M67004-25-R0002 QAs for DRAFT RFP_DRAFT PWS 20250310.pdf

Logistics Integration Support (LIS) M67004-25-R-0002 Draft RFP- Q&A

1. Q: CLIN 0006 appears to be the option CLIN, which on Section B is 0009. CLIN 0005 appears to be the option CLIN, which on Section B is 0008. Please clarify.

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook O&A & New Work Tab has been updated to reflect E2:E15 correct CLINs.

2. Q: Should the total of the average number of inductions per year match between these two tabs? NSN has a value of 6,308 average inductions (25,230 / 4) and Inductions per Location - info has a total of 7,610 per year.

A: Inductions per Location tab has been revised and now matches average annual inductions from the NSN sheet.

3. Q: In the CLIN descriptions CLINs 0008 and 0009 are clearly identified as options and as based on an extension of the IDIQ from FAR 52.217-8. CLINs 0010, 0011 and 0012 are not expressly identified as being options based on FAR 52.217-8. Could that be added?

A: FAR 52.217-8 language has been added to all option CLINs.

4. Q: Section L Volume V directions cite mandatory contract documentation. While mentioned elsewhere, the SF30 is not included in this list. Please clarify.

A: Section L, Volume V, Contract Documentation, has been revised to include signed amendment(s).

5. Q: In reference to Volume I Technical, Section 1, paragraph c, would the Government please confirm that the only resume required with the proposal is for the Program Manager? We note that the Draft RFP refers to "resumes" (plural) and the PWS Section

2.3 identifies several positions as key personnel.

A: Section L, Volume I, Technical, Section I, paragraph C has been revised to require resumes for ALL key personnel.

6. Q: In reference to Volume I, Section 2 Contractor-Owned Contractor-Operated IT Tracking System, please confirm whether Section 5.11 Directed Scope of Work is the correct PWS reference.

A: Section L, Volume I, Section 2 Contractor-Owned Contractor-Operated IT Tracking System has been revised to meet the requirements of paragraph 5.13 Asset Visibility of the PWS. The PWS reference has been corrected to read 5.13.

7. Q: The requirements for Volume I Technical, Section 1, paragraph (d) requires offerors to demonstrate their approach to quality control and quality assurance. The PWS Part 4, paragraph 4.4(i) states, "The QCP will be submitted with the proposal."

Please confirm that offerors are to describe their approach as instructed in Section L rather than providing a full Quality Control Plan.

If a full Quality Control Plan is required, pleas e consider making the section exempt from the volume page limitation, as this plan alone could consume a majority of the allowed page count for the volume.

A: Section L, Volume I, Section 1, paragraph (d) has been revised and the QCP will be included with Volume I for evaluation but will not count against the page limit.

The requirement is for the offeror to demonstrate their approach to quality control and quality assurance. The Quality Control Plan will be submitted with the proposal.

8. Q: In reference to Volume II Past Performance, would the Government please consider changing the past performance requirement to "up to five examples..."? This will allow offerors to focus on their most relevant/similar efforts.

A: Section L, Volume II, paragraph 3, has been revised to include up to five examples.

9. Q: In reference to Volume II Past Performance, Section 1, item b, Would the Government please consider amending the definition of magnitude for past performance from "dollar value" to "dollar value or transactional volume." We believe this may be more representative of an offeror's past performance and capabilities.

A: No, the Government will not include transactional volume.

10. Q: The requirements for Volume II Past Performance state that past performance is to be provided by "the Offeror." Please confirm that this may include references from proposed subcontractors.

A: Section L, Volume II, Past Performance, paragraph 1, has been revised to include the offeror may submit past performance of subcontractors and it shall specify the level of responsibility, and the percentage of work performed.

11. Q: The Volume IV Price Proposal requirements state, "The electronic copy of the Price Volume, excel spreadsheet, should contain the formulas showing how calculations were made (if applicable). Electronic submissions of the Price Volume must be on a separate media from the other Volumes. The Pricing Workbook (Solicitation Attachment 2) will not be counted towards the page limit for Binder IV." and "Additional Data. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted unless it is considered essential to document or support the cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the Volume for the proposal designated as Price."

The cost volume has a page count of 10, with the Cover Page and TOC not included in this count. It is unclear what additional information is required in the cost volume since certified cost and pricing information is not required at this time. Please provide direction.

A: Volume IV Price Proposal allows the offeror to discuss assumptions, pass through costs, year over year price increases and any other issues that they wish to discuss that led to the development of their pricing proposal.

12. Q: Table 1 (Draft RFP page 43) identifies a requirement for a Mission Essential Plan. The Volume Format paragraph 5.d.ii (Draft RFP page 44) references a requirement for a Continuation of Essential Services Plan. The Volume V evaluation criteria (Draft RFP page 49) requires a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan per DFARS 252.237- 7023. PWS Part 4, paragraph 4.8 states that a draft Continuation of Essential Services Plan is to be submitted as part of the proposal.

Would the Government clarify whether the offeror is required to submit the CESP in accordance with CDRL A009 or whether the offeror should submit a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7023?

A: Mission Essential Services Plan is to be submitted as part of Volume I, Technical, but will not count towards the page limit. The offeror will submit the CESP in accordance with CDRL A009.

