Logistics_Contract_Final_RFP_NNJ16589301R_-_Official_Responses_to_Questions_-_Group_2.pdf

Official Responses to Questions Logistics Contract

Final Request for Proposal NNJ16589301R

Note: The questions that are listed in this document were reproduced exactly as they were submitted.

SMALL BUSINESS:

1. Would a small business be allowed to compete as a Mentor-Protégé Relationship with a large business?

Response: A small business may compete as long as they meet the size standard for this procurement. It does not matter if the small business is in a Mentor Protégé Relationship or not.

2. Would a Joint Venture between a Small and a large business be allowed?

Response: The Joint Venture would have to meet the size standards for this procurement.

PRICING:

3. Duplicate Questions:

a. From the Draft to the Final RFP, both the Logistics CMP DRD (AR-1-1) and the Technical Resources Summary Template- Logistics Core Template Instructions remove any reference to the requirement for Offerors to discuss “efficiencies.” In light of this change, the difference between the “Resource Basis” and the “Proposed” resources/cost columns in the TRST is now unclear.

Both the “basis” and the “proposed” columns appear to require Offerors to describe and provide rationale for their unique solutions. It is unclear what differentiates these terms and what would result in a delta.

b. Our assumption is that the “Resource Basis” should reflect the GRE as provided in L.17.6 and the “Proposed” resources/costs should reflect the Offeror’s unique solution, and the “Delta” should reflect the differences between the GRE and the Offeror’s solution. If this is a correct assumption, can the government clarify the RFP language to reflect this? If this is not a correct assumption, can the government further clarify its intentions?

c. Reference: Attachment L-8, Technical Resources Summary Template (and TRST Instructions)

Discussion: The instructions for the WYE Resources Basis column and the Proposed WYEs column are similar in nature and both reference the Offeror’s application of the technical and management approach in AR-1-1.

Question: Would the government further explain the difference between these two columns on the TRST-Core worksheet?

Response: The EPM will be updated to remove the “Resource Basis” and “Delta” columns to prevent confusion

4. Reference: Attachment L-8 Excel Pricing Model, Tab Titled "Subcontracting

Arrangement Information"

Question: The title of the second column is "Total Fully Burdened Labor Price". The instructions in the middle of the page indicate that amounts shown in this column should exclude profit/fee. Since the intent is to exclude profit/fee from the calculation, we suggest that this column be re-labeled as "Total Fully Burdened Labor Cost" to avoid confusion.

Response: The EPM will be updated to reflect this change.

5. Question: Attachment L-8 Logistics EPM.pdf, Subcontracting Arrangement Information (SAI) template. Is the Total Fully Burdened Labor Price intended to reflect Core labor only, or Core and IDIQ labor?

Response: The Total Fully Burdened Labor Cost is intended to reflect Core and IDIQ labor. The EPM will be updated to reflect the clarification.

6. Duplicate Questions:

a. Question: J-14 Total Compensation Plan. Since this plan will be included in Volume I Technical Acceptability, we would like to suggest removing any dollar values contained within the TCP.

b. Question: J-1 DRL_DRD, Total Compensation Plan (TE-1-1), Content (2) requires offerors to provide the contractor's company salary range/wage information for each labor classification identified. However, it is our understanding that no cost/price information should be included in Volume I Technical Acceptability. Please clarify: Is it the Government's intention that we should provide the salary range/wage information in Volume I Technical Acceptability? Or should we provide that information in Volume III Cost/Price Proposal?

c. Section L, Paragraph L.8(a); The total compensation plan shall include the salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave program proposed for each of these categories of labor.; The Total Compensation Plan (TCP) is a requirement of

Volume I - Technical Acceptability. However, according to L.8(a) the government is asking for salaries and wages as part of the TCP. Typically the TCP in part of the Cost/Price volume of a proposal.

QUESTION: If the TCP is included in the Technical volume, will the government confirm Offerors should remove salary and wage information from the TCP and provide it in the Price volume?

Response: The SLPT concurs that the salary range/wage information should be removed from the Total Compensation Plan. Offerors should provide the salary range/wage information in Volume III Cost/Price Proposal. The RFP will be amended to reflect this change.

7. Logistics Contract Technical Library; Reference Text: For the current Logistics

Operations Contract, the Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of the Incumbent work force are posted in the Technical Library.

Would the Government please post the same information for the Export Services Team to enable us to price this area appropriately and capture the skilled incumbent work force?

