Responses to Industry Comments on Draft RFP.pdf

No. RFP Reference Question Government Response

Draft RFP, Standard Form 1449, pages 26, 30, and 32

Since this solicitation is designated as a small business set‐aside, FAR clauses 52.219‐9 and 52.219‐16 and DFARS 252.219‐7003 are not applicable. Please remove per FAR 19.708(b).

removed FAR 52.219‐9 and 52.219‐16 and DFARS 252.219‐7003

Draft RFP Standard Form 1449, pages 33, 35, and 75

DFARS 252.225‐7001, Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program, and DFARS 252.225‐7021, Trade Agreements, are mutually exclusive. One can apply but not the other. Since this contract far exceeds all Trade Agreement thresholds, can the Government please remove DFARS 252.225‐7001 and 252.225‐7000?

removed DFARS 252.225‐7001 and 252.225‐7000

3 Draft RFP Standard Form 1449, page 18 Can the Government please remove clauses FAR 52.204‐14 and 52.204‐15 from the solicitation since the solicitation is for a contract for supplies, not services (ref.

FAR 4.1705)?

removed FAR 52.204‐14 and 52.204‐15

4 Draft RFP, SF 1449, Block 10

This procurement is being considered as 100% set aside for small business and has been assigned a supply NAICS code. Under SBA's rules for this type of procurement, each offeror that is not a manufacturer of the products offered under the solicitation must ensure that each product offered is manufactured in the United States by a small business (the SBA Nonmanufacturer Rule, ref. FAR 19.905(c)). Has the government sought or will it seek a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule from SBA covering all products included in this solicitation? Without such waivers, no small business will be able to submit a compliant bid for the RFP.

The non‐small business portion is 39%. As that is less than 50% required by FAR19.505(c)(5), DLA Aviation will not be pursuing a waiver.

5 Attachment 1 Basic SOW 5.6 This section references Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management which has been revoked and replaced by Executive Order (EO) 14057: Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. Can the government confirm that EO 14057 is the correct and current reference and validate its applicability to the contract?

FAR 23 still lists EO 13423 and EO 13514. However, as there are many EOs referenced in FAR 23 any references to EOs were removed and only the FAR is referenced.

Attachment 7 Section L 9.0; Attachment 8 Section M 3.6 and 8.0

In order to ensure Past Performance relevancy ratings align to contract requirements and are an accurate reflection of the offeror's past performance as related to their ability to perform on this contract, recommend relevancy include fill rate metrics and complexity concepts like the complexity of the commodity or product types (E.g. any experience on Federal Supply Classes 6810, 6820, 6840, 6850, and especially 9150), environmental, storage (HAZMAT, short shelf life), distribution, transportation. This offers DLA the ability to evaluate offeror’s past performance as a true indicator for future performance on a contract of similar size, scope and complexity.

There is a requirement to include metrics. Added a small blurb that past performance should be relevant in commodity, size, scope, etc.

7 Attachment 8 Section M 3.2

The relative importance ranking places Factor 5, Past Performance, below the least important other non‐price factor, Factor 4, Ability One, Small Business and Socioeconomic Program Participation. According to the Federal Acquisition Institute, information regarding a contractor’s actions under previous contracts and orders, i.e. past performance, is an indicator of future performance and is one of the most relevant factors that a selection official should consider in awarding a contract. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s “Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information” (May 2000) recommends that the weight assigned to past performance be equal to or more than the other non‐cost/price evaluation factors to ensure significant consideration is given to past performance. Particularly given the complexity, size, duration, and criticality of successful contract performance due there being no option for the Government to perform the program in house, we strongly recommend that Factor 5 be elevated in importance to more important than Factors 1 through 4, combined.

Pushed Past Performance above SB factor.

8 Attachment 11 Section H H900

The EPA indexes for FSC 9150 include two highly volatile BLS indexes that are not for finished products. Recommend that the index for this FSC be weighted 100% to BLS index PCU324191324191, petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing, as it is most representative of the products to be supplied under this FSC.