13. Q: Please clarify whether the required Mission Essential Plan and/or Continuation of Essential Services Plan are to be submitted as part of Volume I Technical or Volume V Contract Documentation, as the Draft RFP appears to have conflicting direction.

If part of Volume I, please confirm that this plan does not count towards the volume page limitation.

A: Mission Essential Services Plan is to be submitted as part of Volume I, Technical, but will not count towards the page limit.

14. Q: In reference to the Continuation of Essential Services Plan, Section 4.8 states, "The contractor will follow the local installation (base, post or station) procedures for the CESP to ensure that all Contractor personnel receive the appropriate training. The Contractor shall provide a final CESP no later than Day 1 ready. The Contractors shall submit an official letter or email to the LIS PMO with the status of the required CESP training within 30 calendar days after Day 1 Ready. (CDRL A009)."

In order to meet these milestones and the required training certifications/verifications, the bidding contractor must have access to the local installation (base, post, or station) CESP training requirements. Without this information, the bidding contractor is unable to submit a compliant CESP with their proposal that incorporates the site-specific training requirements.

Would the Government please provide the CESP training requirements for each of the wholesale and retail sites identified in the SECREP PWS?

A: Section 4.8 of PWS addresses CESP. A draft plan is provided by contractor with proposal. The final CESP plan is due NLT Day 1 ready. The bidding offerors will not have access to local installation (base, post, or station) CESP training requirements prior to award. Section 4.8 of the PWS details minimum requirements for the MECSP: the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), Emergency Action Plan (EAP), Natural Disaster Plan (NDP),and the Active Shooter Plan (ASP). One the contract is awarded the Contractor has 30 days to customize the plan as needed for each site.

15. Q: RFP instructs "Proprietary information. All offers shall certify that they did not rely on any proprietary information, other than their own proprietary information in developing their proposal. This statement shall be incorporated in Volume V, Contract Documentation."

Question: Where within Volume V would the Government like this information included before all the required contract documentation or after the listed items in Section L, 5.d?

A: The Government requests this information be included in Volume V, Contract Documentation, before all the required contract documentation.

16. Q: RFP instructs "Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 270 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers unless another time period is specified in an amendment to the solicitation."

Question: Where within Volume 5 would the Government like this information included -before all the required contract documentation or after the listed items in Section L, 5.d?

A: The Contractor will fill in the blank the number of calendar days on the first page of the SF33 in Block 12.

17. Q: Instructions for Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits state "for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document). EACH SIDE OF A SHEET OF

PAPER IS A PAGE AND SHALL BE COUNTED AS SUCH, EVEN IF THE PAGE IS

BLANK, AND SHALL THEREFORE BE COUNTED AS PART OF THE TOTAL

PAGE COUNT."

Question: As this is an electronic submission, contractors are unable to make electronic submittals double-sided on a page. Will the Government remove this verbiage?

A: Yes. Section L, Section titled, Page Format and Restrictions and Limitations, has been revised to state each digital sheet of paper is a page and shall be counted as such towards the maximum page limit, even if the page is blank.

18. Q: In Table 1, Volume I is titled Technical (Including Mission Essential Plan). The Mission Essential Plan is included in Volume V Contract Documents.

Questions: 1. Will the Government confirm whether the Mission Essential Plan is to be included in both Volume I and Volume V? 2. If included in Volume I, will the Government confirm that it is excluded from the 100-page limit?

A: Yes. Section L, Volume I, Section 1, paragraph (d) has been revised and the QCP will be included with Volume I for evaluation but will not count against the page limit.

19. Q: The Quality Control Plan referred to as Attachment 5 was not provided with draft RFP.

Question: Would the Government provide Attachment 5?

A: Upon award of the contract, the contractor's approved QCP will be incorporated as Attachment 5.

20. Q: The Draft Transition Plan - Phase In referred to as Attachment 8 was not provided with draft RFP.

Question: Would the Government provide this Attachment 8?

A: Upon award of the contract, the contractor's approved Transition Plan will be incorporated as Attachment 8.

21. Q: Page 45 denotes "No Sections", however Volume II, page 47 is separated into sections.

Question: Please clarify whether Volume II should be separated into Sections per instructions on page 47.

A: Section L, Volume II, is correct as there will be No Sections. The additional information asking for separation of sections have been removed.

22. Q: Both Volumes I and V require a Quality Control Plan.

Question: Is this a duplicate requirement, or should the full Quality Control Plan be submitted in both volumes?

A: Section L, Volume I, Section 1, paragraph (d) has been revised and the QCP will be included with Volume I for evaluation but will not count against the page limit.

23. Q: Section 2 refers to PWS para 5.11, however this PWS is "Directed Scope of Work".

Question: Would the Government confirm whether it wants contractors to address PWS

5.11 or 5.12 in this section and updates sections L and M accordingly?

A: Section L, Volume I, Section 2 and Section M, Section 2, Contractor-Owned Contractor-Operated IT Tracking System has been revised to meet the requirements of paragraph 5.13 Asset Visibility of the PWS.