Response: The Export Services employees are exempt/salaried employees. These Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) are added to this procurement and do not exist under the current Logistics Operations Contract. Therefore, the Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of the Incumbent work force for these SLCs are not available and will not be posted in the Technical Library.

Please reference the Redacted Export Control Contract NNJ16JM06D at Section 2.9, Rates, in the Technical Library for further information.

8. Attachment L-8, LPT tab; Conversion Factor.

QUESTION: Is the Conversion Factor the productive man-year hours per WTE? Is the Government looking for a number of hours in that column?

Response: Yes, the conversion factor is the factor used to convert WYEs into productive hours by SLC based on the Offeror’s approved accounting practices, and the Government is looking for a number of hours in that column.

9. Attachment L-8, TOPT tab; Overtime hours and overtime rates.

QUESTION: The header of this section states Productive Hours and Overtime Hours (if applicable), but there are no sections for overtime hours and rates. Please provide guidance on where to apply the overtime hours and rates.

Response: The EPM will be updated to remove any mention of overtime. However, the Offerors are instructed to complete the “Overtime Premium Rate” row and provide the basis of application and conditions in which they apply in Section B rates table in the model contract.

10. Attachment L-8, OHT tab; Separating fringe from overhead.

QUESTION: If the offeror’s accounting system separates fringe and overhead, can an additional tab be made that separates the data or should the offeror combine them into one rate?

Response: Offerors may add an additional tab to separate Fringe and Overhead.

11. Attachment L-8, OPT tab; Historical Overtime.

QUESTION: What were the overtime hours for each of the labor categories on the OPT tab from 2016 or the last known year?

Response: Historical information for the annual overtime hours will not be provided because the overtime hours for this effort are minimal.

LABOR RELATIONS:

12. Are the Traffic Rate Analysts Union, Exempt, or non-exempt?

Response: Based on the definition of the Traffic Rate Analysts, the Government has identified the Traffic Rate Analysts SLCs to be non-exempt. Because these are new positions, the Traffic Rate Analysts are currently not part of the union.

However, these employees can decide whether to join the union once they are hired.

13. Page 49 of the CBA states that employees completing five years continuous service will receive a twenty cent per hour premium. In order to capture PTO costs associated with the CBA, please provide a copy of the roster of incumbent personnel original hire dates.

Page 49 also states that employees working in Building 380 will receive a twenty-five cent per hour premium. Please provide the number of employees who work in this location.

Response: According to FAR 52.222-41 (n) Service Contract Labor Standards, The Contracting Officer shall turn over a roster of the incumbent personnel original hire dates to the successor Contractor at the commencement of the succeeding contract. For the purposes of proposal development, the Offerors should rely on the seniority data provided in the Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile provided by the Government in the Technical Library.

There are two employees that currently work in Building 380.

14. In the SLC_CBA Mapping document provided in the Technical Library, there are several CBA positions listed for each Standard Labor Category. On page 49 of the CBA, there are different rates listed for positions which all appear under the same SLC. For example, the Administration Specialist category on the SLC_CBA document includes both a Logistics Librarian, which has a wage of $19.02 in the CBA, and a Junior Cataloger, which has a wage of $19.23 in the CBA. Could the Government please provide additional information on specifically what CBA job titles are included in the WYEs specified for each SLC category in tables L-7 and L-10 in order for the offeror to make a well-informed, reasonable, and realistic staffing and pricing solution?

Response: The technical library provides the composite rates for each SLC.

Providing any further detail would be exposing an integral part of the current contractor’s Basis Of Estimate. Offerors must establish which positions best fit the SLC guideline definitions, what type of personnel fit the positions, and how many are needed for the RFP SOW.

15. L.17.6, Instructions for preparation of the cost proposal, Attachment J-3 Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA); Reference Text: The current CBA does not account for escalation and no instructions for escalation of CBA wages are provided in the RFP.

Should we assume that any required escalation resulting from renegotiations of the CBA, over the life of the Logistics Contract, is to be handled via the H.4 Special Provision for Core Contract Changes? Should we make a similar assumption for WD wage escalation, i.e., that it is to be handled as a contract mod upon a change to the WD?

Response: The current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) establishes wages until April 1, 2018. After contract award, the contractor and union may negotiate a new CBA to establish wages (and their corresponding escalation) after April 1, 2018. Any new CBA, and Wage Determination (WD) will be placed on contract via a contract modification consistent with the schedule set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.1007.

The applicable authority to update the CBA/WD is FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards and not H.4, Special Provision for Core Contract Changes. Reference paragraph (c)(1): “Each service employee employed in the performance of this contract by the Contractor or any subcontractor shall be paid not less than the minimum monetary wages and shall be furnished fringe benefits in accordance with the wages and fringe benefits determined by the Secretary of Labor, or authorized representative, as specified in any wage determination attached to this contract.”

Because this contract is cost-reimbursable, all allocable, reasonable, and allowable costs may be charged to the contract. Therefore, it is not necessary to process a contract modification if the new wage determination results in an increased wage or health and welfare benefit to non-exempt/non-union employees.

A new WD may or may not increase the wages and Health and Welfare benefit of the non-exempt employees that support the Logistics contract. As part of a strategy to provide uninterrupted high quality work, consistent with FAR 52.222- 46, Offerors may propose escalation to wage rates. Total compensation templates

(a) and (b) are provided in the Excel Pricing Model for Offerors to propose escalation for exempt and non-exempt workers.

16. Export control staff were not listed on the SLC table. Are they union or exempt or non-union staff?

Response: The Export Services employees are exempt/salaried employees. These Standard Labor Categories (SLCs) are added to this procurement and do not exist under the current Logistics Operations Contract.

17. Attachment L-8 & CBA; Shift Differentials.

QUESTION: Where do the costs for shift differentials go in Attachment L-8?

Response: Section B.8 will be updated to include an area for Offerors to propose a shift differential premium.

18. Draft RFP Question #175; Union Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

QUESTION: Given that this is a cost plus fixed fee solicitation, please clarify the Government’s response to draft RFP question #175 regarding the allowability, allocability and reimbursement of costs, including supplemental and withdrawal liability costs, related to a contractor’s fringe benefit obligation to participate in a union multi-employer defined benefit pension plan pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The Government’s response—that such costs would not be allowable, allocable or reimbursable—although consistent with its now current position regarding firm fixed price contracts where reimbursement is based on the SCA price-adjustment clause, it is contrary to the FAR’s cost principles, established case law, as well as the Government’s past practice with regard to cost contracts at Johnson Space Center. See, e.g., FAR Sec. 31.109; FAR 31.205.6(j); FAR 52.216-7; NASA JSC Contract NAS 9-20000 with USA Section G; http://spacenews.com/nasa-settles-space-shuttle-contractor-pension-liability/; Raytheon Co. v. U.S., 747 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.

2014)(Pension plan segment closing cost amortization adjustments are pension contribution costs and costs of doing business allocable to the contract on cost-type contracts); DIRECTV Grp., Inc. v. United States, 670 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (In the case of cost-type Government contracts, the contributions made on behalf of covered employees are paid by the Government as a part of the cost of the contracts); Gates v.

Raytheon Co., 584 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (same).

Response: “Because withdrawal liability costs associated with pension plans are not required to comply with a collective bargaining agreement, the government cannot reimburse a contractor for these costs and is not willing to consider an advance agreement regarding the allowability, allocability, and reimbursement of contractor pension related costs. Offerors are encouraged to contact the pension fund to inquire about costs associated with the Houston Teamsters Pension Plan, and to consider these costs when drafting a proposal.” When drafting this response, the government did not take into consideration the cost-reimbursable contract type of the Logistics contract. Therefore, the government rescinds this response.

The SLPT conducted further research into this complex issue and consulted with the Defense Contract Management Agency. The issue of whether a cost arising in a later year can properly be allocated to the contract is a contract administration issue to be resolved between the United States Government and the Contractor.

This is a complex issue in which there is no official and definitive government-wide response – the response will dependent upon the unique facts and circumstances.

The Contracting Officer recommends that the contractor consult with the Contracting Officer during Contract Administration prior to finalizing the negotiations of any change to the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s retirement benefits.

The CBA Wage Schedule includes a number of footnotes associated with premium pay items. Are the historical amounts for these premium pay wages included or excluded from the Incumbent Average Composite Direct Labor Rates spreadsheet which has been provided by the Government?

Response: The premium pay wages are included in the Incumbent Average Composite Direct Labor Rates spreadsheet which has been provided by the Government.

TECHNICAL LIBRARY:

19. Duplicate Questions:

a. Technical Library. We are noting several apparent discrepancies.

