Solicitation M67004-20-R-0012 QA's 13 Feb 2020.docx

Consolidated Storage Program (CSP) Operations Contract Questions from Industry/Solicitation Questions

Questions submitted via email from posting of Solicitation M67004-20-R-0012:

1. In the Performance Work Statement - Section 2.5.1, the Site Manager locations include Iwakuni, Japan; the Regional Manager locations include Okinawa, Japan. Are the locations intentionally different?

Answer: Yes.

2. In the Performance Work Statement - Section 2.5.1, there is not a Site Manager listed in Okinawa, Japan. Is this intentional?

Answer: Yes.

3. If a candidate currently working in California, North Carolina or OCONUS on the CSP Technical Support Services contract applies for a position with an offeror’s company, but has not been involved in the development of this opportunity, may we consider that person’s application for employment?

Answer: Yes, provided there is an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest plan that is submitted with the proposal that mitigates any individual’s conflict.

4. In Instructions to Offerors, the “Branding” paragraph, the instructions dictate removal of company names, logos, initials, and individuals’ names. Are colors permitted to stay in the graphics of the redacted versions, or must the entire proposal be submitted in grayscale?

Answer: No, colors are not permitted, as an offeror’s colors may be indicative of an offeror or offeror’s trademark. All paper copies (technical and past performance binders only) shall be submitted in grayscale. The purpose of branding removal is to ensure the Technical and Past Performance Binders are evaluated without any markings identifying the offeror in the technical and past performance proposal submitted. The solicitation has been updated.

5. In Instructions to Offerors, the “Binding and Labeling” paragraph, the instructions require inclusion of the offeror’s name on cover sheets and spines. For the versions without company branding, should the offeror’s name be redacted on the cover sheets and spines as well?

Answer: Yes. The solicitation has been updated.

6. The instructions under each binder (page 118 of 128) require that “paragraphs shall be sequentially numbered.” Is it acceptable to have all sections and subsections numbered, or must every paragraph (i.e., line following a hard return) be numbered individually?

Answer: Yes, it is acceptable to have all sections and subsections numbered. The solicitation has been updated.

7. Is a narrative required for Binder III – Price? If so, is it part of the 10-page limit?

Answer: No, a narrative is not required. If narrative is included, it is part of the 10-page limit.

8. Per the guidance for Binder III – Price Proposal, “Offerors shall propose using the labor categories included in Attachment 22 without any further adjustments to those categories.”

Per the answers to Draft Solicitation Question #3, “Attachment 22 is not all inclusive. The remaining labor categories are determined by the Contractor based on performing the tasks required in PWS Section 3.”

Attachment 22 – Pricing Workbook appears to be missing several labor categories. Would the Government please confirm whether offerors may add labor categories to Attachment 22? If not, we request consideration be given to amending the solicitation to include these labor categories at a minimum as they are key personnel: Program Manager, Regional Manager and the following labor category for successful operations: Quality Assurance Specialist.

Answer: No, offeror(s) may not add labor categories to the T&M sheet of Attachment 22. Attachment 22 has been updated to add the Program Manager, Regional Manager, and Quality Control Specialist. Quality Control (PWS Section 4.5) is performed for this effort. Quality Assurance is performed by the CSP Technical Services contractor. The offerors are being evaluated against the same labor categories and estimated number of hours per category for the Mission Support (T&M) CLIN. Should offerors believe a revision to these categories is warranted, offerors shall send the recommended revisions to the Contracting Officer by 12:00 PM (Noon) EST on Thursday, 20 February 2020. The solicitation has been updated.

9. Does the Government prefer offerors propose a minimum number of days for proposal validity? If not, is 120 days acceptable?

Answer: No, the offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation. The solicitation has been updated.

10. On page 117 of 128, the Government states, “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.” This implies that the Government would like the proposal to be printed double-sided. Is this an accurate interpretation or is there another intended requirement?

Answer: Yes, both sides of the page counts.

11. Per Instructions to Offerors, paragraph “Exception/Deviation/Waiver,” may offerors submit their statement in reference to exceptions, deviations, and waivers in a cover letter? If a cover letter is not permitted, in which volume should this statement be incorporated?

Answer: No, the Exception/Deviation/Waiver statement cannot be in a cover letter. The Exception/Deviation/Waiver statement shall be incorporated in Binder V, Contract Documentation. The solicitation has been updated.

12. In Instructions to Offerors (page 118 of 128) and Evaluation Factors (pages 119 – 121 of 128), the Government’s guidance regarding preparation/submission and evaluation of Past Performance does not include standard boilerplate such as contract number, period of performance, contract value, Contracting Office point of contact information, etc. Does the Government intend that offerors should only submit the past performance narrative information currently required by the RFP?

Answer: No, in addition to the past performance narrative information currently required by the solicitation, the offeror is to include the contract number, period of performance, contract type, contract value, program name, and Procuring Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer Representative, and Program Manager name, phone number and email address for each past performance contract. The solicitation has been updated.