24. Q: Section 3 refers to PWS para 5.12, however this PWS is "Asset Visibility"; Handling Unclassified CCI is PWS 5.13 Question: Would the Government confirm whether it wants contractors to address PWS

5.12 or 5.13 in this section and updates sections L and M accordingly?

A: Section L, Volume I, Section 3, and Section M, Factor 1, Section 3, Asset Visibility has been revised to meet the requirements of 5.14 Handling Unclassified CCI of the

PWS.

25. Q: (2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of $550,000,000.00 Question: Does this mean the Total Contract Value is now $550,000,000?

A: Section I, Contract Clauses, FAR 52.216-19 has been revised to $500,000,000., which is the maximum amount.

26. Q: "The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed five years and six months."

Question: During Industry Day there was discussion of making this a 10-year contract.

The Contractors present were asked for their input and recommendation, and the majority favored a 10-year contract. Is that still under consideration?

A: No, the ordering period of this IDIQ contract is five years with an option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8.

27. Q: A complete set of exhibits, documents and attachments were not provided with the draft RFP.

Questions:

1. Will the Government consider issuing these attachments (including detailed workload data) ahead of the final RFP?

2. Will the Government provide these documents, exhibits and other attachments (including detailed workload data) with the final RFP?

A: No, the Government will not provide attachments ahead of final RFP.

Attachments 5-10 are reserved for documents submitted by the offeror. All other attachments, exhibits, documents, and workload data will be provided with the final

RFP.

28. Q: States "The offeror shall address the three (5) Sections listed below."

Question: Should this state "the five (5) Sections listed below."

A: Section L, Volume I Technical has been revised to read five (5) Sections.

29. Q: "Contractors with access to PII may be required to have a Secret Clearance" Question: Will the Government define which positions are/may be may be required to have a Secret Clearance?

A: Currently, only the IT Manager position requires a secret clearance.

30. Q: Each NSN has a unique configuration checklist incorporated by reference in Section J Attachment 4 of the contract and the Government retains the final authority for any updates.

Question: How/where can the contractor access the configuration checklists prior to the release of the final RFP?

A: The NSN Configuration Checklist is not accessible prior to the release of the final RFP and can be accessible post award.

31. Q: The evaluation criteria subsets for Section 1 do not follow the order in Section L or the RFP. Section L lists 1a: Staffing Plan, 1b: Management Plan; 1c: Key Personnel; 1d:

Quality Control Plan. Section M sequence goes to 1e.

Question: Will the Government align the evaluation criteria in Section M to align to Section L sequence?

A: Section M, Factor 1 Section 1 and Section L have been aligned.

32. Q: "Page Format Restrictions and Limitations....All pages and paragraphs shall be numbered."

Questions:

1. Adding a number to each paragraph of the content will leave less room for actual content on each page (due to numbers and formatting impact). Will the Government confirm that only major paragraph/section headings should be numbered (and not individual paragraphs), to ensure alignment with Sections L&M?

2. If every individual paragraph of the narrative should be numbered, will Government provide additional instructions on how to structure numbering at the paragraph levels for ALL paragraphs, and also increase page limit?

A: Section L, General Information, has been revised to state that only major paragraph/section headings need to be numbered. Structure for numbering paragraphs is at the contractor’s discretion.

33. Q: 252.237-7023 CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES

"2. e) The Government reserves the right in such crisis situations to use Federal employees, military personnel, or contract support from other contractors, or to enter into new contracts for essential contractor services."

Question: Under a specific crisis situation in which the awarded contractor cannot fulfill its obligation to provide or continue services, does involvement by Federal employees, military personnel, or support from other contractors absolve or diminish the contractor of responsibility? Or do these external entities simply augment the contractor's ability to perform or fulfill scope of work requirements? Please clarify.

A: These external entities simply augment the contractor's ability to perform or fulfill scope of work requirements.

34. Q: Request Government increase page count for the Small Business Volume to a minimum of 25 pages to allow contractors to provide the level of detail required.

A: Volume III Small Business page count will remain at 25 pages.

35. Q: "The list below, while not all inclusive, lists items necessary to maintain continuity of services and facilitate turnover from the Incumbent to the Awardee. The phase-in plan shall include, at a minimum:"

Question: Does the Government plan to provide a comprehensive, fully inclusive list of items the contractor is expected to maintain during continuity of services?

A: The information shown in the PWS Section 4.8 and CDRL A009, CESP, is what will be expected.

36. Q: Regarding Section L, Factor 2 Past Performance, the RFP requires offerors to provide 'magnitude addresses similarity of the volume, dollar value and/or duration.' Please clarify:

Questions:

1. For dollar value similarity evaluation, will the Government assess based on total contract value or annual contract value?

2. What range of dollar values (either total or annual) would the Government consider demonstrating 'similar' magnitude?

3. For offerors submitting five past performance examples, will the Government consider the combined dollar values across all examples when evaluating magnitude similarity?

A: 1. Both contract value and annual contract value are taken into account. 2.

Similar dollar value is left open to Offeror interpretation. 3. Each individual past performance reference is evaluated on an individual basis.

37. Q: Does the Government require levels of serviceable exchange items at each location?

If so, does the Government intend to provide initial spares as GFP?