The use of a blended index consisting of 5 individual indexes with varying weights was the result of careful consideration and enterprise wide input. The working group which created the blended index was acutely aware of the volatility of the eWPU057 and ICIS Motiva indexes. This is the reason their combined weight was limited to 30% and this blended index has been used since the first generation of the contract. Based on internal research and the conclusions of our enterprise working groups, we believe the blended index should continue to be used.

9 Attachment 11 Section H H900

The costs covered by Throughput Charge are primarily warehouse labor and freight and bear no relationship to the costs of petroleum or chemical products.

Therefore, recommend that the Throughput Fee be adjusted by EPA factors PCU4841224841221 general freight trucking, long distance less than truckload; and CIU2010000520000I, total compensation for private industry workers in transportation and material moving, index each weighted at 50%. This would ensure the Throughput Fee is adjusted by the most relevant EPA factor.

The throughput charge is not eligible for an EPA adjustment; only material charges.

10 Attachment 7 Section L 10.2.1

In order to ensure technical capability solutions provided in Factor 2 are appropriately resourced and can be evaluated for reasonableness and balance, it is recommended that the USG give specific instructions on what the BOE should include and that the BOE be required to include a mapping of cost/price estimates to technical solution/SOW elements for each pricing element/CLIN including Transition. Recommend the BOE be required to comply with the DOD Cost Estimating Guide, delineate the type of estimating approach used, and include a narrative discussion of the resulting risks.

No changes made.

11 Attachment 8 Section M 9.2 Can the Government clarify what "separately priced line items" refers to? For example, does it mean the offeror's proposed unit prices for materials, proposed monthly and annual prices for Management, proposed price for Transition, and proposed unit prices/ rates for Throughput or just proposed unit prices for material NSNs?

All of it. There will be separately priced line items (CLINS) for active material, transition charge, and management charge. All proposed pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance.

12 Attachment 8 Section M 9.2 Will the government analyze proposed prices for balance across the contract's main price elements/ line items, i.e. Material Pricing, Transition Price, Management Charge, and Throughput Charge?

Yes. All proposed pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance.

13 Attachment 8 Section M 9.2

To facilitate the Government's evaluation of price balance between Material Pricing, Throughput Charge, and Management Charge can the Government elaborate on the sort of cost elements that can or cannot be included in pricing developed for each of these CLINs? For example, instructions could be added explaining that Material is intended to include estimates of the offer's out‐of‐pocket costs for purchased material, plus applicable indirect cost burdens and proposed profit;

Management Charge includes estimates of direct costs and appropriately allocated indirect costs and proposed profit for costs that are not expected to vary significantly by the volume of orders processed (e.g., PMO labor, equipment and warehouse lease costs); and Throughput Charge includes estimates of direct costs and appropriately allocated indirect costs and proposed profit for costs that are expected to vary in proportion to the volume of orders processed (e.g.

warehouse labor, freight).

No changes made.

14 Attachment 8 Section M 9.0 Pricing Evaluation does not consider price realism or completeness. To reduce execution risk for DLA, will the Government include a provision for a price realism analysis or a provision that the agency will review prices to determine whether they are excessively low when compared to market prices as to reflect a lack of technical understanding reserving the right to reject a proposal for offering unrealistic prices?

Realism is related to cost. As we are not evaluating cost, but price, realism is not a factor.

Price balance is used to determine if prices are unrealistic.

15 Attachment 7 Section L 10.0

Offerors are required to price out the items listed in Attachment 2, but RFP does not require documentation or specific narrative for how the offeror developed prices for those items (copies of conforming material quotes or evidence of recent historical costs paid). To reduce the risk of unrealistically low material pricing and ensure Offerors develop Material Prices using accurate and complete cost information, will the Government require Offerors to provide detailed back up documentation for their Attachment 2 pricing. This reduces material pricing risk that could jeopardize contract performance.

Including procurement note for traceability requirements.

