CPI Questions and Answers Contracting May 28 2020 Final.pdf

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 1

Continuous Process Improvement/Lean Six Sigma Questions and Answers

SP4703-20-R-0002

PRICING / ROM RELATED QUESTIONS

1) What is your budget for this work effort?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government does not provide this type of information.

2) Paragraph 1.3.1, para (a) and para (c) page 4, Description of Agreement, the Government identifies that there are no limits to the number of delivery orders or task orders that can be associated with the IDIQ. The Government also indicates the ceiling value of this IDIQ is $19M. Given the level of effort required for the first task order associated with the contract, the potential for a large number of additional task orders and the five-year duration of the ordering period would the Government consider raising the ceiling of the IDIQ to allow more flexibility?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: No. The government believes that the $19 million is the appropriate maximum value for the work to be performed under this IDIQ.

3) Since the RFP outlines a list of specific sites, but could include additional sites, can Offeror quote price based on a per site basis instead of a flat rate?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. Please use a flat rate.

4) In submitting our ROM responses, are we to assume 1,880 hours per consultant during each period?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: 1,920 is the standard number of hours for a year.

Please see amended ROM.

5) For the Price Proposal, since we are not to use the spreadsheet (RFP page 2), do we submit the ROM spreadsheet? Since the hours may vary by task order, do we leave the number of hours blank? If not, what number of hours do we use such that all bidders are being evaluated equally?

6) Can the Government clarify the required number of sections in Volume III Price. The instructions mention 3 sections on page 62 though only one section is listed on page 63.

7) The RFP states, “Volume III shall consist of three (3) sections as follows:

Section 1-Pricing schedule as shown in the ROM attachment

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 2

Please clarify what Sections 2&3 should include/consist of?

8) Section 1.13.3.1 VOLUME III – PRICING PROPOSAL states that the "specifically, Volume III shall consist of three (3) sections as follows" but only list one section, i.e., Section 1 – Pricing schedule as shown in the ROM attachment, what are the other two sections?

Can you clarify what the 3 sections are? Only 1 is listed

9) Paragraph 1.13.3.1 states, “Volume III shall consist of three (3) sections as follows,” but only lists “Section 1 – Pricing schedule as shown in the ROM attachment.” Will the Government clarify whether there are two other sections for Volume III, or is there only one section, Pricing Schedule as shown in ROM attachment?

10) RFP 1.13.3.1 Volume III – Pricing Proposal states that it consists of three (3) sections;

however, only section I — Pricing schedule as shown in the ROM attachment, is in the RFP

— please clarify.

11) Please clarify if it is permissible to submit Volume III Price as an Excel document.

12) Pricing is required to be on the Excel spreadsheet (ROM) provided in the RFP; however, the submission info. specifies a PDF — which format should be submitted?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: There is only one section for the pricing volume.

The government has revised / updated the attached ROM spreadsheet with the total hours by labor category for each vendor to propose too. 1,920 is the standard number of hours for a year per labor category. Please do not adjust the labor hours.

Each offeror should provide their best discounted pricing as the Government may make our final evaluation/determination of best value for award without discussions. The offeror’s total price on the updated ROM spreadsheet will be evaluated per Factor 5- Total Price of Section M- Evaluation Factors. Please use the revised / updated ROM spreadsheet as part of your price proposal.

Please leave the travel row/cell blank as the Travel amount will be set for each Task Order.

13) In Paragraph 1.3.5 on page 5 and Paragraph 1.13.3 (Evaluation Factor 5 – Price) on page 62, the Government states that the labor rates proposed and evaluated will be used as ceiling labor rates and included as a separate table within the IDIQ contract. The Government further states in paragraph 1.14.5.1 on page 68 that the Offeror’s proposed labor categories, labor rates, labor hours, and discounts will be evaluated.

Because the first task order will be awarded with the IDIQ and competitively bid, and there is potentially a large number of task orders of unknown scope and duration, would the Government consider modifying the pricing template (ROM Attachment) and evaluation

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 3 criteria to enable the Offeror to provide IDIQ labor rates as well as labor rates, potentially discounted, for the first task order?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government will use the Offeror’s proposed pricing as the maximum price per hour for each Labor Category for the base and each option year. The Government will evaluate each offeror based on the ROM using the total number of hours and offeror proposed labor category cost per hour.

