MA PSM QA 11.10.22.pdf

N00024-22-R-4100 : MID ATLANTIC PRIVATE SECTOR MAINTENANCE

BIDDERS QUESTIONS & GOVERNMENT ANSWERS

Question Number:

Question Source:

(RFP, Attachment

#, etc.)

Page Number and Paragraph Header from

Source:

Question: Response:

105 RFP Section B, NOTE C, page

NOTE C states - "At the award of the IDIQ, the direct and indirect rates proposed will be incorporated as Attachment J-8." Please confirm that the subcontractor fully-burdened fixed-price rates entered in the Attachment L-3 Labor & Indirect Rates tab will not be included in Attachment J-8.

The IDIQ is a contract established with the Prime and only Prime rates proposed in Att. L-3 will be included in Att. J-8.

106 RFP If subcontractor fully burdened fixed-price rates from Attachment L-3 do become part of Attachment J-8, how will an Offeror's fixed price subcontractors be compensated if escalation is higher for any of the out-years that exceed the escalation table in the RFP that is directed to be used for pricing?

Per Question 105, this is not an issue.

107 RFP The Government response to Question No. 1 states the CLINs that can be placed as either CPFF or CPAF and further states that the option of either a CPFF or CPAF CLIN is the determination of the ACO in order to allow maximum flexibility. What Criteria will the ACO utilize to determine whether a DO would be CPFF or CPAF? Is it conceivable that an ACO could use wide discretion to make most delivery orders CPFF with only a maximum potential of 6% fee?

Historically, the ACOs have utilized the CPAF approach to incentivize technical and management performance. However, there is nothing precluding ACOs from issuing CPFF DOs for efforts deemed more appropriate, such as material buys/Long Lead Time Materials (LLTM).

108 RFP Responses to questions indicate confusion over the potential fee for the various CLIN types which may be compounded by referencing previously answered questions. Please confirm the following; 1) Maximum fee for CPFF CLINs is 6% and 2) Maximum fee for CPAF CLINs is 10 % consisting of 6% base fee + up to 2% performance fee + up to

2% SBSIF.

Offerors shall propose a fee in line with IDIQ competitive RFP requirements.

FEE APPLICABILITY

DO Type Fixed/Base Fee Potential

Award Fee Potential

SBSIF

Potential

CPFF NTE 6% N/A 2%

CPAF NTE 6% 2% 2%

109 RFP The Government response to Question No. 103 makes sense for an IDIQ type contract where an Offerors proposal establishes what amounts to a "rate cap" where each delivery order gets competed and offerors submit proposals at rates at or below the overall rate cap. But for a cost type contract, with "caps" on rates, true, the awardee is paid its actual costs, but labor cost above the "rate cap" counts as an overrun which you don't get paid fee on. This RFP is lined up as a cost type - CPFF/CPAF contract to accomplish identified types of work rather than a general, "accomplish delivery orders" with a described ordering process. Please confirm costs exceeding the submitted rates will be paid with fee and not counted as over-runs.

Delivery orders will be issued as completion efforts, NOT level of effort. In a negotiated DO based on a defined work package, a vendor may face an overrun situation. As a result of an overrun situation the vendor would be paid the negotiated fee, without increasing the fee earned.

110 RFP Government response to Question No. 103 states, "Vendors are reimbursed on actual costs incurred for cost type contracts." Fixed price vendors (subcontractors) on a cost type CLIN would be reimbursed at their submitted firm fixed price, not their actual cost correct? Please clarify.

Government assumes privity of contract with Primes (which are cost type).

Primes should negotiate and reimburse their subcontractors in accordance with the agreements reached between prime and subcontractor.

Question Number:

Question Source:

(RFP, Attachment

#, etc.)

Page Number and Paragraph Header from

111 RFP Government response to Question No. 103 confirms direct labor and overhead rates are established for each year of the contract by the proposed L-3. Since its impractical for a proposal to cover all potential subcontractors that could be or will be necessary to use throughout the contract period, how are the proposed rates for certain subcontractors determined to be applicable rates to use for other (non-proposal L-3) subcontractors during negotiations of post-contract award D.O. price negotiations?

It is assumed the awardee will have every opportunity to propose based on a defined work package when the ACO issues the DO RFP.

112 RFP The Government's response to Question No. 102 confirmed that there will not be direct or indirect rate caps. However, it appears that the usage of proposal rates in the attachment J-8 to be used in negotiation of delivery orders will act as a cap on the fees awarded.