A: No, the Government does not require levels of serviceable exchange items at each location.

38. Q: Assuming the KTAT includes all shipping time and shipping times will vary by location (with the adjustments accounted for in 5.1), is the expectation that there will be site specific KTATS or one KTAT that covers all sites?

A: The KTAT does not include shipping time. One KTAT covers all sites.

39. Q: Can the Government provide the NSN data in addition to the configuration management and descriptive data (i.e., demand data, failure data) as part of the final

RFP?

A: Demand/Failure data is confidential information and will not be provided in the

RFP.

40. Q: Regarding the Over & Above (O&A) charges: what are the exact steps and documentation requirements for seeking approval from the Government, and how will O&A price negotiations and turn-around-time adjustments be handled?

A: There are no negotiations/adjustments in the O&A process. The USG will accept or reject the O&A based on the data provided by Prime Contractor.

41. Q: For the Failures/Root Cause Analysis requirement: can you confirm which NSNs initially require this analysis, what frequency the Government anticipates, and the process for adding new NSNs to the failure analysis requirement post-award?

A: Currently, there are no active NSN requests for RCA. Frequency depends on several variables: customer complaints, PQDR's, inspection findings, and surveillance results. The USG will notify the prime contractor to initiate an RCA. If a new NSN requires Failure/RCA analysis, the requirement will be listed on the RFQ for cost consideration.

42. Q: Could you provide additional details on the Government’s expectations for the Contractor’s asset visibility website (i.e., required security features, data refresh rates, searchable fields, download formats), as well as the acceptance criteria for this system?

A: Minimum acceptance criteria include the website must be accessible by the USG and be capable to accomplish the requirements listed in PWS section 5.12.

43. Q: For the contractual turnaround time (KTAT): can you confirm if standard KTAT values are pre-defined by NSN, how surge demands might impact KTAT expectations, and whether expedited requests will be frequent or limited to unique circumstances?

A: The KTAT for each NSN will be set by the Prime Contractor and approved by the USG prior to adding the NSN to the contract. The proposed KTAT must account for capacity constraints at the source of repair. When expedited KTAT is required, the USG will contact the Prime Contractor to determine if there is/is not a cost impact.

44. Q: In cases where an NSN is determined to be Beyond Economical Repair (BER) or Beyond Physical Repair (BPR), what are the detailed procedures and timelines for notifying the Government and receiving disposition instructions?

A: The BER procedure/timeline is explained in the O&A and Warranty processes.

45. Q: Please elaborate on how the Contractor is expected to implement the Quarterly Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Report recommendations: are there formal acceptance/rejection procedures, and will approved recommendations be incorporated into subsequent contract modifications?

A: CPI Report may include process improvements identified by the Prime Contractor or requested by the USG following a failure/RCA analysis. Process improvements will be recommended & reviewed at monthly PM review.

46. Q: Regarding optional tasks and Mission Support (MS) CLINs: can you clarify the anticipated authorization process, funding mechanisms, and evaluation criteria for MS requests, as well as any pre-negotiated labor categories or pricing structures?

A: PWS Section 5.11 outlines the Directed Scope of Work process. Funding for Mission Support will already be on each Task Order available for use if need arises.

Pricing will be negotiated once need arises.

47. Q: For Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Property (GFP): can you provide a detailed list of what the Government will supply, specific handling procedures, and required inventory control and accountability methods that must be employed by the Contractor?

A: The USG will furnish only GFE shown in section 3.1. PWS sections 3.4 & 5.12 detail transfer of GFP and visibility requirements.

48. Q: Are there any additional data exchange or integration requirements with Government systems beyond DAASC and eRMS (e.g., direct integration with GCSS-MC), and if so, can you define the technical specifications, data formats, and expected timelines for these integrations?

A: PWS Section 5.8 outlines current minimum requirements. The Government does not have ability to currently define future changes in integrations.

49. Q: Can the Government clarify the specific criteria and process for evaluating and approving Requests for Relief on missed KTATs, including examples of acceptable justifications versus non-acceptable reasons?

A: Examples beyond what is listed in PWS Section 5.5 cannot currently be provided.

Approval is determined by the COR, so RFR must have reasonable justification for missed KTAT.

50. Q: Are there any existing historical performance metrics or past performance standards (e.g., average repair times, current inventory reliability data) that can be shared to help benchmark Contractor performance?

A: Performance Metrics are in Appendix 1. Historical data is confidential information and will not be shared by the Government.

51. Q: For warranty administration, what are the specific data elements and documentation requirements to demonstrate compliance with operational or storage warranties, and how will warranty claims be resolved?

A: See PWS section 5.12 and Appendix 3.

52. Q: Is the Contractor expected to provide integration or technical support in transitioning between vendors if subcontractors fail to meet performance or pricing thresholds?

A: Subcontractors shall be accountable to the Prime Contractor. The Prime Contractor is accountable to the Government.

53. Q: For NSN pricing under this contract, can the Government clarify how pricing updates will occur if material or labor costs significantly change mid-performance period?

A: ROR pricing for NSNs will not change once price is negotiated and NSN is added to contract regardless of material or labor cost. This is a FFP contract.

