16-R-5004_Vendor_Questions_2-29-2016.docx

Vendor Question #18: There are no provisions in the contract to whether the team must in its entirety or some level be on-site or if remote workers are acceptable I would ask for clarification of this upfront.

Government Response #18: The majority of the work is expected to be performed on-site at DLA HQ; however, there is a possibility that some task orders against the vehicle will primarily be located at one or more of DLA's field sites. Remote work may be allowed on some task orders, but should not be the expectation. Refer to RFP Section 1.6 Place of Performance.

Vendor Question# 19: PWS Section 2.2, Is it correct that support services based includes full project management from initiation to execution of both business and IT projects as it later discusses in 2.3 as individual tasks? If so this contract should be for both Implementation Services and Support Services not solely support services.

Government Response #19: The vendor will serve only in a support/advisory role in any selected solutions. The vendor will not be directly responsible for the implementation of any changes, to include samples like IT systems.

Vendor Question #20: Section 3.2.3.2 Chapter 2 – Aspect 2 bullet 1). What is the contract size in terms of dollars and scope that is considered relevant to the solicitation requirements?

Government Response #20: In accordance with Section 3.2.3.2, Chapter 2 – Aspect 2, bullet 1, this is not something the Government provides, bidding contractors need to discover this based on their history of successful completion of projects as the history relates to the PWS.

Vendor Question #21: What type of implementation projects are on the docket for 2016-2019 to help ensure that there is a good understanding of what Superior Technical Implementation & Support means from a staffing and support standpoint as the functional areas of IT are wide in their offerings of personnel and there is no jack of all trades.

Government Response #21: CPI projects will be derived from a project pipeline and cannot be anticipated in advance of award. Expectations are for CPI practitioners to have corresponding certification to match task orders' PWS/SOW. References to implementation are specific to individual project solutions. The contractor will serve only in a support/advisory role in any selected solutions. The vendor will not be directly responsible for the implementation of any changes, to include examples like IT systems.

Vendor Question #22: Could you verify if there are any licenses for analytic tools that contractor should have on hand for their personnel that will not be covered by the USG: for example: MiniTab for Analytics, SharePoint, MicrosoftProject, Clarity for Project Portfolio tracking. (just a few samples)

Government Response #22: No. Any software necessary for the performance of the work will be provided by the USG.

Vendor Question #23: PWS Section 2.4.4, Request clarification on Vendor's authority to remedy any deficiencies that falls outside of the highest level of acceptance.

Government Response #23: In reference to PWS Section 2.4.4 Performance Standards and Payments, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will be working directly with the awardee throughout the rating period to ensure performance issues are addressed before a rating is determined.

Vendor Question #24: PWS Section 2.4.4, I couldn't see what type of monthly feedback system is required for the COR to make his/her assessments on performance from the contractor. Note most Tollgates in LSS run past a Month so progress will be have to measure beyond a month to month and looked at a Major Milestone level and Sign-Off with some level of marrying in the LSS Special Projects Manager in as well as the COR to request the status and satisfaction level.

Government Response #24: Monthly status reports will be submitted by the contractor to include the status of any ongoing project work. Expectation is not that tollgates or major milestones will be passed monthly, but progress should be ongoing, or concerns such as obstacles to progress should be identified.

Vendor Question #25: PWS Section 2.5.1, Request removal of the bullet "Coach, mentor, or lead CPI projects yielding measurable results, to include belt certification;"- this responsibility rightly belongs to the MBB / BB.

Government Response #25: Correct. This has been removed from PWS Section 2.5.1, the Subject Matter Expert list.

Vendor Question #26: PWS Section 2.5.1, Request removal of the bullet "Teach DLA LSS including familiarization, Green Belt, Black Belt, Sponsor, Champion, etc. courses and coach personnel in assigned duties executing roles;" - this responsibility rightly belongs to the MBB / BB.

Government Response #26: Correct. This has been removed from PWS Section 2.5.1 the Subject Matter Expert list.

Vendor Question #27: PWS Section 2.5.2, Replace "Proposed substitutions must have qualifications that are equal to or greater than the key personnel being replaced." with "Proposed substitutions must have qualifications that are equal to or greater than the labor category of the key personnel being replaced."