Even though costs will be reimbursed, using the J-8 instead of the FRPA in place at the time of DO negotiation will likely artificially reduce the negotiated budget for the delivery order budget upon which all fees are calculated. Similarly, Cost Performance is a component of the Management Award Fee Evaluation score. An artificially lowered budget will create a lower Cost Performance ratio.

If this is not a correct understanding of the impact of the J-8 vice using the FRPA in place at the time, please confirm that costs exceeding the J-8 rates will be paid WITH FEE and not counted as over-runs.

DO issues must be resolved at the ACO level. See the Government response to Questions 109 and 113.

113 RFP The Government's response to Question No. 103 appeared to interpret the question as pertaining to actuals vice the establishment of the DO budget which was the intent of the question.

Please explain why the DCAA audited and approved FRPA in place at the time of a delivery order negotiation would not be used in that work package budget definitization as has been done on ship repair cost reimbursement contracts across the country for decades. Why would the rates in this 2022 CVN proposal that become attachment J-8 be a more appropriate rate vehicle to negotiate delivery orders over the following seven years? What is the problem that attachment J-8 is trying to solve?

The J-8 is an IDIQ tool to allow DO placement if necessary. DOs may still be negotiated per the DO RFP as the work package is defined.

114 L-3 Please consider the removal of Government Fiscal Year language in Section L, item 5 on page 175 as there appears to be no requirement remaining in the solicitation to apportion any rates in accordance with the GFY given Government response to Questions 29, 30 and 31.

Corrected. See Amendment 0002.

Question Number:

Question Source:

(RFP, Attachment

#, etc.)

Page Number and Paragraph Header from

115 Sect G The Government has answered Question #101 as so, "52.236-16 is not listed in this solicitation, so deletion of the requested clause is not relevant to this contract." Page 110 Clause G-232-H002 PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND CONTRACT TYPE SUMMARY FOR PAYMENT OFFICE (NAVSEA) (JUN 2018) of the solicitation includes Clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments and further states "The following table of payment office allocation methods applies to the extent indicated." Please advise if Clause 52.232-16 is applicable to this requirement for payment purposes or Clause 52.216-7.

52.232-16 is not applicable to this requirement for payment purpose. Please see Amendment 0002.

116 RFP,

Section L

Page 161-162, Table L1 Described in Table L1-Volume Description, the column "Electronic via PIEE" for each Volume reads 1. Each Volume has different documents varying from word, PDF, Excel and etc. Does the "1" mean only one file can be uploaded for that Volume?

Offerors can upload multiple attachments for each volume submission, only one

(1) volume submission will be accepted. Offerors shall ensure that submissions are in line with the page limitations set forth in table L1-Volume Description.

117 RFP Section L Pg 184 Para b) at the top of page 184 asks for the applicable regional office of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of each proposed subcontractor with a proposed subcontract estimated at $10M or more. The question is, is that Total Cumulative proposed subcontractor or on a per CLIN bases? Example, if Brand X is $1.5M per CLIN but cumulative he is $15M for all the CLIN's together?

IAW the Federal Contract Compliance Manual from the US Department of Labor, this requirement is for each proposed subcontractor with a cumulative subcontract cost of $10M or more.

118 RFP Section L pg 168 Section L, Paragraph 3.5.2.6 states, “Discuss the percentage of time proposed labor mix identified that will be dedicated, on an annual basis, to this effort as well as to existing and other currently submitted proposed work.” Please define what proposed labor mix is being referred to for this requirement (i.e. Prime/Subcontractor mix (defined in paragraph 3.5.2.5), Craft Labor Mix (defined in 3.5.4.6), or other). Is this “proposed labor mix” for a particular CLIN/set of CLINs?

Offerors shall provide the proposed labor mix (hours) by CLIN (for all CLINs) to include Prime and Major subcontractors for all labor categories proposed.

Major subcontractors’ labor mix should also be detailed in the subcontractor L- 3 submission. The prime must ensure that they document the total number of hours designated for all non-major subcontractors, but do not have to itemize the specified labor categories. Offerors must ensure that the labor hours documented in the labor mix are in alignment with the total Government prescribed hours in the L-3 Labor Hour Phasing tab.

Offeror Itemized Labor Category – L-3

Labor Mix

Prime Yes Yes Major Subcontractor Yes Yes

Non-Major Subcontractor

N/A No

Question Number:

Question Source:

(RFP, Attachment

#, etc.)

Page Number and Paragraph Header from

SAMPLE

Labor Category Labor Mix

Total 1,000 Hours Prime

Engineering - Senior 200 Program Manager 200 Logistics 100

Major Subcontractor Engineering - Senior 100 Program Manager 100 Logistics 100

Non-Major Subcontractor Company A 50 Company B 50 Company C 50 Company D 50