54. Q: Are there any IT or cybersecurity standards (e.g., NIST 800-171, CMMC) that the Contractor’s systems and data exchanges must comply with, beyond those stated?

A: Yes, FAR clause: 52.204-21 Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems has been added to the RFP.

55. Q: Will the Contractor be required to provide training or educational materials to Government personnel on how to access, interpret, and utilize the data on the Contractor’s asset visibility platform?

A: Training and educational materials may be required to be provided by Contractor in order to meet Government and mission needs.

56. Q: Does the Government anticipate a need for periodic surge support or contingency planning (beyond normal operations) that would require additional manpower, equipment, or facilities?

A: The Government currently does not have capability to make this assessment as this is based on the needs of the USMC. This is a military operation where a contingency planning capability is critical.

57. Q: For the Quality Control Program, are there specific industry standards (e.g., ISO 9001) or Government-defined quality frameworks that the Contractor’s QCP must align with?

A: There are no specific industry standards for QCP. This will be determined by the Prime Contractor.

58. Q: Will the Markup Rates for O&A, New Work ROR, and New Work TDE be for the entire base period of performance / 5 years in aggregate? The NSN markup rates are listed by year in template.

A: Yes, the markup rates will be determined prior to contract award and will stay in effect for the entire POP.

59. Q: Will reference data be provided on types /quantities of tools and packing supplies that would be required by the Contractor to provide?

A: No, types/quantities of tools and packing supplies provided by the Contractor are up to Contractor's determination.

60. Q: "A separate cost reimbursement CLIN (CLIN 0007) will be used for all other shipping costs (i.e. CONUS). No prices proposed by the offeror in this pricing workbook other than CLIN 0007 should be inclusive of shipping cost. For CLIN 0007, proposed cost estimate for shipping, the estimate is the sum of standard shipping costs based on a 100-mile radius from each location multiplied by the average number of yearly repairs at CONUS locations using the historical data by location contained or identified in the pricing workbook (Tab 2 – Inductions per Location)."

Questions:

1. CLIN 0007 in the workbook is currently FFP and assigned to Exhibit A Data. Is the note in reference to CLIN 0005, Other Direct Costs - CONUS Shipping?

2. Is there a price required for Exhibit A -Data, or will that be Not Separately Priced

(NSP)?

A: 1. All notes in Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook have been updated to show correct CLINs. 2. CLIN 0007 Exhibit A – Data is Not Separately Priced (NSP).

61. Q: 1. How will the contractor-proposed warranty periods and turn-around-times impact proposal evaluations? For example, will contractor-proposed warranty periods that exceed the Government's desired warranty periods translate into a higher non-cost score?

2. Will shorter than desired contractor warranty periods negatively impact non-cost scores? If so, will the Government provide specifics regarding this element of the proposal evaluations?

A: The Technical Evaluation Team will assign significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies based on their evaluation of the proposal.

62. Q: 1. What are the penalties for failing to meet contractor-proposed turn-around-times in execution?

2. Are there any incentives for exceeding turn-around-times in execution?

3. Can the Government provide turn-around-times being achieved on the current contract?

A: 1. Failing to meet TAT may result in a negative CPARS assessment. For a missed TAT with no excused acceptable justification, at the time of reconciliation for invoicing, the Government may reduce the cost of repair by a one-time penalty of

1% for each item that missed the contractual TAT per day, up to ten (10) days per each induction. The invoiced amount will be agreed to at that time and reflected in the invoice report. 2. No incentives for exceeding TAT. 3. Current TATs are confidential.

63. Q: Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Question:

1. Is it the Government’s intent that offerors pre-process a future response to one or more unknown FOIA requests and that offerors mark each discrete piece of information which may qualify as protected trade secrets, employee name, or financial data - despite the clearly burdensome nature of this request?

2. Would not the Government’s interest, and indeed the offerors' interest, be best served by instead simply including the proposed marking on the title page and this proposed marking on all other pages which contain information which qualify for one or more exemptions under the Act: “This page contains one or more pieces of discrete information which the submitter considers to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information which qualify for one or more exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act and are therefore not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Act.”

A: Section L, Confidential Information, paragraph 3 will remain as currently written.

64. Q: The formulas in columns AN and AO stop at row 872. Is this intentional or are the formulas in those cells intended to continue to row 1077?

A: The formulas in columns AN and AO of the NSN sheet have been corrected.

65. Q: Is it the Government's expectation that the Total Evaluated Price (sum of all CLINs) will not exceed the $550M ceiling value of the contract?

A: Government has no "expectation" of proposed prices, however, the Independent Government Estimate ($500M) will be utilized for reference purposes as required during price evaluation.

66. Q: Under “Continuous Process Improvements”, the standard states “100% of Quarterly CPI Reports submitted on time per contract year”. CDRL A0007 says CPIs should be submitted monthly.

Question: What submission schedule do we follow - monthly or quarterly?

A: CDRL 007 is due quarterly. CPI updates may be discussed monthly at PM review.

67. Q: Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated IT Tracking System. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the technical proposal: Demonstrates that the contractor-owned, contractor-operated IT tracking system meets the requirements of paragraph 5.11 of the PWS (to include evaluating how each element of Section 5.11 of the PWS will be met).

