N68335-16-R-0050_Amendment_0003.docx

N68335-16-R-0050

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

1. The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to vendor questions as follows:

Question 1: Page 11, Para 3.1.9, Labor Hours, identifies the total labor hours as 50,650. However, page 59, Para 2.1.2 states 10,330 hours per year are required. It appears page 59 should stipulate 10,130 hours per year. Please confirm.

Answer 1: Please see Amendment 0001 for the correction of hours in paragraph 2.1.2.

Question 2: The Labor Category Qualifications contained on pages 60-61 are all classified as Engineering Technician I. Is the designation equivalent to the Service Contract Act (SCA) Wage Determination (WD) Level 1 Engineering Technician Code 30081? If so, please incorporate the applicable WD number, as appropriate.

Answer 2: The Service Contract Act Wage Determination does not apply to this procurement because performance is outside the United States.

Question 3: It is unclear if the Wage Determination applies to the solicitation. If so, the SCA labor category description for the Level 1 technician requires the individual to perform simple routine tasks under close supervision or from detailed procedures and work is checked in progress or on completion. Conversely, the Engineering Technician V performs non-routine and complex assignments involving responsibility for planning and conducting a complete project of relatively limited scope or a portion of a larger and more diverse project, selects and adapts plans, contacts personnel in related activities to resolve problems, and coordinates and integrates the technical work of others. Given the level of expertise and independence required for in-country support personnel, it appears the labor categories are equivalent to that of an Engineering Technician V. Additionally, if an Offeror were to propose a Technician I at a minimum labor rate of $22.92/hr, it would introduce a tremendous performance risk and ultimately adversely impact the program. It is respectfully requested the Government reclassify the Level 1 to a Level 5 to reflect the expert tasking required for in-country support.

Answer 3: The Service Contract Act and Wage Determination does not apply to this procurement because performance is outside the United States. The labor categories and required qualifications is located in the Request for Proposal.

Question 4: The March 4, 2015 memorandum issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), a LPTA source selection process should apply ONLY when the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal and there is neither value nor need for higher performance. If not applied appropriately, DoD can miss an opportunity to secure an innovative, cost-effective solution to meet Warfighter needs to help maintain a technological advantage. Due to the complexities associated with the SOW tasks and the importance of establishing and maintaining delicate international relationships with our FMS customers, it appears that a LPTA source selection process would introduce significant program risk and impact the desired level of support needed to meet mission requirements. Thus, it is respectfully requested the Government re-evaluate the source selection process and consider the numerous advantages of awarding on a Best Value approach.

Answer 4: The evaluation criteria remains on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Basis.

Question 5: The AT&L memo also references appropriate contract types (ie FFP, CPFF, etc) depending on the Government’s ability to firmly predict the tasks, efforts and required outcomes. For this solicitation, Page 52 indicates a FFP and Cost Type (for ODCs) is contemplated; however it appears the tasking is better suited to a CPFF-LOE type whereby the contractor is required to perform a set number of hours for the designated skill mix and levels over a stated time period to earn a fixed fee. Unlike FFP, a CPFF allows the Government to take advantage of the offeror’s ability to create savings by adjusting skill levels and mix to coincide with the specific task and efforts required. As well, when proposing FFP contracts, Offeror’s generally must incorporate price risk into their cost proposal. To allow for the best possible price to the Government, it is respectfully requested the Government change the award type to a CPFF-LOE contract since the tasking is based on a level of effort rather than specific number of products, ie, 10 technical briefings and 5 lesson plans.

Answer 5: The contract type for this procurement remains as listed in the Request for Proposal.

Question 6: On page 67, Section M-1, Part B, Para 2.0 states inconsistencies between the Technical and Cost proposal may reflect a lack of understanding. If Resumes are the only required component of the Technical Proposal, how can the Offeror’s understanding of work be evaluated?

Answer 6: As stated in the RFP, the Government will evaluate all resumes submitted by each offeror. In order to be determined technically acceptable, all candidates proposed must meet the minimum personnel qualifications listed in the solicitation. The Government will also evaluate the supplemental detail provided as described in the RFP.

Question 7: Page 58, Para 2.1 states the Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. However, it appears the Technical Proposal solely consists of 5 resumes NTE 10 pages. Please state how the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical competence and comprehension of complexity as indicated in Section M-1, Para 2 on page 66.

Answer 7: As stated in Section M, paragraph 1.1, the Government will evaluate all the resumes submitted by each offeror. In order to be determined technically acceptable, all candidates proposed must meet the minimum personnel qualifications listed in the solicitations.

Question 8: Page 57 stipulates a Technical Proposal page limitation of 20 pages; however, the maximum of 10 pages (five resumes at 2 pages each) is allowed for resumes. Should the remaining 10 pages of technical page count be used to address the Offeror’s technical approach?

Answer 8: As stated in the RFP on page 58, the offeror shall complete the attached resume template for each current, contingent and prospective hire employee proposed under this effort. Supplemental to the Resume Template, offerors shall provide detail of the work assignments, training etc. that demonstrates the experience and specialized qualifications that correspond to the dates referenced in the Resume Template. The supplemental detail is in addition to the resume template. The supplemental detail shall not exceed two pages per candidate. In addition, page 59 of the RFP states all contingent hires shall have a letter of intent submitted under Volume Two (Technical). Letters of Intent will not be counted as supplemental information but will count toward the 20 page limitation. The page limitation of the Technical Proposal remains at 20 pages.

2. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf