N6945013R7999-0009_GPIs.pdf

N69450-13-R-7999 - Amendment 0009 GTMO BOS Services

GOVERNMENT PRE-AWARD INQUIRIES

RESPONSES

Question No. QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

434 51 Section M 3(b)(1)(i)

1. It appears that Amendment 0006, dated 24 Sep 2013, contains some ambiguity and may not fully reflect the Government's intent. Thus, we understand that the intent of the RFP is to permit offers from joint ventures and partnerships and allow the joint venture or partnership to use the corporate experience of the individual joint venturers and partners to demonstrate corporate experience under Factor 1, where that experience was attributable to work as a prime contractor. However, the RFP, as written, could be interpreted as only permitting consideration of the experience of the "offeror" itself, and not the partners and joint venturers that make up the offeror. As written, the RFP permits the offeror to submit up to five examples of relevant projects that the offeror (including joint venture and partnerships) completed. While this apparently was intended to permit offerors to submit projects completed by the partners and venturers that make up an offeror that is a joint venture or partnership, as written, it merely defines the offeror as including joint ventures and partnerships; that is, an offeror may be a joint venture or partnership. It does not permit consideration of projects submitted by the offeror that were performed by partners in the offerors. To clear up the ambiguity, would the Navy amend Section M, subparagraph 3(b)(1)(i), at page 51 of 56 of Amendment 0006 of the RFP Factor 1, Corporate Experience, Solicitation Submittal Requirements, as follows:

"(1) Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror (or the partners or joint venture partners who make up the offeror) shall demonstrate experiences as a prime contractor providing services similar in size, scope and complexity to those described in the statement of work/specifications of the RFP. Experience that is not directly attributable to the offeror (or the partners or joint venture partners that make up the offeror) as the prime contractor will not be considered under Factor (1), Corporate Experience. Otherwise, experience of the parent company, sister company, or subcontractor will not be considered or evaluated as the offeror for the submittal requirements of Factor (1). The offeror shall submit at least one and no more than five (5) examples of recent, relevant projects that the offeror (or its partners or joint venture partners) including joint venture and partnerships) completed and served as the prime contractor. Relevant projects include those that demonstrate the capability to perform services similar in size, scope, and complexity as described in the statement of work/specifications of the RFP with a contract value of approximately $10,000,000.00 per year or greater and shall be: 1) ongoing with at least 12 months of contract performance completed by the date of receipt of proposals, or 2) shall be completed within the last five (5) years. For each project the offeror shall provide: …."

Non-Price Factors 1 and 5 have been revised. See Amendment 0009.

REFERENCE

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

**Note: All historical information is provided for informational purposes only**

N69450-13-R-7999 - Amendment 0009 GTMO BOS Services

GOVERNMENT PRE-AWARD INQUIRIES

RESPONSES

Question No. QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSEREFERENCE

435 55 M

Factor 5, Past Performance, on page 55 of 56 of Amendment 0006 of the RFP can be read as violating FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which requires that the Government's past performance evaluation "take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition." We know that the Navy intends to comply with that requirement.

However, as written, Factor 5 says that the Navy may consider such information. That suggests that the Navy may not consider that information. To make the Factor 5 language more clear, would the Navy amend the Factor 5 language that starts on page 55 of 56 of Amendment 0006 of the RFP and continues to page 56 of Amendment 0006 of the RFP to read as follows:

"In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may that the Government will review will include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members who have relevant experience and will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. Offerors must clearly name and describe the work performed by any subcontractor, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor companies, or key personnel performing major or critical aspects of the requirements, in order for the Government to consider and evaluate that entity for Factor (5). The Government may also review inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPHS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror."

See Government Response to GPI #434

436 34 & 35 E Clause5252.246-9

The process for administration of the Liquidated Damages Clause (i.e., the methodology the Contracting Officer will use to deduct money for non-conformances), and the criteria by which the Government will determine satisfactory performance is unclear. Under the circumstances listed in RFP Clause 5252.246-9303, with exception to the incumbent, industry should not be expected to accept the unmitigated risks associated with RFP Clause 5252.246-9303 entitled "Consequences of Contractor's failure to Perform Required Services;" especially in a Fixed Price Contract where the contractor assumes all risk.

Please consider removing the Liquidated Damages clause.

If the clause remains, please provide the specific criteria by which work will be judged unsatisfactory, non-performed, or (with respect to the Quality Control Program) a failure.

Clause 5252.246-9303 remains in the RFP.

Performance standards identified in the Performance Work Statement will be used to determine non-performance or lack of quality control.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

**Note: All historical information is provided for informational purposes only**