On the SLC Status document posted in the technical library, there are labor categories which include multiple types of personnel (union, non-union nonexempt, and non-union exempt) personnel. In order to price direct labor and fringe accurately non-incumbent contractors would need to know how many WYEs from the Government estimate fall into each category for every labor category. For example, the Government estimates 8 Admin Specialist II. The SLC Status document states that there union and nonunion nonexempt Admin Specialist II WYEs, but it does not identify how many of the 8 are Union and how many are Non-Union.

Response: The Standard Labor Category (SLC) Status document in the technical library reflects the status for the current Logistics Operations Contract, and not this procurement. The Government Resource Estimate (GRE) does not provide specific details on how many Work-Year-Equivalents (WYEs) fall into each category for every labor category because each Offeror must allocate and price their direct labor and fringe benefits as part of their unique management strategy.

On the SLC-CBA mapping document posted in the technical library, there is no delineation between levels (admin I, II, III, etc.) or how many WYEs map to each CBA labor category. For example, the Government estimate identifies 17 Admin Specialists (4 level I, 8 level II, 5 level III) and the SLC-CBA mapping document it identifies that these 17 Admin Specialists map to 15 CBA labor categories.

However, there is no mapping of how many WYEs are in each CBA labor category.

This information would be needed by non-incumbent contractor’s to price direct labor and fringe.

Response: The technical library provides the composite rates for each SLC.

Providing any further detail would be exposing an integral part of the current contractor’s staffing approach with is considered proprietary. Offerors must establish which positions best fit the SLC guideline definitions, what type of personnel fit the positions, and how many are needed for the RFP SOW.

20. Logistics Contract Technical Library; Reference Text: A copy of the current Logistics

Operations Contract: NNJ08JA01C_Basic_Contract_Redacted is posted in the library.

Would the Government please post the same contract information for the current Export Services Team Contract?

Response: This is posted in the Technical Library.

21. Reference: Technical Library, Average Composite Direct Labor and Seniority Profile of Incumbents

Discussion: There are no historical rates for Warehouse Specialist III or Traffic/Rate Analysts II and III.

Question (a): Do these categories exist on the current contract?

Response: These SLCs are new to this procurement; they do not exist on the current contract.

Question (b): If so, would the government please provide the historical Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile for those categories?

Response: Not applicable.

Question (c): If those categories are not on the current contract, are those categories transitioning from other existing categories?

Response: No, they are new to this procurement.

Question (d): If transitioning from other existing categories, would the government please identify the categories from which they are transitioning?

Response: Not applicable.

22. Multiple Desk Instructions reference Alchemy; however, the SOW implies it is a legacy system and that the contractor shall provide a new “electronic archival documentation system.” Is Alchemy no longer in active use?

Response: Alchemy is still used on the incumbent contract.

SAFETY:

23. Reference: DRD AR-1-7, Safety and Health Plan, contains this instruction – Frequency of Submission: Initial submission with the proposal shall include the following sections only:

Section I: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.1, 1.9.2 Section II: 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.6, 2.7.1, 2.7.1.1, 2.7.1.2 Section III: 3.2, 3.10, 3.11, 3.11.1, 3.13 Section IV: 4.1, 4.3

Remainder of DRD requirements shall be submitted upon notification of contractor selection and must be fully approved by NASA prior to the beginning of contract performance.

Question: Does this mean that a cover page, table of contents, and other deliverables are not required with the proposal?

Response: Offerors should follow the format listed and only need to address the paragraphs indicated. This list was intended to state what content needs to be addressed for the proposal, as opposed to the entire DRD. Format is the same.

The final submission for the successful Offeror will need to address the entire DRD.

As for the table and other deliverables, those items are to be delivered by the successful Offeror. The Plan only needs to acknowledge these deliverables will be provided – either up front or in the appropriate paragraph.

24. I.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY

DATA (FAR 52.223-3) (JAN 1997). Paragraph (d) states that “The apparently successful Offeror agrees to submit, for each item as required prior to award, a Material Safety Data Sheet, meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) and the latest version of Federal Standard No. 313, for all hazardous material identified in paragraph

(b) of this clause. Data shall be submitted in accordance with Federal Standard No. 313, whether or not the apparently successful Offeror is the actual manufacturer of these items. Failure to submit the Material Safety Data Sheet prior to award may result in the apparently successful Offeror being considered non-responsible and ineligible for award.

