and schedule operations & maintenance, training, etc.

48.

PACAF PWS Page 18/71

Para 3.2.2.2 “The contractor shall maintain BEAR assets at a minimum serviceability rate of 95%...” Question: Is the term serviceability that same as “Readiness To Deploy” that are used in other sections of the PWS?

No. Ready to Deploy (RTD), as stated in para 3.1.1., is a storage configuration that ensures the assets require minimum preparation for outload; Serviceability refers to the maintenance status of an assets; if an asset is NMCS, NMCM, PMC, etc it is not “Serviceable”

49.

PACAF PWS Page 24/71

Para 3.2.4.6.2 “The contractor shall evaluate all GPMS vehicles for ACL’s prior to…..” Question: Please provide additional information on the ACL’s currently approved for which vehicles by type? As currently listed, it is not possible to determine the amount of work required for this particular requirement. We don’t know if 10% are currently ACL approved or 90%.

Since a CAC is required to access the site, the Government will provide ACLs upon request by offerors.

50.

PACAF PWS Page 26/71

Para 3.2.9.1 “Maintenance for each commodity shall be tracked in the MIS.”

Question: Will the government provide this specific MIS system for RADR resources or is the contractor required to provide one?

The contractor shall use ILS-S to track MRSP assets and DPAS for equipment items. After the contractor completes the required training, access to both system can be granted.

Additional, the contractor may use a CMMS of their choice, either COTS or proprietary, to manage and schedule operations & maintenance, training, etc.

51.

PACAF PWS Page 42/71

Para 4.4.4 Question: Will the government provide the quantity/type/size of .MIL servers AND the name/number of software applications at each site? If this data is not provided, offerors cannot determine the amount of resources required to perform this work.

For PACAF, the # of .mil client workstations at each Korea COB and Andersen AFB will be provided, as well as SIPR workstations at Andersen AFB. If the quantity provided does not meet the needs for the workload at a location the offeror shall justify additional workstation requirements.

MS Office suite will be provided on each .mil workstation.

For JBER, offerors shall identify the number of required .mil client workstations required based on the projected authorizations and related processes in each period of performance (BY, OY1, etc.)

52.

PACAF PWS Page 43/71

Para 4.7.2.3 Question: Will the government provide the number of desktop and laptop systems for each site? If this data is not provided, offerors cannot determine the amount of resources required to perform this work.

At Andersen AFB, the Government will provide 13 NIPRNet computers and 1 SIPRNet computer.

In Korea, 2 NIPRNet computers will be provided at each COBs; SIPRNet access will not be required.

Offerors should propose the number of .mil systems required at each location to meet PWS requirements based on the needs of the proposed manpower. At a minimum, .mil systems provided by the Government will include MS Office Suite 2016 (or later) and Adobe Pro.

53.

PACAF PWS Page 45/71

Para 4.8.7.2 Question: Is this support for just the contractor personnel, government personnel or both?

Only for Government-provided assets for contractor use; the contractor shall also be responsible for the maintenance of their own contractor-furnished systems (.com)

54.

PACAF PWS Page 62/71

Para 1.3 “Changes shall be limited to unforeseen conditions that occur prior to transition start.” Question: Because no site visit is being conducted, how will offerors know what the current condition is and if there are any changes?

The Government will provide as much detail as possible, including floorplans and pictures.

55.

USAFE PWS Page 10/85

Para 2.1.1.10.3 To the extent required at each GPMS storage location, the contractor shall provide physical security. Question: Can the government please additional information on which sites require physical security along with other pertinent details? As currently written, there is insufficient data to determine the amount of resources required to perform this PWS element.

Opel has security of outside perimeter. 86 MMS will provide keys to specific GPMS facilities.

For Husterhohe, the contractor will need to provide physical security.

56.

USAFE PWS Page 19/85

Para 3.2.2 “Maintenance for each commodity shall be tracked in the MIS.”

Question: Will the government provide this specific MIS system for BEAR resources or is the contractor required to provide one?

The contractor shall use ILS-S to track MRSP assets and DPAS for equipment items. After the contractor completes the required training, access to both system can be granted.

Additional, the contractor may use a CMMS of their choice, either COTS or proprietary, to manage and schedule operations & maintenance, training, etc.

57.

USAFE PWS Page 19/85

Para 3.2.2.2 “The contractor shall maintain BEAR assets at a minimum serviceability rate of 95%...” Question: Is the term serviceability that same as “Readiness To Deploy” that are used in other sections of the PWS?

No. Ready to Deploy (RTD), as stated in para 3.1.1., is a storage configuration that ensures the assets require minimum preparation for outload; Serviceability refers to the maintenance status of an assets; if an asset is NMCS, NMCM, PMC, etc it is not “Serviceable”

58.