Question: For clarity, does IT refer to Information Tracking, Information Technology, or Internet Technology?

A: IT refers to Information Technology.

68. Q: The O&A and ROR & TD&E tables include an "Evaluated Price" formula summing the Government estimated values and dollar values generated when the markup rates (percentages) are entered.

Question: The "Total Evaluated Price" worksheet only captures the Government estimated values- should it also include the markup dollar values?

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook has been updated. Total Evaluated Price sheet now links to totals from O&A & New Work sheet.

69. Q: CLIN 0005 and CLIN 0006 should be CLIN 0009 and CLIN 0008 respectively, based on the CLIN descriptions provided in the tables. Will the Government align appropriately?

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook has been updated to align respectively.

70. Q: 1. Will the Government provide an estimated number of new NSNs per year that will be added after contract award?

2. Will the Government confirm how many NSNs contractors can expect to be removed each year?

A: 1. In the current Contract, the net gain was approximately 200 NSNs. 2.

Government cannot confirm how many NSNs are expected to be removed per year.

71. Q: Cell AK5 references the 6-month Option to Extend as CLIN 0005. Per the Total Evaluated Price worksheet, CLIN 0005 is "Other Direct Costs - CONUS Shipping".

Please correct.

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook NSN sheet has been updated to show correct CLIN number.

72. Q: Does the Technical binder meet the 126-page limitation.

Question: The Technical page limit is 100. Can the government please update the checklist or provide clarification on the additional 26 pages.

A: The Proposal Adequacy Checklist has been revised to 100 pages.

73. Q: Can the Government confirm that offerors are to populate columns R, S, T with number of days rather than a price?

A: Yes, offerors are to populate columns R, S, T with number of days rather than a price.

74. Q: "The Government will evaluate the extent of commitment by assigning greater weight to Small Business Participation Plans with written agreements, versus plans with verbal or no agreements."

Question: This requirement seems to contradict the requirement on page 48 which states "Offerors do not need to submit copies of commitment instruments in their proposals.

Rather, identify what types of commitments are in place with each company —i.e. a written contract, letter of commitment, verbal agreement, joint venture, mentor-protégé agreement, including how long agreement in place." Since no written agreement are required to be submitted, how will the Government evaluate "by assigning greater weight to SB plans... with written agreements"?

A: This statement has been deleted from Section L, Factor 3, Small Business, and been revised to align with Section L.

75. Q: "If an Offeror’s response to this solicitation is favorably considered, a survey team may contact the Offeror to determine its ability to perform. Current financial statements and other pertinent data should be available for Government review at that time, if not already on file with the office having cognizance over the Offeror’s facility."

Questions:

1. How will the Government evaluate Technical Capability, Production Capability, Quality Assurance Capability, Transportation, Packaging, Plant Safety, and Environmental/Energy Considerations?

2. Related to the above question, will the Government require demonstrations of capabilities from contractors?

3. Can the Government define Other as Appropriate and how those items are evaluated?

A: Section L, Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor, Item 1 has been revised.

The following areas have been removed: Technical Capability, Production Capability, Transportation, Packaging, Plant Safety, Environmental/Energy Considerations, and Other as Appropriate.

76. Q: "The Contractor will be required to develop and maintain a vendor base to provide remanufacture, overhaul or repair (ROR) capability for 1,000 National Stock Numbers (NSNs) through consultation with the LIS SECREP program office. The vendors will be subcontractors (contract service providers) to the LIS SECREP Contractor. "Directed Source: A directed source (often an OEM) is an exclusive source identified by the government to ReMan a given NSN." Question: Does a cross-matrix list of existing/approved suppliers (vendors) exist for the 1000 NSNs?

A: The USG will not provide a list of existing/approved suppliers.

77. Q: Column K contains USG-directed sources.

Question: Will the USG provide Point of Contact (POC) information for these sources?

A: This data can be found by looking up the CAGE code or performing a Google search.

78. Q: Related to Column K Questions:

1. Does the Prime Offeror have the discretion to choose potential service providers based on its own internal qualification / vetting and procurement process?

2. Or does the Government intend to direct the Prime Offeror to consider/utilize certain pre-approved subcontractors/vendors?

A: The POC for USG-directed sources will not be provided. There are various sources to find contact information, .e.g., SAM.gov has a CAGE code search function.

79. Q: "(b) Contractor's obligations. (1) The Contractor's warranties under this clause shall apply only to those defects discovered by either the Government or the Contractor within the period of time for each item as stated in Section J Attachment 2 NSN List/Pricing Workbook. " Question: Where is Section J referenced in the Pricing Workbook?

A: The Prime Offeror has the discretion unless an item has a Direct Source of Repair.

80. Q: Column K titled "Directed Source" contains items identified only as "Y".

Question: Will the Government clarify what "Y" represents and will the Government provide the 'directed source'?

A: "Y" = Yes, this is a Directed Source. The Government will provide the name of Directed Source.

81. Q: Is ALL branding (i.e. Company Names, LOGO's, Registered Trademarks, colors, initials, and individual’s name) removed/redacted from all “Redacted” copies of the technical and past performance binders? Are the electronic copies in grayscale?