16 Attachment 8 Section M 9.0

The Transition price is a sum certain that the USG will pay the awardee following successful completion of Transition under the resulting contract and is likely to be a material portion of the contract price. To avoid offerors front loading their proposed pricing, would the Government consider including the proposed price for Transition in the total evaluated price (TEP)? This would ensure a fair and equal price comparison between competing offers.

If transition charge was to be included in the TEP, it would give the incumbent an unfair advantage as they would not have a transition charge. The transition charges are evaluated for reasonableness and realism, along with all other offered prices, to mitigate this risk.

17 Attachment 7 Section L 6.1 Please confirm that the reference to environmental requirements should be changed to Quality Control requirements in the second paragraph in L.6.1. Corrected 18 Attachment 8 Section M 5.1 The Quality Control evaluation criteria does not identify how scenarios will be evaluated. Can the government revise to address scenarios? Changed to rate the scenario based questions as pass/fail.

19 Attachment 8 Section M 5.2 The evaluation criteria does not explicitly state how this subfactor will be evaluated. Recommend inserting new section (before scenario criteria) as follows: 5.2.1 The proposal will be evaluated on the description of the Offerors order fulfillment technical process including the order processing system.

Factor rewritten.

20 Attachment 8 Section L 4.2

The statement of work identifies many SCM functions that are not captured by the current Technical Proposal volume instructions or evaluation criteria but are essential for program execution. Request that the government add a new volume for a Management Proposal that allows the offeror to describe their approach to perform comprehensive supply chain management for the program. This would include the offerors capability to provide an adequate supply chain infrastructure (to include personnel, processes, facilities, and program‐level managerial structure) to support the requirements of the solicitation. A Management Volume allows the government to fully evaluate the completeness of the offerors proposal and decreases the risk that an offeror does not fully comprehend all of the program requirements.

As part of streamlined approach to source selection, all requirements in the SOW the vendors agree to when submitting a proposal. ALL elements of the SOW should be addressed in the vendor's proposal. We have called out the most important factors in L&M.

21 Attachment 7 Section L 6.0

In order to ensure that the offeror's technical promises are backed up by the resources priced in Volume VI, recommend that offerors be required to include in their management volume a basis of estimate that delineates and quantifies the resources planned to implement the contract, together with a narrative that explains the rationale and purpose of the resources selected and quantified. This will allow the source selection board to cross check the technical proposal and price proposal for consistency in order to assess whether the offeror has proposed sufficient resources for full performance and priced them adequately.

No changes made.

Attachment 7 Section L 6.2 and Attachment 8 Section M 5.2

Section L and Section M references do not appear to be aligned or consistent. Section L indicates that the 10 pages allotted to Subfactor 2 are a response to two scenario questions after the initial proposal submission. The response to the scenario questions seems to be the sole required content for the response to this subfactor. Section M states that, in addition to the response to two scenario‐based questions, the evaluation includes, “the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates it has an adequate ordering processing system in place to support the requirements of the solicitation.” Would the government please clarify what the proposal content requirements are for Factor 2: Technical Capability at submission and for the separately submitted scenario questions?

Page limits were still being worked. Draft RFP updated with proper page limits. Factor updated.

23 Attachment 8 Section M 3.2.4 Adjectival ratings are assigned at the Subfactor level then rolled up into an overall Factor rating. How are the overall Factor ratings assigned for Factors 2 and 3, which are evaluated both for Technical and Risk? For example, if the Transition Plan is evaluated to be Acceptable for Technical yet High for Risk, what would the overall rating be for Factor 3?

Risk ratings are manifested by the identification of weaknesses, not technical acceptability.

24 Attachment 8 Section M 3.4.4

For the purpose of clarity, how will risks be determined and evaluated? Will the government differentiate between external risks that are out of offeror and government control (pandemic, supply chain disruptions, geo‐political events) and risks due to weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's approach? Each offeror faces a dilemma of identifying more risks and mitigation strategies for Subfactor 2, Order Fulfillment, to demonstrate thoroughness of their understanding of the work and inherent risks involved and their readiness to take on and conquer those risks; against their proposal being rated with a higher level of risk if more risks are identified. Can the government reconcile this dilemma and clarify that identifying more risks and associated mitigation strategies for Subfactor 2 will not cause the government to increase the risk rating for the offeror's proposal provided that the risks are not attributed to weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's technical approach?