13. Is this a recompete or a follow-on to the Seaport NxG effort “Consolidate Storage Program Third Party Logistics (3PL) Support for Technical Services; M6700419R3500”?

Answer: No, this not a recompete or a follow-on to the Seaport NxG Technical Services requirement. This is a new requirement for Consolidated Storage Program (CSP) Operations and Maintenance, which is separate from the CSP Technical Services.

14. Is there an incumbent? If so, who are they and what was the winning bid, contract number, and SOW?

Answer: Yes. The current contractor is PrimeTech International, Inc., contract number is M67004-19-P-2010. The award amount is available on https://beta.sam.gov.

15. To conserve paper, is it possible to email the proposal instead of mailing it? Or perhaps submit it to the ARMDEC site?

Answer: No, stated in the solicitation (Page 116), the proposal may be hand delivered or sent via commercial carrier.

16. In order to accurately propose a schedule for the physical inventory control plan, is the Government able to provide quantities and locations for the items in Attachments 8 and 20? Locations and quantities will ensure proper estimates of the workload and timeline for this requirement.

Answer: Yes, the Government has added a TAB to Attachments 8 (Non-Controlled Items by DODAAC) and 20 (Controlled Items by DODAAC) which provides the number of NSN’s and number of pieces located at each DODAAC within the CSP.

17. The attachment (attachment 22 T&M Tab) lists seven labor categories. Please clarify that offerors may use additional labor categories for the firm-fixed price portion of the contract.

Answer: Yes, offerors may use additional labor categories for the FFP portion.

18. As efficiencies are identified by using labor categories under T&M that are not included in Attachment 22, may offerors add those labor categories to Attachment 22? (RFP Page 121)

Answer: No, see answer to question eight (8) above.

19. In performance objectives for phase-in and phase-out, the deliverables are “weekly updates until turnover complete, then monthly.” Please clarify regarding information required for monthly updates for this objective. (RFP Page 66)

Answer: The monthly update requirement has been removed from the performance objectives for phase-in and phase-out. The solicitation has been updated.

20. PWS 3.2.6 instructs offerors to look to Attachment 10 regarding Government Serviceability Standards. As this attachment is specific to MARFORSOC SPEAR Business Rules, please advise regarding additional references on Government Serviceability Standards. (RFP Page 38)

Answer: Attachment 10 and 13 are the serviceability standards. PWS 3.2.6 has been updated.

21. PWS 3.18 states that, “The associated equipment for the Skis is forthcoming … .” Can the government provide a timeframe? (RFP Page 48)

Answer: No, acquisition of the associated equipment is still in the development phase.

22. The government’s answer to question 7 of Draft Solicitation Q&A's M67004-20-R-0012 30 Jan 2020 regarding the use of chargers for electric MHE states…. It depends, coordination must be done through the CSP PMO prior to installing any chargers. However, para 3.0.5 of the 30 January RFP states….. The government will not fund or allow the installation of service or charging stations to support Contractor MHE. Inasmuch as the use of electric forklifts enhances performance in some scenarios where space is at a premium (as indicated in some locations on Attachment 1B), will the government abide by its first answer and allow for electrical MHE through coordination with the COR on a location by location basis?

Answer: The solicitation has been updated to remove “or allow” to be consistent with the Government’s answer to question seven (7) of the Draft Solicitation Q&A’s.

23. The government’s answer to question 10 of Draft Solicitation Q&A's M67004-20-R-0012 30 Jan 2020, regarding insurance for overseas employees and the government’s role in paying for it was, No, the government will not pay/reimburse for insurance for work overseas. Title 42 USC 1655 states… The Secretary of Defense shall adopt an acquisition strategy for insurance required by the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) which minimizes the cost of such insurance to the Department of Defense and to defense contractors subject to such Act. In as much as permanent employees will be located overseas in III MEF positions and others could possibly deploy from the other MEFs on a contingency basis, will the government reconsider its answer in light of the aforementioned USC regulation?

Answer: No, this contract is not subject to the Defense Base Act (DBA). The website https://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/FAQ/DBAFaqs.htm Frequently Asked Questions # 2 provides who is covered under the DBA. This is not a service contract in connection with national defense or with war activities outside the United States.

24. Attachment 4 shows no items requiring laundry and repair at Iwakuni despite having 105,815 items issued and 91,248 items returned annually. How is the laundry and repair accomplished at Iwakuni?

Answer: Laundry and repair in Iwakuni is outsourced and the cost shall be included in the Contractor’s FFP proposal. This shall not be reimbursed through the Mission Support CLIN. The PWS has been updated.

25. Attachment 4 shows that Camp Lejeune issues 77,822 and receives (Returns) 57,105 CBRN items at the UIF, presumably for all of II MEF. There are no equivalent numbers for CBRN gear listed at I MEF or III MEF, except for a small number at Barstow. Attachment 1B does indicate that Miramar handles some CBRN at Warehouse 6001, but no quantities are indicated. Can the government clarify where the primary issue and turn in points for CBRN are for all three MEFS?