Government Response #27: PWS Section 2.5.2 has been revised to read: "Proposed substitutions must have qualifications that are equal to or greater than the labor category of the key personnel being replaced and capability/experience sufficient to continue any ongoing work."

Vendor Response #28: Can the USG provide all documents in word? The documents seem to have been scanned and they don't convert to word correctly.

Government Response #28: Yes, see revised documents posted to FedBizOpps.

Vendor Question #29: Can you provide us with names of contractors that worked on DLA Continuous Process Improvement / Lean Six Sigma Support Services contracts in the last five years?

Government Response #29: This is not something the Government provides, bidding contractors need to discover this based on their own market research.

Vendor Question #30: If there is a specific 8a vendor currently (or recently) providing DLA with Continuous Process Improvement / Lean Six Sigma Support services on a sole source contract, does that represent an actual or potential OCI for the vendor?

Government Response #30: Refer to the OCI provisions in the RFP Section 1.19 Identification of Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) page 7, which highlights a bidding contractor's responsibilities if the vendor feels they might have an OCI.

Vendor Question #31: Are all the Program Managers, Master Black Belts and Black Belts expected to be "Key Personnel?

Government Response #31: Yes. Refer to RFP Section 2.5.1 Personnel Qualifications, Labor Categories and Key Personnel Minimum Requirements.

Vendor Question #32: Regarding the experience levels, the RFP is very clear in the requirement to have experience working alongside, with and for high-ranking individuals in the DoD, but the RFP also indicates the Master Black Belt Key Personnel must have 3 years experience, specifically coaching and monitoring DLA senior leaders, their manager, and supervisors. In this meant to exclude Master Black Belt who have equivalent experience mentoring and coaching non-DLA general flag officers, member of the senior executive service, et.al? Is DLA willing to change this wording? This would seem to preclude a new vendor from winning and make this less than a fair and open competition.

Government Response #32: The reference to DLA experience will be removed from the MBB experience requirements.

Vendor Question #33: Hard copy delivery to the DLA Richmond Office is currently required. Will the Government permit electronic proposal submission (email) only?

Government Response #33: No.

Vendor Question #34: Can the Government please confirm that Prime contractors require an active Top Secret Facility clearance given the Government's direction that Task Order requests?

Government Response #34: No. Vendor personnel will require clearances as determined by individual task orders.

Vendor Question #35: Does the Government intend on issuing any task orders as part of this ID/IQ award?

Government Response #35: No. See Section 4.1 Basis for Award.

Vendor Question #36: Is there a current incumbent(s), and if so, can you provide the names of those organizations?

Government Response #36: See Government Response #1.

Vendor Question #37: Can the Government confirm that this is a fully funded effort within DLA HQ (J5), or is tasking contingent upon receipt of funding from other DLA components?

Government Response #37: The DLA requiring activity will provide their own funding for any resulting task order(s) against the IDIQ to acquire services.

Vendor Question #38: RFP Page 1 last paragraphs states: “Following the award of the IDIQ, the specific scope of each effort will be based on the specific tasks to be set forth in individual task orders, but may include lifecycle tasks in one or more of the following areas:….” What percentage of the total work on the contract is envisioned as lifecycle tasks?

Government Response #38: All work on the contract will deal with lifecycle tasks in the specified task areas. It is unknown whether any given task order will call for work in only one, or multiple task areas.

Vendor Question #39: Ref. RFP Page 2 paragraph 3 states: “Funding will be provided per individual task order from the requiring activity.” Is DLA HQ going to be providing funding centrally, or will each requiring activity have to provide their own funding against the IDIQ to acquire services?

Government Response #39: The DLA requiring activity will provide their own funding for any resulting task order(s) against the IDIQ to acquire services.

Vendor Question #40: If task orders are issued for locations outside of DLA HQ, is travel funding available for the resources to fly into those locations? Or is it expected that vendors will have local resources to for task orders outside of DLA HQ?

Government Response #40: Travel will not be provided to the primary place of performance in accordance with the resultant task order. Travel will be available per task order(s) to locations other than the specified place of performance upon approval of the COR/COTR.

Vendor Question #41: Section 3.3.1 Page 25 of the solicitation states: “The vendor is also required to furnish a proposed monthly payment schedule and requested to summarize yearly amounts on page 2 of the SF1449, Schedule of Supplies/Services.” Question: Can the Government confirm that a proposed monthly payment schedule is required? If it is, can the Government provide any estimates or forecasts of projected Task Orders that will be issued to support the generation of a monthly payment schedule?

Government Response #41: No a monthly payment schedule will not be required. The vendor will need to total the ROM amount. Section 3.3.1, Page 25, the sentence, “The vendor is also required to furnish a proposed monthly payment schedule and requested to summarize yearly amounts on page 2 of the SF1449, Schedule of Supplies/Services”, is hereby deleted.

Vendor Question #42: Section 2.3 page 9. To what extent is the vendor expected to have personnel certified as Theory Constraints (ToC) Jonah, or have Agile Methods certifications? These methods have certification processes similar to those of Lean Six Sigma but their requirements are not specifically listed in the key personnel qualifications. For example, would the government accept ToC Jonah certification as equivalent to LSS MBB?

Government Response #42: Qualifications may not be substituted, but personnel with certifications exceeding those specifically required may be evaluated higher than those meeting the minimum.

Vendor Question #43: RFP Section 2.5.1 top of page 13 states: “The vendor will conduct all work under this effort using these (or GSA equivalent) labor categories.” Is this IDIQ being procured through the GSA Professional Services Schedule (PSS) – 00CORP contract vehicle and if so which SINs is the vendor required to have?

Government Response #43: This requirement is NOT being procured through GSA Professional Services (PSS). RFP Section 2.5.1 top of page 13 states: “The vendor will conduct all work under this effort using these (or GSA equivalent) labor categories”. The bidding contractor(s) may identify GSA equivalent labor categories for the labor categories listed in this section.

Vendor Question #44: Ref. Section 2.5.1 Personnel Qualifications. Are Key Personnel resources such as Program Manager, Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt expected to be full time resources on each one of the task orders? Conversely, can the vendor use more than one Program Manager depending on the type and number of task orders issued? Can Program Manager be a part time resource?

Government Response #44: Task orders will be issued as Performance Based requirements; therefore it will be up to the awardee to provide the best solution to the government on all levels.

Vendor Question #45: Sec. 3.2.3.2 Chapter 2 – Factor 2. Is there a required minimum number of past performance examples and associated Past Performance Questionnaires that a vendor needs to provide?

Government Response #45: There is not a required minimum, if no past performance is available, the vendor will receive a “Neutral” rating as indicated in Section 4.2.2.2 Aspect Two: Quality of Historical Projects.

Vendor Question #46: Can all past performance examples come from our subcontractors?

Government Response #46: Past performance examples will be reviewed whether for offerors or subcontractors.

Vendor Question #47: In reference to Section 3.3.1 last paragraph on page 25 states: “The vendor is also required to furnish a proposed monthly payment schedule and requested to summarize the yearly amounts on page 2 of the SF 1449, Schedule of Supplies/Services.” Is this supposed be done based on the ROM for each contract year, since there are no specific task orders in the RFP?

Government Response #47: Refer to Vendor Question #41.

Vendor Question #48: Can you provide the latest DLA Continuous Process Improvement / Lean Six Sigma metrics and maturity assessment documents?

Government Response #48: DLA is currently working to establish CPI program metrics and baseline its maturity, but does not have documentation to show the current state.

Vendor Question #49: Will the Government include the DLA preferred language to Section 4.2.2, Factor 2. Aspect 1 consistent with Section 4.2.2.1 Aspect 1?

Government Response #49: “Note: DLA experience is preferred and will be more highly rated than non-DLA experience.” is hereby moved from section 4.2.1.2 to section 4.2.2.1 to align the DLA experience preference for companies, over individuals.

Vendor Question #50: Will the Government add this DLA preferred language to Section 3.2.3.1 Chapter 1: Factor 1; Sub Factor B so that it is consistent with the evaluation criteria of Section 4.2.1.2?