The Government will not rate the identification of more risks as a weakness. As mentioned, all risks and mitigation strategies should be listed. If an Offeror fails to list some risks, their proposal may be ranked lower.

25 Attachment 8 Section M 3.4.4

Although Technical and Risk are rated separately for Factors 2 and 3, a high Technical Rating for an individual factor or subfactor will tend to align with a Low risk rating for that same factor or subfactor. Therefore, in order to give appropriate weight and distinction to Risk for this highly complex and capital intensive contract, recommend that separate factors be evaluated on Risk alone. The following factors are recommended:

1. Substantiation and completeness of proposal pricing. This factor could be evaluated according to the extent the resource‐based BOE of the technical proposal is linked to the price‐based BOE of the price proposal, whether they are sufficiently detailed, substantiated and explained in the accompanying narratives. Due to the outsized reliance on having accurate estimates of materials costs to perform the resulting contract successfully, realism of proposed material prices should be given particular emphasis. To satisfy the Government’s confidence in that the offeror has sourced contractually compliant materials from eligible sources and priced those materials in its proposal, the RFP can require submission of supplier quotes with salient information such as Buy American/ Trade Agreements Act, Berry Amendment, Specialty Metals compliance certification, manufacturer CAGE and part number of item offered. Focusing on the most critical and/ or high dollar items for supplier quotation documentation is a way to balance risk management with administrative efficiency.

2. Available resources to perform the contract. This factor evaluates the extent the offeror’s technical solution substantiated by the offeror having in place the kind of facilities, equipment, technology that will be required to perform the contract on work that is similar in scope, dollar value, and complexity. It is critical to distinguish between offerors that are proposing “vaporware”, i.e., something that sounds very good on paper but is not proven or tested in a real work setting, from offerors that are proposing solutions that have already worked in the real world in the same or modified form. A way to do this is to conduct site visits of the offerors’ current operations once discussions are opened on the solicitation. During these site visits offerors can relate how the work conduced on site is similar and relevant to the solution proposed in their proposal in terms of scope of work required, contract revenue, and complexity. Key questions Government evaluators will consider will be whether the offeror has the kind of equipment, facilities, technology and other resources that will be required to perform the contract and can give the evaluators confidence that the offeror understands how to deploy these resources to perform the contract successfully.

We are required to evaluate within the DoD source selection procedures, which are outlined in L&M.

26 Attachment 8 Section M 3.2 Since this procurement is set aside for small business concerns, will the Government consider changing Factor 4 to a Pass/ Fail basis to allow more emphasis on Factors 2, 3, and 5?

Based on DoD's push for increased socioeconomic awareness, this factor will not be changed. The factor was moved below past performance.

27 Attachment 8 Section M 7.0 Section L paragraph 8.0 does not specify a required minimum 50% small business participation. Where in the solicitation, beside Section M, is this minimum 50% small business participation requirement specified?

The 50% is statutory based on this being a small business set‐aside.

28 Attachment 7 Section L 11.1 Will the government consider allowing a Summary Intro limited to 2 pages to every Volume to facilitate ease of overall comprehension of proposals? An executive summary is authorized. Page limits are in line with other efforts of similar scope and size.

29 Attachment 9 Section L 10.4 Please confirm that the term "Material Charge" in the second sentence should be "Management Charge". Corrected.

30 Attachment 8 Section M 3.2, 7.0, and 7.0.1.

The minimum 50% small business participation on this contract is high in relation to the proportion of large business manufacturers in the Chem POL industrial base. Due to this high minimum, there will likely be little difference in the proposed small business participation levels between competing offers, especially if this is set aside for small businesses. Therefore, can Factor 4 be instead evaluated on a pass/ fail basis like Factor 1?

The current contract performs at 50%. Based on DoD's push for increased small business/socioeconomic spend, this factor will not be changed.