Question: This references Section L, but there is no requirement in Section L for providing a redacted or greyscale copy. Recommend Government update the checklist.

A: Proposal Adequacy Checklist has been updated.

82. Q: Multiple lines in the General section imply that there is a printed copy. Can the government please clarify or update this checklist?

A: Proposal Adequacy Checklist has been updated.

83. Q: In column K, the directed source for Line Item 36 and 806 is the US Army Aviation & Missile Command.

Questions:

1. Will the government confirm that it expects the prime contractor to enter into a direct agreement with this agency?

2. Will the Government provide the contact information for the agency?

A: Yes, the USG expects the Prime Contractor to utilize directed sources of repair by entering Prime/Sub relationships. The Prime can lookup contact information for Directed Sources by utilizing the CAGE code provided. There are various sources to find contact info, i.e., SAM.gov has a CAGE code search function.

84. Q: "(Solicitation/Contract Attachment 2) identifies the NSNs on contract. The individual configuration checklists are located at the LOGCOM website. These checklists indicate the level of work (remanufacture or overhaul) and configuration required for each item submitted. The work standards by NSN are located at the LOGCOM website."

Questions:

1. Are login credentials to the LOGCOM website in the final RFP?

2. If login credentials are not provided to contractors, how will contractors be provided access to these checklists?

A: The Prime Contractor will receive directions for accessing configuration checklists during transition period.

85. Q: Can the Government provide a full list of preferred/directed sources for all NSNs?

A: The Government will provide the name of NSNs with a Directed Source.

86. Q: Has the Government considered a Firm-Fixed-Price Award Fee contract? This contract type could be utilized to incentive increased KTAT and continuous improvement.

A: Yes, the USG has considered a Firm-Fixed-Price Award Fee and other various contract types.

87. Q: Under the Key Personnel requirement, the RFP states: "In addition, the Offeror shall demonstrate in the Mission Essential Plan how the Offeror will maintain continuity of services in the time of crisis as detailed in the PWS." There is no requirement in Section L or M for a Mission Essential Plan. QUESTION: Would the Government please clarify if a Mission Essential Plan is required, and if so, specify which volume it should be included in and under which section it will be evaluated?

A: Section L, Factor 1, Section 5b, has been revised to state the contractor will submit their Mission Essential Plan but it will not count towards the page limit.

88. Q: Three items are listed as evaluation factors. In Section L, Transition Plan and Mission Readiness were added. However, it appears there is no evaluation criteria for Transition and Mission Readiness. QUESTION: Would the Government please clarify if there should be evaluation criteria for Transition and Mission Readiness and what that criteria encompasses?

A: Section M, Factor 1, Technical, has been revised to include Section 4: Draft Transition Plan and Section 5: Mission Readiness.

89. Q: According to the PWS: "Teardown and Evaluation (TD&E) Cost: The cost to conduct the initial TD&E of an item (including 2-way shipping if applicable) before remanufacturing or overhauling begins." It appears shipping may be included in the FFP.

QUESTION: Is shipping included in the FFP? Recommendation: We recommend shipping be in the FFP for CONUS. This will allow for discounts for combined shipping and be significantly less processing time on the government and contractor side.

Contractors should provide 2 FFP prices for each NSN, CONUS and OCONUS.

A: No, shipping is not included in the FFP.

90. Q: According to the PWS: "5.1 Shipping: The Contractor shall use ATAC to ship to and from Okinawa, Hawaii, and OCONUS OEMs, at Government expense. The Contractor shall determine the shipping destination when shipping from Okinawa, Hawaii, and OCONUS OEMs via ATAC (i.e., the Contractor may choose to ship ATAC from Okinawa, or other approved locations, directly to his subcontracted repair facility and vice versa). An additional 12 days beyond the KTAT will be given for shipments using ATAC and the Contractor shall not be responsible for ATAC shipping delays. Contractors will utilize electronic Retrograde Management System (eRMS) for delivering and receiving SECREPs from ATAC. A government System Authorization Access Request (SAAR) is required to be completed for access to eRMS. For CONUS shipments, the contractor will bill for shipping costs under CLIN 0005. For OCONUS shipments via ATAC, the government will pay for the shipments."

QUESTION: Is shipping part of the FFP? We recommend CONUS shipping be included in the FFP (see responses to last TO SS Notifications).

A: No, shipping is not included in the FFP.

91. Q: 6.0 APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS 6.1 states: "The Contractor must abide by all applicable regulations, publications, manuals, and local policies and procedures."

QUESTION: Is there a list of publications that must be complied with? If so, will the Government please provide it?

A: The Government has provided publications throughout the PWS.

92. Q: Both Volume I and Volume V require a Quality Control Plan (QCP). Section M does not include evaluation of the QCP. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the QCP should be part of Volume I only, as Volume V indicates it will be evaluated under the Technical Factor and Section M, Section 1 will be updated to include evaluation of the plan. We also recommend that the QCP be exclusive of Volume 1 page count.

A: Section L, Factor 1, Section 1d, has been revised to state the contractor will submit their QCP but it will not count towards the page limit.

93. Q: This section requires proposals be submitted via DoD SAFE. This site has recently been updated to include the following: DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions.