Therefore, offeror’s are encouraged to provide their best discounted labor rates as part of their initial proposal pricing. The offeror’s total price on the updated ROM spreadsheet will be evaluated based upon Factor 5 - Total Price of Section M- Evaluation Factors. Please see revised / updated ROM spreadsheet.

Offeror’s may further discount their rates after contract award, but will not be able to increase their rates. The proposed rates will be the maximum labor rate that the successful contractor will be able to use on any and all Task Orders.

14) Is the $16,000 travel amount a maximum for each task order or for each one-year time period?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: An estimated / budgeted Travel Amount will be identified for each Task Order. Travel is TBD. Please see updated RFP and ROM spreadsheet.

IDIQ CONTRACT / TASK ORDER RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Please provide a date by which the Government expects to award the IDIQ.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government plans to award the contract as soon as possible, but there are multiple factors that may affect the award date. Therefore, a projected award date is on or about August 15, 2020.

2) Please provide a date by which the Government expects to provide the first task order request and how many business days we will we have to propose.

3) Please provide a date by which the Government expects to award the first task order.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government plans on working with the successful contractor to award the first active task order shortly after the IDIQ contract is awarded. The effective date of the IDIQ contract and the first Task Order will be on or about September 26, 2020.

4) Page 2 - RFP states, "It is projected that a single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contract will be awarded with a period of performance between 26 September 2020 - 25 September 2025..." Does government plan to award the contract 30

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 4 days prior to start of period of performance on September 26, 2020 to allow enough time to transition from the current vendor?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Yes we anticipate awarding by August 15, 2020.

The base period is September 26, 2020 – September 25, 2021 with four option years.

5) I read through the RFP document and your amendments but did not see if there is an incumbent company currently performing this work. Can you tell us is there an incumbent company?

6) Is there an incumbent contractor currently providing these services?

7) Is there an incumbent or preferred contractor? If so, who is it and what has been their role to date?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The incumbent contractor is Optimize Consulting, Inc.

8) Is the incumbent eligible to bid on this solicitation?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Yes. Any 8(a) firm is eligible to propose on this solicitation.

9) What is the Period of Performance for the current contract?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The last awarded task order ends on 25 September 2020.

10) Given that the award is IDIQ and the work assigned via individual task order, do the performance requirements of the Prime (Greater than 50% of the work) apply at the gross award level only, or do they also apply at the individual task order level?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The performance requirements for the Prime Contractor to perform above 50% of the work apply to both the gross award level and the individual task order level.

11) Are there any scenarios under this RFP where it is okay for the Prime (when partnering with other firms), to deliver less than 50% of the services provided?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: No, there are not any scenario under this RFP where it is okay for the Prime, to deliver less than 50% of the services provided.

12) The actual RFP seems to be quite different from the RFI from January. Could we get some insight into what prompted the changes?

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 5

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The PWS became more defined as time went along. Please refer to the RFP and PWS for what is needed to be submitted by the offeror.

CONTRACTOR – DLA COMMUNICATIONS

1) What is the intended interaction model between the Offeror and the DLA Contract Manager/Project Manager Resources?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government expects feedback via the weekly activity report, monthly status reports, and meetings as determined appropriate to provide oversight of CPI activity and contract performance. Further the Government expects the successful contractor to notify HQ CPI PMO immediately when project risks are identified requiring the Government’s involvement to resolve or escalate the identified concerns/issues.

2) What day-to-day relationship/interaction model is anticipated with the Project Management Office and other relationship across the DLA?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Interaction occurs almost daily with HQ CPI PMO and as appropriate with project teams, etc.

3) PWS 2.5.2 Liaison Officer: Is the Liaison Officer and PM considered two different positions? If so, is the Liaison Officer or Alternate required to be on site or can they be remote? There is no labor category requirement for the Liaison Officer. Are Offerors expected to price the Liaison Officer labor cat?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Liaison Officer is often the Company Owner or similar. However, the Liaison Officer and the Project Manager can be the same position. This is NOT a separate Labor Category position.

DLA CPI QUESTIONS

1) Is the intended continuous improvement/lean six sigma support services intended agency-wide or only for certain locations or departments, more localized? What are the nature/type of projects? What are the areas the continuous process improvement will focus and is there a planned prioritization? Who is the primary target audience for the Offeror?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The intended continuous process improvement is across the Agency and at all levels. Please see sections 2.1 Background and 2.2 Objectives of the PWS (pg. 71) for more details. Also please see section 2.6 Places of Performance of the PWS (pg. 85). The primary focus of project will depend on the location of assignment. For example if you assigned directly to HQ CPI PMO our focus is on

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 6

Enterprise projects and support to Senior Leadership. If the assignment is at a Major Subordinate Command, the focus will be on local projects specific to their supply chain.