USAFE PWS Page 25/85

Para 3.2.4.6.2 “The contractor shall evaluate all GPMS vehicles for ACL’s prior to…..” Question: Please provide additional information on the ACL’s currently approved for which vehicles by type? As currently listed, it is not possible to determine the amount of work required for this particular requirement. We don’t know if 10% are currently ACL approved or 90%.

Since a CAC is required to access the site, the Government will provide ACLs upon request by offerors.

59.

USAFE PWS Page 29/85

Para 3.2.9.1 “Maintenance for each commodity shall be tracked in the MIS.”

Question: Will the government provide this specific MIS system for RADR resources or is the contractor required to provide one?

The contractor shall use ILS-S to track MRSP assets and DPAS for equipment items. After the contractor completes the required training, access to both system can be granted.

Additional, the contractor may use a CMMS of their choice, either COTS or proprietary, to manage and schedule operations & maintenance, training, etc.

60.

USAFE PWS Page 47/85

Para 4.4.4 Question: Will the government provide the quantity/type/size of .MIL servers AND the name/number of software applications at each site? If this data is not provided, offerors cannot determine the amount of resources required to perform this work.

For USAFE, offerors shall identify the number of required .mil client workstations required based on the projected authorizations and related processes in each period of performance (BY, OY1, etc.). MS Office suite will be provided on each .mil workstation.

61. USAFE PWS Page 48/85

Para 4.7.2 Question: Will the government provide the number of systems and software applications required to support for this section?

See #60

62.

USAFE PWS Page 48/85

Para 4.7.2.3 Question: Will the government provide the number of desktop and laptop systems for each site? If this data is not provided, offerors cannot determine the amount of resources required to perform this work.

See #60

63. USAFE PWS Page 50/85

Para 4.8.7.2 Question: Is this support for just the contractor personnel, government personnel or both?

CSA requirement is removed.

64.

USAFE PWS Page 77/85

Para 1.3 “Changes shall be limited to unforeseen conditions that occur prior to transition start.” Question: Because no site visit is being conducted, how will offerors know what the current condition is and if there are any changes?

The Government will provide changes to offerors if/as they occur.

65.

PACAF Appendix C, Publications and Forms EXCEL File

Question: What does the red and yellow shading represent for rows 278, 279, 433 and 455?

The Government will update Appendix C; Red were items identified for removal but needed to be verified. Yellow were items that were questionable and required a determination.

66. PACAF Appendix E Question: Can the government provide an estimate of when Appendix E documents will be posted?

Available/Relevant Agreements (e.g. SOFA), MOUs/MOAs will be included in the Final RFP if releasable.

67.

PACAF Appendix H Question: Can the government provide an estimate of when Appendix H documents will be posted?

Appendix H is removed. Deployable Teams are not required. TDY support to Camp Aguinaldo is not considered a Deployable Team.

68.

PACAF Appendix K Question: Can the government provide an estimate of when Appendix K documents will be posted?

To the extent available, Government-Furnished Equipment (GFP) lists will be provided in the Final RFP. If specific GFE are not identified, the contractor shall assume it must be contractor-furnished within the respective FFP or CPFF

CLIN.

69.

PACAF Appendix L Question: Can the offerors review these documents prior to the final solicitation at the AMIC location? These drawings are critical in understanding the layout, constraints and current configuration in order to determine the optimum solution. If offerors are not given access to these documents, the incumbent for each location will have a tremendous advantage in the competition. Question: Could the government possible post the documents to a secure reading room for review?

Appendix L will be removed. No such drawings can be provided. The Government is working to provide as much facility information as possible with Appendix J.

70.

PACAF Appendix O, FSE Authorizations Excel File

Question: Please confirm that the Camp Aguinaldo Philippines Island Worksheet will be provide or there is no FSE equipment requirement for the Philippines?

There is no FSE equipment stored at Camp Aguinaldo.

71.

PACAF Appendix O, Vehicle Authorizations Excel File

Question: Please confirm that the Camp Aguinaldo Philippines Island Worksheet will be provide or there is no Vehicle equipment requirement for the Philippines?

There are two (2) 10K Forklifts stored at Camp Aguinaldo that are maintained by 36 LRS through TDY support.

72. PACAF Appendix O, RADR

Question: Please confirm that all the RADR equipment is located at Anderson AFB and no requirements for Korea or Philippines?

PACAF RADR equipment is only located at Andersen AFB, Guam.

Authorizations Excel File

73.