Answer: CBRN-D equipment, except for masks are issued and returned to the UIF facilities for all three MEFs.

26. Attachment 4 shows that Camp Pendleton has 939,541 items laundered annually by outsourcing that function. It also shows that 82,616 items are repaired at the IIF facility, which appears to be building 2236 according to Attachment 1B. Is the disposition for repair made prior to items being shipped to the outsourced laundry service? And, if it is, are items under the 65% replacement threshold repaired before being laundered?

Answer: Yes, the disposition for repair is made prior to items being laundered. Yes, items under the 65% replacement threshold are repaired before laundered.

27. Is the repair facility in warehouse 2236 still operational? Is the facility shared with the DRMO or is it a staging area for items to be turned in to DRMO?

Answer: Yes, warehouse 2236 is still operational. Relocation of all CSP functions for warehouse 2236 are currently being determined. No, it is not shared or a staging area.

28. Attachment 1B shows Camp Pendleton SWSCN/STAP being stored in Warehouse 2263. However, there are no throughput numbers for the SWSCN on Attachment 4. What are the throughput numbers for SWSCN at Pendleton?

Answer: Attachment 4 has been updated with SWS&CN throughput in the UIF Activity Tab for the enterprise. The numbers shown include SWS&CN and Components (Light Sets, Stoves, Etc.).

29. Attachment 1A reveals that the eight (8) Barstow Issue/Recovery Bldgs have a significant number of Mgmt/Other Computers (25 total) but NO DPAS workstations. Attachment 4 shows over 80% of the items processed occurs in BDC 3, which has no DPAS workstations. How are the transactions accounted for in this high volume of issues/Returns in BDC 3 and the other Barstow locations for CBRN, STAP, and SWSCN? Is BDC 3 the same facility as WHSE3?

Answer: Attachment 1A has been updated in Column K of the UIF Facilities sheet to reflect the correct DPAS-WM warehouse workstations.

30. Attachment 1A shows that Bldgs 154 through 162 as being “Lights Out” facilities with no docking space nor office space. Where are these buildings physically located (Nebo or Yermo) and what are their functional purposes? Is full time staffing required for these facilities?

Answer: Bldg. 154 through 162 are used for storage and located on Nebo. Full time staffing is not required for these facilities.

31. WRT the workload at the Bridgeport facility, Attachment 4 shows 810 Customers for Issues and 847 Customers for returns accounting for over 60,000 items issued, returned or transferred. Paragraph 3.18 of the RFP (Skis and Supporting Equipment) states that “The associated equipment for Skis is forthcoming, but may include items such as ski boots, ski racks, ski boot, shoe trees, etc”. Can the government provide an estimate as to what those numbers will be for the five locations stated? This information is especially important for staffing planning for remote locations like Bridgeport.

Answer: The current ski system Authorized Acquisition Objectives are as follows: I MEF (647), II MEF (647), III MEF (648) and Bridgeport (600). Currently, all of the III MEF ski systems will be fielded to Okinawa. All associated equipment will be included upon fielding. The solicitation has been updated.

32. Will the government designate temporary storage/parking areas near the facilities to permit the staging of MHE and Vehicles prior to Day 1 Ready to ensure compliance with the government mandate that the facilities “shall be fully managed and operated by the awardee on Day 1 Ready”?

Answer: Yes, as designated by the Government LMS. The solicitation has been updated.

33. Please confirm that the 11” x 17” foldouts count as one page. (Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits, para. 1A page is defined as a single side of paper. One sheet of paper, front and back, equals two pages.)

Answer: No, the 11” x 17” foldouts count as two pages. The solicitation has been updated.

34. Please confirm that headers and footers are excluded from the margin and font size requirements. (The font size shall be 12 point. Exception: foldout/enclosure documents may be submitted using paper sizes other than 8.5 x 11 inches and font sizes other than 12 points (maximum 11 x 17 paper size and minimum 8 point font size), as long as they fit in the binder. Use at least one-inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins.)

Answer: Headers and footers are excluded from the margin and font size requirement. The solicitation has been updated.

35. To mirror the requirements for the 11x17 foldout enclosures, please confirm that for charts, figures, tables, etc., offerors are allowed to use a font size no smaller than 8pt to provide clear and concise information. (Section L)

Answer: Yes.

36. Will the Government please provide the list of attachments and the necessary attachments for this solicitation to industry for this effort?

Answer: Yes, the list of attachments are in the solicitation (page 98). IAW solicitation (page 115) the offeror must contact the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer for a copy of the PWS attachments and/or Exhibit A (CDRL).

37. The CSP PMO Work Processes (Attachment 7) is referenced is PWS sections 3.2.3 Issue, 3.2.4 Central Receipt, 3.2.6 Exchange and 3.2.7 Recovery, however that attachment provides a secure link to a CAC enabled website, therefore, can the Government provided the guidance contained in the GOCO-IT system or a non-secure site location?

Answer: The Government will send out the Attachment 7 files via https://safe.apps.mil to the offeror(s) who request them by contacting the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer.