01.17.12 - Responses to Q As HTC711-12-R-C003.pdf

17 January 2012

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Solicitation No. HTC711-12-R-C003

THEATER EXPRESS II

The following are questions and responses submitted regarding solicitation number HTC711-12- D-C003. Previous questions and responses regarding this requirement were submitted and posted with the Draft solicitation on Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) at:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USTC/USTRANSCOM/THX-II_HTC711-11-R- C004/listing.html

Any new questions and their responses will be posted with the official solicitation, solicitation number HTC711-12-R-C003.

Q.1. Subcontracting Plan

Ref: Section (12), Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part II – Technical Proposal, Page 65, Paragraph (2) Technical Subfactor 2, Subcontracting Plan

The Subcontracting Plan is an unrealistic expectation. Purchased line haul is the largest opportunity for Subcontracting dollars for THX II. Within the solicitation, significant limitations and restrictions exist which reduce the pool of potential subcontractors such as countries on the EU ban list. Afghanistan, Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Kazakhstan are on the EU ban list. Yet, these same countries are included in the CASA list for subcontracting.

Will the Government consider removing the Subcontracting Plan requirement?

A.1. The purpose of the subcontracting plan is to reinforce existing policy regarding the procurement of services in Afghanistan and Central Asia in support of the USCENTCOM theater engagement and security cooperation activities which among other goals, improves bi- and multi-lateral relationships and promotes regional economic development. Local procurement of goods and services has directly impacted regional economic development and host nation access approval to supply routes into and out of Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The technical subfactor 2 is rated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis where the measure of merit is met when the offeror develops a plan which includes:

A. Separate percentage goals for using Afghanistan and CASA businesses for subcontracting opportunities. The percentage goal shall be determined by comparing the projected dollars to be subcontracted to Afghan and CASA entities with the projected total dollars to be subcontracted measured over a one-year performance period.

B. A description of the principal types of services to be subcontracted to Afghanistan and CASA businesses.

C. The method used to develop the subcontracting goals.

D. A description of the methods used to identify and employ potential sources E. Assurance that the offeror will submit the required annual report as specified in paragraph 4.5 of the PWS.

The Government understands that subcontracting opportunities to Afghanistan and CASA businesses may be limited due to other restrictions levied by the solicitation’s terms and conditions. This technical subfactor requires offerors to develop a plan identifying projected goals to support Afghanistan and CASA businesses through subcontracting opportunities. The Government will not consider removing the Subcontracting Plan requirement.

Q.2. Subcontracting Plan

Ref: Section (12), Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part II – Technical Proposal, Page 65, Paragraph (2) Technical Subfactor 2, Subcontracting Plan

With regards to the Afghanistan & CASA subcontracting plan, can the plan be for two entities: Afghanistan and CASA? Or should the plan be submitted for each of the countries in CASA?

A.2. The plan should be written to address the requirements for the two entities, Afghanistan businesses and CASA businesses. The offeror is not required to identify goals or develop a plan specific to the individual countries included in the CASA description.

Q.3. Subcontracting Plan

Ref: Section (12), Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part II – Technical Proposal, Page 65, Paragraph (2) Technical Subfactor 2, Subcontracting Plan

The technical subcontracting plan does not fit well into this type of contract.

Theater Express is primarily serviced by air and is airport to airport service with a majority of ground handling performed by the military. This technical factor would work well for a ground transportation or a logistics contract but has limited pertinence for an airport to airport contract to U.S. military installations where the military provides a majority of the ground handling.

Separate percentage goals for using Afghanistan and CASA businesses cannot be determined by comparing projected total subcontracted dollars measured over a one-year period given the nature of the daily bid operations.

A majority of the carrier expense for this contract is directly from the subcontracted carriers. There are very few airlines in CASA that can meet the safety and audit oversight requirements, capable of carrying military cargo and available for Theater Express operations.

Would you consider CASA nationals that are employed by the prime but working in a different country such as Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, or Bahrain?

A.3. See responses to Questions 1 & 2. The Government understands that the daily cargo offering characteristics have a meaningful influence over what subcontracting opportunities may exist for Afghanistan and CASA businesses. However, for reasons explained in the response to Question 1, the Government will not consider removing the Subcontracting Plan requirement.

The plan should be developed to address subcontracting opportunities to Afghanistan and CASA businesses and not developed to address individuals employed that are of Afghan or CASA descent. The plan may include subcontracting opportunities to Afghanistan or CASA businesses that operate and perform in other countries.

Q.4. Past Performance Questionnaires

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, PART III

– Past Performance Information, Page 66, Paragraph (4), Past Performance Questionnaires.

The RFP states, “If more than one questionnaire is received on any of the four contract examples, only the first one received will be accepted.” Can we include multiple questionnaires from one contract but different Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)?

A.4. As the original solicitation states, offerors are only permitted to submit Past Performance Questionnaires for a total of four contract references for which the offeror (prime) or the proposed principal subcontractor(s) have performed. Additionally, Paragraph (4) on page 66 of the solicitation states, “Maximum of four individual contract Past Performance Questionnaires shall be accepted by the Government from each offeror.”

However, after further consideration, the Government will execute a solicitation amendment to relax this requirement. The amendment will specify that offerors are still restricted to submission of four contract references. However, offerors may submit up to a total of eight Past Performance Questionnaires for all references. This amendment allows offerors to submit multiple Past Performance Questionnaires for a specified contract reference.

These revisions are reflected in Amendment 0001 to the solicitation. Interested parties are reminded that the official solicitation and any amendments provide the official Instructions to Offerors and evaluation criteria. Offerors should not rely on Q&As if responses differ from instructions or terms and conditions specified in the solicitation and amendments.

Q.5. Appendix 5.3 & Historical Data

Will the Government provide the current and historical overall program performance in the following areas?

1. On-time performance

2. Breach of Contract

3. Contract discrepancies/violations

4. Cargo backlog

5. EDI 214 GTN accuracy

6. Incidents

Will the Government provide the THX carriers’ current program performance in the following areas?

1. On-time performance

2. Breach of Contract

3. Contract discrepancies/violations

4. Cargo backlog

5. EDI 214 GTN accuracy

6. Incidents

A.5. Interested parties should contact the USTRANSCOM Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office and sumbit a FOIA request if they are seeking this information (http://www.transcom.mil/Foia/displayFoia.action). The FOIA office is responsible for making the determination as to what information is releaseable in accordance with FAR 24.2, Freedom of Information Act, and 5 U.S.C. (b)(1) through (b)(9).

Q.6. Past Performance Information

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, Page 66, PART III – Past Performance Information, second sentence.

In reviewing the past performance information for the Theater Express II bid, it appears that the past performance is limited to contracts. However, when dealing with various government agencies vehicles other than contracts (such as tenders) are frequently used. May we submit references from competitive procurement vehicles other than contracts for past performance?

A.6. This is not the Government’s intent. The solicitation is amended in Amendment 0003 to read:

“PART III – Past Performance Information: Offerors are required to comply with the following format and content requirements. Limited to no more than 5 pages, Times New Roman, 12-font, per contract reference listed with a maximum of four contracts. The term “contracts” is an all-encompassing term meant to refer to contracts, Blanket Ordering Agreements, Tenders, and other like arrangements. The summary page describing the offeror’s and principal subcontractor(s) (if applicable) role is limited to 3 pages, Times New Roman, 12-font. Font size may be adjusted for charts, graphs, and titles.”

Q.7. Business Proposal Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, Page 65, PART I – Business Proposal, paragraph (8).

Please elaborate on exactly what should be submitted as required by this paragraph.

If an offeror is part of a CRAF carrier Teaming Agreement as described, but the offeror’s THX II business/technical proposal does not contemplate any interaction of any sort with its CRAF carrier Teaming Agreement, what should be submitted in response to this instruction, if anything?

If the offeror is contemplating a partnership with a non-CRAF company to perform subcontracted activities, does this instruction imply that the internal documentation documenting the relationship between the CRAF carrier and the non-CRAF company must be submitted?

A.7. This instruction is removed from the solicitation per Amendment 0003. The original intent was to identify specific teaming and subcontracting arrangements with a particular offeror’s business approach; however, Paragraph (4) of this same section instructs offerors to submit information on any principal subcontractor(s).

Q.8. 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors

Ref: Section (12), Proposal Preparation Instructions, PART II – Technical Proposal, Page 65, Paragraphs (1) and (2).

Technical section states 2 elements should be identified and included in PART II Technical section, 1) Safety and Audit Oversight Program and 2) Subcontracting Plan. Where do you recommend an offeror include their capabilities regarding MHE, daily operations, personnel, and any specifics to a transportation plan to demonstrate our understanding of the requirements and the ability to perform?

A.8. The Government will only evaluate the evaluation factors described in the solicitation. The only two technical factors are the Safety and Audit Oversight Program and the Subcontracting Plan. Offerors are not required to submit additional information on their technical capabilities and are strongly encouraged not to submit such information because the Government will not evaluate it in accordance with the solicitation instructions and evaluation criteria.

Q.9. 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items (JAN 1999) Ref: Paragraph(a)(i), Factor 1 – Technical Proposal, page 69.

This section suggests that the only two items to be evaluated in the Technical Section are the Safety and Audit Oversight Program and the Subcontracting Plan, both of which will be either given an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating only. Will any other items listed in this section be given an evaluation and how?

A.9. No. These are the only two technical factors that will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation’s instructions and evaluation criteria. The Government shall evaluate only those factors described in FAR 52.212-2.

Q.10. Attachment 2, City-Pair Matrix Ref: Attachment 2, City-Pair Matrix

On the city-pair matrix, DDKS is no longer listed as an origin or destination. Does the Government expect any shipments to or from DDKS under this contract?

A.10. No. The Government does not project any shipments to or from DDKS under this contract.

Q.11. Past Performance Information

Ref: Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, Page 66, PART III – Past Performance Information, page limitation requirements.

We interpret the past performance information format and content requirements to allow for a total of 23 pages of past performance content. We understand that this information is to be divided into 5 sections:

Section 1 – Summary Page(s), 3 page limit Section 2 – Contract Reference #1, 5 page limit Section 3 – Contract Reference #2, 5 page limit Section 4 – Contract Reference #3, 5 page limit Section 5 – Contract Reference #4, 5 page limit

This suggests a total page limit of 23 pages for the past performance information section. Can you confirm this interpretation?

A.11. This is correct. Within the past performance section, each contract reference description described by paragraph (3) on page 66 is limited to 5 pages each. Further, the summary page described in paragraph (1) on page 66 is limited to 3 pages. Therefore, this is a correct interpretation that the aggregate page limitation for the past performance information to be submitted with the offeror’s proposal is 23 pages. Past Performance Questionnaires received from respondents do not count in the page limitations.