Government Response #50: See above, Government Response #49.

Vendor Question #51: Attachment 3 – Est. Hours. Please confirm that offerors are not to alter the hours given in Attachment 3.

Government Response #51: Refer to Government Response #7.

Vendor Question #52: Question from document "RFP-1.pdf" "2.5 PERSONNEL" - Q- how many resumes of Key Personnel need to be submitted with the proposal?

Government Response #52: At least one per key personnel labor category.

Vendor Question #53: Question from document "RFP-1.pdf" page 15 - Q - Is Microsoft Sharepoint and PowerSteering being used currently for knowledge management? If not, what is the name of the knowledge management application or will it need to be developed by the contractor?

Government Response #53: Microsoft SharePoint is being used across DLA for information sharing, and PowerSteering is used with DLA customization for CPI knowledge management.

Vendor Question #54: This section states that "DLA experience is preferred and will be more highly rated than non-DLA experience"; however, the personnel qualifications section (RFQ 2.5.1) refers to DoD experience, not specific to DLA. Since DLA follows DoD LSS and CPI guidance, will the Government modify the evaluation criteria to align with the personnel requirements and treat DoD and DLA experience equally. Favoring DLA-specific experience highly favors incumbent personnel and may inhibit competition.

Government Response #54: Note: DLA experience is preferred and will be more highly rated than non-DLA experience”. Is hereby removed from Section 4.2.1.2

Vendor Question #55: This section states "the vendor shall, at a minimum" provide one resume for each of the key personnel listed below. Other references state that only one resume for each key personnel position is required. Will the Government allow additional resumes to be submitted for either key personnel or non-key personnel to show breadth and depth of qualified resources?

Government Response #55: Resume submissions will not be limited, but should focus on key personnel positions with skills, abilities, and levels of experience representative of those likely to be assigned to task orders under this vehicle.

Vendor Question #56: This section states that DLA-specific experience is preferred; however, in Section 4.2.2.1, Relevancy of Prior Contracts, there is no mention of DLA-specific experience. To ensure the incumbent is not given a competitive advantage and to foster more competition, will the Government remove the reference to DLA-specific experience?

Government Response #56: DLA experience is preferred and may be rated higher, but lack of DLA experience will not result in a lower rating.

Vendor Question #57: In cases where the Government has stated that they will give preference to DLA-specific personnel experience and past performance, please explain how this evaluation preference will be given. For example, will personnel and past performance be automatically rated at a lower level if it does not include DLA-experience, even if it is highly relevant in all other ways?

Government Response #57: DLA experience is preferred and may be rated higher, but lack of DLA experience will not result in a lower rating.

Vendor Question #58: Please explain the percentage (or amount) of preference and any other cost trade-off factors the Government will apply to DLA-specific experience and past performance over equally qualified, but not DLA-specific experience and past performance. As there are very few 8(a) contractors who have provided LSS and CPI services to the DLA, this preference highly favors the incumbent and is restrictive to fair competition.

Government Response #58: Evaluation of DLA experience will not result in a specific percentage advantage, but will consider the experience and its relevancy to the requirement. For example, non-relevant DLA history will not result in a higher rating.

Vendor Question #59: Section 3.2.3.2 Factor 2, Page 25 of the solicitation states:

“The vendor shall complete (Attachment 4), Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). All prior contracts submitted without a rating letter signed by the client will not be considered as part of the evaluation…” Question: Attachment 4 does not provide a signature block, and the form itself does not instruct the client to sign the form. Please advise if a signature on the form is required, or if it is acceptable for the client to provide the completed but unsigned Attachment 4 via email.

Government Response #59: A signature is not required on Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire. The email received by the client will be considered as part of the evaluation.

Vendor Questions #60: Can we have access to the in-house cost estimate? We think this will give us more insight as to # of projects and # of personnel required.

Government Response #60: This is not something the Government provides, bidding. The Government has provided the labor categories and estimated annual labor hours anticipated as (Attachment 3) Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), which details the anticipated annual labor mix.