USAFE Appendix C, Publications and Forms EXCEL File

Question: What does the red shading represent for rows 454, 455, 883, 905? The Government will update Appendix C; Red were items identified for removal but needed to be verified. Yellow were items that were questionable and required a determination.

74. USAFE Appendix E Question: Can the government provide an estimate of when Appendix E documents will be posted?

Available/Relevant Agreements (e.g. SOFA), MOUs/MOAs will be included in the Final RFP if releasable.

75.

USAFE Appendix K Question: Can the government provide an estimate of when Appendix K documents will be posted?

To the extent available, Government-Furnished Equipment (GFP) lists will be provided in the Final RFP. If specific GFE are not identified, the contractor shall assume it must be contractor-furnished within the respective FFP or CPFF

CLIN.

76.

USAFE Appendix L Question: Can the offerors review these documents prior to the final solicitation at the AMIC location? These drawings are critical in understanding the layout, constraints and current configuration in order to determine the optimum solution. If offerors are not given access to these documents, the incumbent for each location will have a tremendous advantage in the competition. . Question: Could the government possible post the documents to a secure reading room for review?

Appendix L will be removed. No such drawings can be provided. The Government is working to provide as much facility information as possible with Appendix J. As most of USAFE’s FSLs are not yet constructed, drawings and site information can be provided when each FSL is nearing completion so that the contractor can prepare their Site Activation Plan.

77.

USAFE Appendix O, FSE Authorizations Excel File

Question: Please provide the UTC breakout and NSN for all FSE equipment? Appendix O, USAFE FSE Authorizations, has been revised to include NSNs and quantities of authorized equipment.

78.

USAFE Appendix O, Red Horse Authorizations Excel File

Question: Please confirm that OPAL and Ramstein are the only sites required to have Red Horse assets?

RED HORSE will not be stored at Opel; Bitburg is planned to be the enduring storage location for the GPMS RED HORSE sets. The Government is negotiating access to Husterhohe and/or Pirmasens as possible interim or long-term GPMS storage locations. Ramstein & Spaangdahlem do not have enough space on or adjacent to them to support the originally planned GPMS FSLs.

79. PACAF PWS 1.3

Locations

USAF Air Bases at Osan and Kunsan (Gunsan) are not included but WRM assets are maintained at these locations. Will these two Air Bases be included in final RFP?

No; only the four (4) collocated operating bases (COBs) identified are planned GPMS sites for Korea.

80.

PWS 2.1.1.4.2.

Munitions Training Plan

Please confirm that neither PACAF nor USAFE currently has any Munitions/Munitions Storage Area tasks?

Is there a possibility that they could have such Munitions/Munitions Storage tasks in the future?

Will offerors get Past Performance credit for citing Munitions/Munitions storage areas?

Correct.

No.

Only if it meets the relevancy criteria.

81.

PWS Section A:

3.2.1 Aerospace

Ground Equipment

PACAF only. PWS reference states there is currently no prepositioned AGE other than that which is stored/maintained by U.S. Air Force personnel. Appendix B, Deliverable #10 is not required. Please confirm that at the ROKAF COBs locations applicable to this PWS there is no prepositioned AGE equipment to be maintained by Offeror?

There are no AGE assets currently included in the PACAF GPMS program. PWS will be updated

82. PWS Section A:

3.2.5 TRAP

PACAF only. PWS reference states there is currently no prepositioned TRAP assets other than that which is stored/maintained by U.S. Air Force personnel. Appendix B, Deliverable #10 is not required. Please confirm that at the ROKAF COBs locations applicable to this PWS there is no prepositioned TRAP equipment to be maintained by Offeror?

There are no TRAP assets currently included in the PACAF GPMS program.

83.

PWS Section A:

3.2.6 Medical

Assets/EMEDS

PACAF only. PWS reference states there is currently no prepositioned Medical Assets/EMEDS other than that which is stored/maintained by U.S. Air Force personnel.

Appendix B, Deliverable #10 is not required. Please confirm that at the ROKAF COBs locations applicable to this PWS there is no prepositioned Medical Assets/EMEDS to be maintained by Offeror?

There are no Medical assets/EMEDS currently included in the PACAF GPMS program.

84. USAFE PWS 3.2.9.3

Are replacement materials with limited shelf life, such as RADR materiel, Cost Reimbursable, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, or some other structure?

A plug number will be provided where applicable.

Generally, these materials are ordered through ILS-S, using a PFMR loaded with funding by USAFE.

85.

PWS Section A:

Mission Support

4.3.1 Fuels

PWS states contractor shall ‘provide’ various grades of fuel for vehicles, equipment, and continuous site operations. Is it the intent of the USG that these fuel types will be Government-furnished, or that contractor will purchase and store in organizational fuel tanks or refueling vehicle assets separate from existing storage facilities on installations?