RECOMENDATION: We recommend the Government change the RFP to require use of PIEE for proposal submission.

A: Section L has been revised to instruct offerors to submit their proposals through Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE).

94. Q: This section requires labeling the cover with "original."

RECOMMENDATION: Because the proposal submission is electronic, we recommend removing this section.

A: Section L, Labeling, has been revised and the statement has been removed.

95. Q: This section points to paragraph 5.11 of the PWS, which is "Directed Scope of Work."

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend Section L be changed to PWS 5.12.

A: Section L, Factor 1, Section 2, has been revised PWS paragraph 5.13, Asset Visibility.

96. Q: QUESTION: What period of time does the contractor have for getting the IT tracking in place?

A: IT tracking must be in place before the first SecRep is inducted for repair.

97. Q: Comparing Government documents issued during this solicitation process, reference to Over and Above (O&A) in this version has been deleted in many places; however, there is still language defining O&A. Appendix 2 provides a form/format to submit and approve O&A charges. QUESTION: Would the Government please clarify its intent with respect to O&A? Will O&As be authorized/used under a new contract?

A: Over and Above will be authorized under this requirement. PWS has been updated to include Over and Above language.

98. Q: Several instances of Repair, Overhaul, and/or Remanufacture (ROR) have been replaced by ReMan. However, ROR is still referred to in the draft often (>20 times).

Likewise, Remanufacture/ReMan is used >30 times. QUESTION: What is the Government's intent with respect to ROR/ReMan?

A: Repair, Overhaul and Remanufacture is authorized under this requirement.

PWS has been updated to include Repair, Overhaul and Remanufacture.

99. Q: This section states: "Explain the Offeror’s transition plan to phase into the role of the LIS SECREP integrator without a break in service in accordance with the solicitation requirements." RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Government provide more-specific data regarding what it is looking for the offeror to address. For example, explain ability to provide sources of repair for all NSNs within this proposal, to include any pre-agreed-upon agreements or partnerships with military depots/OEMs.

A: The transition plan is covered in detail in Section 4.9 of the PWS. The government expects the Awardee to have a plan/capability to provide ROR services for all NSNs within this proposal. Section 4.9.1 (Note 1:) On Day 1 Ready, the Awardee will assume FULL operational control and responsibility of all LIS Operations, at all LIS SECREP sites, providing and supporting all requirements listed in the PWS.

100. Q: Section M does not provide an evaluation criteria for transition. Transition is a critical aspect to the success of this program. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that verbiage be included that evaluates transition to alleviate the associated risk if it fails.

A: Section M, Factor 1, Technical, Section 4 has been added to include the Draft Transition Plan.

101. Q: Column F Row 11 of the Total Evaluated Price has the offeror submitting a cost for the phase-in. However, in the attached spreadsheets, there is no place to demonstrate a cost buildup or a basis of estimate (BOE).

RECOMMENDATION: To properly assess each offeror's cost for phase-in, we recommend the Government have a BOE sheet attached to the cost proposal that allows them to assess what they are paying for or what a corporation is willing to contribute to the cost of the proposal.

A: The Government is not requiring any Cost buildups to be submitted. Cost is not being evaluated under this RFP-only price.

102. Q: The input column for CLIN 0002 has the wrong spreadsheet link. It lists NSN Column AD, Row number 1078; it should be NSN Column AJ, Row number 1078.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Government change the link to AJ 1078. It is also a recommendation that the government cross-check each link to ensure proper linkage.

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook has been updated. Cell E12 on the Total Evaluated Price sheet now links to cell AJ1078 of the NSN sheet.

103. Q: CLIN 0002 New Work Integrator ROR and TD&E Total Evaluated Price, Column E, Rows 13 and 21 are a plug number. Yet on the O&A and New Work Tab, there are requirements to input markup rates for both items. These markups change the value of the Integrated ROR & TD&E costs on this spreadsheet's Column F. However, this change is not reflected in the Total Evaluation Price summary sheet.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Government change Total Evaluated Price sheet Column E, Row 13 and 21 to be adjusted by the markup rates listed in the O&A worksheet. Carrying forward and incorporation of markup rates does not properly provide the Government with the full cost of this function.

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook has been updated. Cell E13 of the Total Evaluated Price sheet now links to cell F17 of the O&A & New Work sheet. Cell E21 of the Total Evaluated Price sheet now links to cell G17 of the O&A & New Work sheet.

104. Q: CLIN 0002 Integrator O&A New Work is a plug number. On the O&A Markup Tab, there are requirements to input rates. These markups change the value of the O&A costs on this spreadsheet's Column B, Row 16. However, this change is not reflected in the Total Evaluation Price summary sheet.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Government change Total Evaluated Price sheet Column F, Row 15 and 23 to be adjusted by the markup rates listed in the O&A worksheet. Carrying forward and incorporation of markup rates does not properly provide the Government with the full cost of this function.

A: Attachment 2 LIS Pricing Workbook has been updated. Cell F15 of the Total Evaluated Price sheet now links to cell B16 of the O&A & New Work sheet. Cell F23 of the Total Evaluated Price sheet now links to cell C16 of the O&A & New Work sheet.