2) How old is the Continuous Improvement Effort at DLA? Is this a first attempt or a continuation? What are organizational lessons learned from prior attempts or early discussion on anticipation implementation and ownership by the PMO?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This requirement is a follow-on to SP4703-17-D-0004 and SP4703-17-D-0005. DLA’s journey with CPI began in 2008 and has continued with varying levels of support since that time. Since 2015, HQ CPI PMO was able to rebuild the support across the Agency and are now postured to continue maturation of the practice.

3) Is DLA already following a prescribed approach such as Lean, Six Sigma, Agile, Design Thinking, Change Management, etc. Or is a custom program deployed or anticipated?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Lean Six Sigma is our primary methodology. We continue to embrace and add to our knowledge base with other methodologies, our program has a solid foundation and strategy.

4) Can the required third-party six sigma certification be grandfathered if there is sufficient evidence of an equivalent experience base? Ex. six sigma executive leader and or certification issued to employees of companies with enterprise-wide six sigma initiatives and evidence of significant, third-party validation of said implementation and results?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will not waive the requirement for third-party certification.

5) Leadership Preparedness – Does leadership buy-in already exist at DLA? What objective evidence exist to validate current state of leadership buy-in?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes there is leadership buy-in at DLA. This is a follow-on to contracts SP4703-17-D-0004 and SP4703-17-D-0005. DLA’s journey with CPI began in 2008 and has continued with varying levels of support since that time. Since 2015, HQ CPI PMO was able to rebuild the support across the Agency and are now postured to continue maturation of the practice. Our program has a solid foundation and strategy Championed by the DLA Senior Staff.

6) Does Human Resources policies detail incentives, rewards, and recognition that align closely with DLA’s continuous process improvement effort?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government maintains various avenues to recognize CPI successes.

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 7

7) Are there continuous process improvement metrics already in place? Have they been baselined? Does any trend in performance exist? Have improvement targets been identified already?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, DLA has Program Metrics that we have been tracking and responding to for over two years. Each metric has a corresponding goal attached to it. A review of the metrics is planned for 2021.

8) Are the continuous improvement metrics aligned to key metrics at the agency level? What specific measurable outcomes is the Offeror expected to drive/influence?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, the metrics are not directly aligned, our metrics are program focused. Most projects will have metrics to allow to understand current performance and demonstrate the change. The Offeror is expected to support teams to achieve the goals set by the Project Champion.

9) Are continuous process improvement metrics aligned to the Agency, program, or project outcomes? Have metrics been baselined and validated? If not, have metrics been defined and does a baseline timeline exist?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The CPI Program metrics are program focused.

Process Owners have metrics to describe performance of their areas of responsibility.

Most projects will have metrics to allow to understand current performance and demonstrate the change. The Offeror is expected to support teams to achieve the goals set by the Project Champion.

SECURITY RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Would the DLA sponsor the successful vendor for a facility clearance?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes. The RFP has been amended to reflect this change as offeror’s are NOT required to have a security clearance before the contract begins, but must be able to obtain a security clearance if needed.

2) Section 2.5.5 page 82: Can the government please clarify if the successful candidate has to have held a secret clearance within the last two years or whether the successful candidate only requires a completed background check within the past 10 years?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Offeror’s do not need to have held a Secret Clearance within the past two years. Offeror’s need to be able to obtain a security clearance if required. Offeror’s with completed background checks are preferred.

3) Would an interim clearance with an open background investigation be acceptable?

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 8

4) Section 2.5.5 page 82 indicates all IT II and T3 adjudications must be complete prior to proposal submission; however, PWS 2.12 Security page 87 indicates it could take up to 3 months to be cleared. Will the government please provide clarification?

5) Does having key personnel currently with no security clearances automatically make a potential supplier ineligible in terms of the time required to obtain such clearances and the tight timelines of this RFP process?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, an interim clearance with an open background investigation would be acceptable. Key Personnel with no security clearances would not automatically make a potential supplier ineligible in terms of the time required to obtain such clearances and the tight timeliness of this RFP process. DLA is willing to sponsor a successful contractor in obtaining the needed clearance. The solicitation has been amended to reflect that offeror’s only need to be able to obtain a security clearance if required.