For Opel, the Government does not intend to store assets requiring fuel. Appendix O will be updated. If this changes, the Government will either direct/fund or provide the necessary capability (e.g. fuel trailer).

This capability is being designed into the FSLs. If Husterhohe or Pirmasens are realized, the appropriate capability will be determined/provided.

86.

PWS 5.5.

Deployable Teams

Please confirm the requirement is for one team per contract versus one team per site within each contract?

This requirement will be removed from the PWS. USAFE does not intend to deploy the GPMS contractor to Forwad Operating Locations (FOLs).

87.

PWS 5.5.

Deployable Teams and Appendix H

Please confirm the equipment used “to establish initial billeting, hygiene, and latrine capabilities for the first 250 to 350 personnel” is Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), or is this commercially provided/contracted equipment to host forces that setup GFE. Appendix H is not clear.

This requirement will be removed from the PWS. USAFE does not intend to deploy the GPMS contractor to Forwad Operating Locations (FOLs).

88.

PWS 5.5.

Deployable Teams;

Appendix H; 2.1

“Medical” is not listed in Appendix H 2.0, nor is it discussed in PWS paragraph 5.5, Deployable Teams.

Can the government please clarify?

N/A

89.

L-7.4.1.1 Subfactor A: Management Approach

Requirement to include offerors’ understanding of OCONUS theater/country clearance procedures.

Is the USG referring to DoD Electronic Foreign Clearance Guide and the Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance System (APACS)?

Yes.

90.

L-7.4.1.3 Subfactor C: Transition/Site Activation Planning

The plan is to be submitted as part of proposal with emphasis on continuity of support and performance during phase-in. Clarification is needed, please, between:

PWS Section D 1.3 Transition Plan/Phase-in Plan states a ‘final’ plan to be submitted NLT 15 DAC, versus Guidance in Appendix B, Deliverable #40 which states an ‘initial’ plan is due 15

DAC.

Is the L-7.4.1.3 Plan considered a notional plan and not considered an initial plan?

L-7.4.1.3 would be considered an initial/notional plan.

PWS Section D, Para 1.3 and Deliverable #40 would be a final plan, which would revise/update the proposed plan based on information provided after award.

91.

Appendix A 2.0 Technical Definitions - Maintenance

Maintenance definition includes reference to ‘rebuilding’ equipment in a serviceable condition. Rebuilding (overhaul) of equipment can be considered a Depot Level Maintenance capability. Is it the intent of the Government that GPMS contractor would have Depot Level Maintenance capability and resources? The term ‘rebuilding’ is not found in the PWS.

No. Although reconstitution of an asset may be extensive, depending on the amount of work required, it would not be not classified as “Depot Level Maintenance.” The GPMS contractor will not perform DLM.

92. Appendix G – Level of Effort

When determining Serviceability Rate(s), does the Government consider equipment that is non-mission capable for supply (NMC-S) meaning parts on order, excluded from the denominator as defined in paragraph 1.0 General? Will there be any consideration for equipment that is not serviceable based solely on parts availability?

Appendix G language and Serviceability Rate calculations will be updated in the final RFP.

When calculating Readiness Rates for DRRS/ART reporting an asset is either FMC, PMC, or NMC, regardless of reason. When calculating Serviceability Rates for the purposes on a Service Summary item only aspect within the control of the contractor are included, NMCS is not within a contractor’s control as long as they have processed the purchase request for the part(s) properly and timely.

93. Appendix H; 2.0 Contingency Plan

Please confirm that “reasonable assurance” for continuation of service means “beyond 96 hours?”

Appendix H will be removed since the Deployable Teams requirement is being removed. The contractor will not be tasked to send personnel to Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) but may send personnel to augment a Forward Storage Location (FSL) for surge operations (e.g. outload, reconstitution).

94. Appendix M - Certifications

Except for the GPMS Site Environmental Manager, Aircraft Arresting System Technician, Special Purpose Vehicle Maintenance Mechanic, and Quality Manager position(s); all other individuals needing certifications will require a SECRET Security Clearance and must be a U.S. Citizen. Is this correct? Will a NATO Security Clearance be accepted if not a U.S. Citizen?

If a Secret clearance is required it will be U.S. Secret, not NATO Secret, and therefore the position must be a U.S.

National. At the site level, only the Site Manager will require a U.S. Secret clearance. The Government is reviewing Appendix M to validate any other mandatory secret requirements at the site level.

At the contractor’s PMO, the Program Manager, at a minimum, shall have a U.S. Secret clearance.