Question: Is this a phase-in requirement, and if so will NASA make available a list of current hazardous materials

Response: Section I.9 (b) is an Offeror fill-in.

POLICY:

25. Question: L.9 (a). Offerors are required to submit electronically via FBO. Currently, FBO is not accepting uploads for this procurement. When will the government open up the solicitation for uploads. Recommend that the site be opened early enough to allow vendors to test the process and identify difficulties.

Response: The bid module in FBO is now enabled.

SECTION C:

26. Section C, Paragraph C.1.15.3 and 6.7; C.1.15.3 states that we have to obtain access to the JSC Temporary Storage Database but C.6.7 says we have to create one.

QUESTION: Please clarify.

Response: Section C.6.7 a. has been updated in Amendment 000003 to the RFP.

SECTION J:

27. DRD AR-1-1 Logistics Contract Management Plan, section 8, paragraph iii. This reference requires - “A Basis of Estimate narrative at the individual WBS level with sufficient supporting information and detail to allow for a technical analysis. Also, describe how proposed methodologies, processes and techniques that would be implemented and why they are of benefit, such as cross-utilization of resources.”

Question: Can NASA clarify the meaning of “WBS?” Does this mean SOW?

Response: Clarified the definition of WBS as it relates to the SOW in DRD AR-1-1 via Amendment 000003 to the RFP.

SECTION L (Non-Pricing):

28. Question: Final RFP Section L Table L-10 IDIQ (WYEs) by SLC identifies 1 Aircraft Loadmaster and 1 Sr. Aircraft Loadmaster. Table L-11 IDIQ (WYEs) by SOW identify for Task Order 1 Loadmaster 2.0 WYE per 12-month period). Attachment L-1 Loadmaster Sample TO, Section 8.1 Workload Estimate specifies: "The average mission requires three contract Loadmasters." That is a change from the Draft RFP, which specified two loadmasters per mission. Please clarify: Is the difference between Section

L and the sample task order intentional? If not, can you please update the RFP guidance to correct the discrepancy?

Response: The reference to ‘three contract Loadmasters’ has been deleted in Amendment 000003 to the RFP.

29. Question: Final RFP Section L.17.4.A and L.17.4.C have been updated to move the Total Compensation Plan from L.17.4.A to L.17.4.C. However, the evaluation criteria in Final RFP Section M have not been updated in the same manner. We request that you please update Section M for a clear statement of the evaluation criteria for each section of the offerors' proposals.

Response: Section M.2.1 C has been updated in Amendment 000003 to the RFP.

30. Should the Model Contract be in Word? If so, will you provide the sections A thru K in word?

Response: Yes, the Model Contract should be in Word. No, the Government will not provide any sections in the Word format. Section L.17.8 has been updated in Amendment 000003 to the RFP to reflect the format requirement.

31. Reference: Section L.17.1, Table L-2, page L-11; Section L.17.2, Table L-3, page L-

Discussion: Table L-2 does not include a cross reference for the Total Compensation Plan. Table L-3 Delivery Location L.17.4C, Volume I indicates the Labor Relations Plan and Total Compensation Plan are provided in separate documents.

Question: Please confirm that the Total Compensation Plan is to be submitted as a separate file from the Labor Relations Plan.

Response: Yes, these Plans are to be submitted in separate files. Section L.17.1, Table L-2 has been updated in Amendment 000003 to the RFP.

32. Table L-2 Cross Reference from Section L to Section M; The Total Compensation Plan is not listed in this table nor is it referenced in Section M, however, Section L.17.4.C lists the Total Compensation Plan with the Labor Relations Plan.

QUESTION: Please confirm that the Total Compensation Plan should appear in our proposal response as part of the Section that contains the Labor Relations Plan. Also please provide evaluation criteria for the Total Compensation Plan.

Response: The TCP and LRP are separate Plans, to be submitted in accordance with Table L-2. The evaluation criteria for the TCP was moved from M.2.1A to M.2.1C. Please see these changes in Amendment 000003 to the RFP.

33. Table L-12 IDIQ (NLRs) & Attachment L-8, TRST-IDIQ-CR tab; Non-labor resources by sample task order.

QUESTION: The Non-labor resources in Table L-12 only provides a single amount per category, but each Task Order has its own requirement for TO# NLR Resources Basis to fill in. Please breakout table L-12 by each of the three sample task orders or provide guidance on what to use for the resources basis for each.

Response: Table L-12 has been updated in Amendment 000003 to the RFP.