6) The RFP requires “up to a maximum level of “Secret” Clearance. Per DoD 5220.22-M dated 2/28/2006, “a. An interim SECRET… PCL is valid for access to classified information at the level of the eligibility granted, except for RD, COMSEC Information, and NATO information.”

Based on this guidance, please confirm that Interim Secret personnel security clearances are acceptable for personnel to begin working on this contract while their final Secret clearance is pending.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Yes. DLA is willing to sponsor contractor personnel. The contractor needs the ability to get one.

7) Under section 1.14.2 FACTOR 2 – Key Personnel states that key personnel must be able to secure a Common Access Card (CAC) and DLA Systems Access on first day of work. Will the government confirm that if the winning contractor (if not incumbent) has cleared personnel, that CACs can be issued on base on the first day of the contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government plans to award the contract before the effective start date of the contract. Therefore, CAC cards will be issued the first day if all the necessary information is provided to the Government in advance (e.g. 1728, 1172, CAC Justification Form), approximately two weeks prior to start of contract.

Delays in providing this information will impact the ability to get a CAC and Government Furnished Equipment.

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 9

PWS RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Can you clarify where in the RFP response you want each PWS element addressed?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Section L gives instructions to offerors. Section M lists the evaluation factors. Please refer to these sections to answer your question.

2) Have you engaged outside assistance in preparing the Statement of Work? If so, please identify them and explain the level of help provided.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: No, the Government prepared the PWS.

8) What is the current and anticipated distribution of staff across the places of performance listed in RFP page 82 Section 2.6?

9) Will all personnel assigned to HQ Ft. Belvoir be working on site with assigned workspace?

10) What are your intentions for starting and staffing this work effort? Will all ten personnel be starting at the same time at different locations, or are you planning a staged start through the use of task orders? Please provide a roadmap of how you see the consultants being employed.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: For the initial task order(s), the Government anticipates one (1) MBB at DLA Aviation located in Richmond, VA and all other positions at DLA HQ located in Fort Belvoir, VA. Additional locations may be added in later task orders.

Each contractor will have a workspace. We intend for all positions to be staffed and working day one of the Task Order effective date. Consultants will be assigned to projects and coaching efforts beginning day one.

11) Section C. 1.3.1 states that, "Multiple task orders may be issued under this IDIQ contract on a Fixed Price basis. Labor Rates will be fixed as per the Offeror’s proposal." Is contractor required to maintain full staffing as per requirements of task order? If yes, has the incumbent successfully maintain full staffing as per requirement of each task order?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: We expect full staffing in order to support existing and emerging project work. The Government does not comment on current Contractor performance publically.

12) In Section 2.10, 1st Paragraph, first three sentences states: “Normal workdays are Monday through Friday except United States (US) Federal Holidays. Workers typically work (40) hour weeks. Core hours of work are 0900-1100 and 1300-1500 daily. The vendor is expected to be available during core hours; however, work outside of these hours may also be required.” Can you provide an estimated amount of time that work will be performed outside of core hours?

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 10

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Typical work assignments occupy 8 hours per day. The work hours vary based on project needs. Therefore, every day includes at least 4 hours of work outside of the core hours (since core hours only account for 4 hours).

13) Section C. 1.3.4 states that, "WITHHOLDING: Withholding of payments may occur for fixed priced task orders if performance of services required are not at a satisfactory level as prescribed within Section 2.4.3 of the PWS, “Performance Standards and Payments.”" Has this been an issue with the incumbent contractor?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not publically comment on current Contractor performance.

14) Considering the current pandemic situation, would any of the following aspects of a potential staffing model automatically disqualify a potential supplier

a. Only a few key personnel (number TBD) are included in the RFP response. Other positions are staffed only if award is received and all staffing would be approved by DLA using similar qualifications and experience criteria.

b. As standard protocol, the resources would arrive onsite by Monday noon and work onsite through Thursday COB and support virtually on Friday.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government requires contractors to be onsite Monday – Friday. Please provide the identified number of Key Personnel as shown in the RFP, submission of a lower number will disqualify the offeror.

15) Considering the current pandemic situation, would the DLA be open to any of the positions offering virtual support?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government expects contractors to perform their duties onsite Monday – Friday unless access to the facility is blocked by DLA.