The Contractor Liaison (USAFE & PACAF, para 2.2.1.1.)

shall have a U.S. Secret clearance.

95.

Section L Attachment 3 Draft Pricing Templates

The instructions in the spreadsheet state that, at a minimum, offerors are to provide:

labor categories, labor hours, and burdened labor rates. That direction appears inconsistent with Section L-9.2.1 which requires the “proposal’s pricing narrative to break out the fully burdened labor rates, including all burdens, e.g., G&A, overhead, fringe, profit, fee, etc., for each labor category for work described in the PWS.

Given that GPMS is a competitive procurement and FAR guidance is that price analysis should be used when certified cost or pricing data are not required (FAR 15.404-1,a,2), it is requested that the Government only require the minimum breakdown for the FFP CLINs consistent with the spreadsheet instructions of labor categories, labor hours, and burdened labor rates and what is already shown for Program Management.

See number 41. In accordance with L-9.2, the government is requesting other than cost and pricing data to include all listed in paragraphs L-9.2.1 and L-9.2.2. Offerors may use the “Rates” tab on the spreadsheet to provide the individual elements.

96.

Section L Attachment 3 Draft Pricing Templates

Breaking out the fully burdened rates for FFP of each labor category individually in the narrative cannot be done without difficulty. Are the required breakouts for the FFP Transition and Contractor Furnished Vehicles to be included in the spreadsheet or in a narrative?

The required breakouts should be included in the spreadsheet and the narrative. See number 41 and 95.

97.

Section L Attachment 3 Draft Pricing Templates

Would a breakout format for Transition and Contractor Furnished Vehicles, similar to the level of detail shown on “Program Management” tab, be acceptable?

See number 41, 95 and 96. See numbers 41 and 95.

98.

Section L-9.4 L-9.4 states “The SCLS only applies to CONUS labor; therefore, the increased wage or benefits costs of SCLS covered employees for CONUS Support services shall only be increased IAW FAR 52.222-43”.

Per SCA 14b04 “Geographical scope”: “Currently, the SCA applies to the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, Eniwetok Atoll, Johnston Island, Canton Island, and the Northern Marianas. See 41 USC 357(d) and 29 CFR 4.112(a).”

Does the Government intend to provide SCA Wage Determinations for each of the locations identified (OCONUS, but not foreign) as being covered by SCA above?

The Government will provide the DOL Wage Determinations, if applicable, for Guam, Hawaii and Alaska on the PACAF GPMS contract.

99.

Section L-7.4.1.2 and Section M-3.1.1.2

The RFP in Section L and Section M asks offerors to propose two innovations:

L-7.4.1.2 “Provide two innovations in technology or processes for improvement that will benefit the Air Force and the GPMS mission.”

If there are costs associated with the innovations, those costs shall be determined by the offeror. The QMS is overarching to the whole contract and as such, any technological or process innovation will be validated against contract requirements as part of the proposal.

M-3.1.1.2 “Additionally, provide two innovations in technology or processes for improvement that will benefit the Air Force and the GPMS mission.”

There is no mention of how the Government intends to evaluate the cost of the proposed innovations. There are no mechanisms to include costs for innovations in the draft pricing templates.

Will the Government please clarify how they intend to evaluate the proposed innovations as a part of the Quality Management System only?

Innovations will be validated for possible cost avoidance/savings considered beneficial and a value to the Government. The innovations will not be evaluated against the QMS only.

100. Section L-7.4.1.2 and Section M-3.1.1.2

As it pertains to the required proposed innovations, will the Government please clarify whether they intend to evaluate the cost/price of proposed innovations?

The innovations are part of the offeror’s proposal and should be included in the total overall evaluated price.

101.

Appendix K (was N) USAFE and

PACAF

Will the Government release a list of which positions are designated as “Key Personnel” before the Final RFP?

Offerors shall propose positions to be managed as Key Positions and provide Appendix K to the Government IAW the Solicitation and PWS.

102.

PACAF PWS

Para 4.2

Traffic Management has "TBD"; will the Government please clarify if this requirement will be required in the PACAF PWS?

The GPMS contractor will be a customer to local Traffic Management Offices in Korea, Guam, and Alaska; GPMS contractor’s Container Management responsibilities will include inspection/certification of containers for which they are responsible for storage.

103.

Section M-3.1.1.2 Subfactor B: Quality Management System includes the following: “Additionally, provide two innovations in technology or processes for improvement that will benefit the Air Force and the GPMS mission.”

Do the two innovations have to be in the Quality Management System section to be evaluated?

They can be any innovations in any area that will benefit…