16) What are some of the existing pain points in the organization that led to this effort?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: DLA’s CPI journey started in 2008 and continues and Contractor’s continue to be an integral part of our strategy to develop a culture of problem solvers.

17) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the as-written RFP? Are any modifications to the scope of work anticipated? Will an online offering vs in-person or some combination of such become a minimum requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The vendor may be requested to work at an alternate work location. Please see section 2.11.8 Alternate Work Locations of the PWS on page 88 of the RFP. Because of COVID-19 the scope of work has not changed, merely the location.

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 11

KEY PERSONNEL RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Pg. 64 – What does ‘Key and Non-Key varies by Position’ mean? In other places the RFP states 10 Key Personnel and 1 Non-Key (admin).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The above mentioned sentence has been deleted from the solicitation. Please see Amendment 00005.

2) Will the Government please consider relaxing the stringent key personnel designation to a more reasonable number such as 50% of staff or 5 senior staff?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: All the Key Personnel designated are Key. The requirement stands.

3) The RFP states “Replacement of key personnel in excess of 15% is deemed unacceptable by the Government and grounds for contract termination.” However, there are many instances where an offeror has negotiated an offer in good faith and received assurances that the contingent employee is committed to joining the team post-award, but due to unforeseen circumstances during the proposal evaluation timeframe, the employee’s plans change based on no fault of the offeror. For example, a change in family conditions, health concerns, or other personal events may affect their ability to follow through with their commitment and the offeror has no recourse.

Please clarify that this clause only applies to substitutions made at the discretion of the offeror and does not include factors for which offerors have no control.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government has revised this requirement to state 20% versus the previously stated 15% which represents approximately two (2) personnel of the twelve (12) identified.

4) In Section 2.5.1 Personnel Qualifications, Labor Categories and Key Personnel Minimum Requirements, the fourth paragraph’s last two sentences states: “It is the expectation of the Government that no substitutions of key personnel will occur post proposal as our technical evaluation relies heavily on the experience of the key personnel proposed. Replacement of key personnel in excess of 15% is deemed unacceptable by the Government and grounds for contract termination.” Would the government consider changing this from 15% to 30%?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government is willing to change from 15% to 20%.

5) What is the time period in which replacement of key personnel is deemed unacceptable and grounds for contract termination? Is this annually?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The statement was intended to refer to the time from proposal submittal to contract award / start date. Beyond that, turnover negatively impacting performance on the contract will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 12

6) Pg. 78 states Third party certification as a requirement. Who does DLA consider as a valid/recognized third-party certification provider? Can Employer-certification from companies with industry-recognized high-quality and stringent project-portfolio based certification programs like GE, Honeywell, Capital One etc. meet this requirement? Can certifications from consulting companies with industry-recognized client lists meet this requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will not recognize certifications that did not require demonstration of ability as a requirement. Preferred certifications are those that we can independently verify.

7) The experience requirement on pages 79-80 states “Must have at least three (3) years consulting, advising, and working with Federal Government Senior Leaders (Flag Rank Officers and Senior Executive Services).” Will you accept similar experience with C-level executives of major corporations?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government may consider an extensive background working with industry leadership (CEO, COO, etc.) versus Federal Government experience, at its discretion.

8) PWS paragraph 2.5.1 (Personnel Qualification, Labor Categories and Key Personnel

Minimum Requirements) specifies a non-key personnel requirement for Management Analyst/Administrative Support (1 position). Can this resource provide approved remote support to DLA HQC?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is anticipated to be onsite support.

9) Can demonstrated experience be substituted for formal certification in Lean Six Sigma?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, this is a requirement.

10) Can company-specific certifications of LSSMBB with their own titles be used (example:

DuPont Production System Master Black Belt)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: As long as the certification is clear regarding the levels, and requires demonstrated experience in addition to education in order to obtain certification there should not be a problem. Equivalency recognition is at the discretion of the Government.

11) Jonah level in ToC is typically at CPI Expert level; however, the solicitation cites Jonah as an example at the Journeyman level — can a ToC Jonah-level person be listed at the CPI Expert level?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not recognize Jonah certification at the same level as Master Black Belt.

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 13

12) Should the PWS Section 2.5 Personnel be addressed as part of the proposal response for all areas that are not related to key personnel resumes?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The offeror will be evaluated based on what’s in Section 1.14.2 Factor 2- Key Personnel on pages 65 and 66 of the RFP. 3 pages per resume for Key-Personnel. A discussion of non-key personnel and overall company backfill and resource strategy will be evaluated in Section 1.14.3 Factor 3- Management Approach on pages 66-67. The number of key and non-key personnel has increased. Please see the amended RFP.

13) Will the Govt. clarify the intended reference point for this requirement – Post Award only or during the period between Proposal submission and Award. If both, will the Govt. define an acceptable time period for the Vendors to hold Key Personnel while an Award decision is being made.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government is evaluating each offeror based on their proposed Key Personnel. Therefore, it is expected that every offeror’s proposed Key Personnel will be available to begin work on the effective date of the contract (September 26, 2020)

14) The paragraph states, “The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 5 business days after the occurrence of any of these events and provide the information required by “(c)” below within 10 business days of the occurrence.” Please confirm that the “(c) below” is supposed to read “(d) below” or specify what (c) paragraph the statement references?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Part (c) of section 1.3.10 KEY PERSONNEL should read the following: During the first 120 calendar days of performance, the Contractor shall make no substitution of key personnel unless the substitution is necessitated by illness, death or termination of employment. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 24 hours after the occurrence of any of these events and provide the information required by “(d)” below within 10 business days of the occurrence.

After the initial 120-calendar day period, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 24 hours after the occurrence of any of the listed events and shall submit the information required by (d) (below) to the Contracting Officer within 12 business days upon discovery. Please see attached amended RFP SP4703- 20-R-0002 05-28-20.

TRAVEL RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Is the assumption that there will be a resource allocated to each specific site and no travel between sites will be needed for performance of contracted responsibilities?

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 14

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Those assigned may be required to travel to other locations to support a short period (typically one day to two weeks) to support assigned project(s). DLA is a geographically dispersed organization, which is why travel may be required.

2) This section mentions that travel to other government facilities may be required.

Will the government provide an estimated percentage of travel that will be required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Due to the current COVID-19 travel restrictions the amount of travel is unknown. In addition, each project is unique. To date, most projects required no travel and a few required weeks of travel each month to both CONUS and OCONUS.

3) Will travel be restricted in any way as reduced travel and social distancing routines are required across the contiguous United States?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, we will continue to follow Federal Government Agency guidance (e.g. CDC, DoD, etc). DLA has a detailed plan for returning to work and continues to monitor the situation to ensure the health and safety of all employees, to include contract staff.

4) Are all DLA sites associated with this RFP located in the contiguous United States? Is support services required in multiple languages?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes all sites associated with this RFP are located in the contiguous United States. Please see section 1.4.1 Place of Performance on pages 7 and 8 of the RFP and 2.6 Places of Performance of the PWS on pages 85 of the RFP. Multiple languages are not required for this contract.

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PLAN RELATED QUESTIONS

1) PWS 2.3.1.8 Contract Management Plan (CMP) states, "The vendor will submit a DRAFT

CMP as part of their proposal." Is the Government requesting a full draft CMP to be included in addition to the items to be addressed in the 2 pages of the Management Approach? If so, is it acceptable for the Draft CMP be included as an appendix or attachment, and be outside of the page count?

2) The PWS states, “The vendor will submit a DRAFT CMP as part of their proposal.”

Please confirm that that Management Approach section of Volume I-Technical Approach is the DRAFT CMP?

3) On page 72, the RFP states that a draft CMP shall be submitted as part of the proposal.

Please clarify that the recommended 2-page CMP section of the management plan is the same draft CMP expected with proposal submission.

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 15

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE:

The purpose of the page limit is to have clear, well thought-through and concise responses for the Government to review/evaluate.

Each proposal should have one Draft CMP (Section 2.3.1.8 Contract Management Plan (CMP) of the PWS (pg. 74 of the RFP) and Factor 3 (RFP pgs. 66-67). The page limit for offeror’s Management Approach has been increased to 10 pages and the Contract Management Plan recommended page count was increased to 3 pages.

The Draft CMP will be used to develop the Final CMP with the successful contractor once the contract is awarded.

4) Section 2.3.1.8 Contract Management Plan. Please clarify if the section should be addressed as "Management Plan" or "Contract Management Plan" for the bidder response.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: It should be as Contract Management Plan. Please see amended RFP.

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Can the Government clarify what is required to be included in the Quality Control Plan section of the Management Approach. The instructions recommend 2 pages for the items to address under the Quality Control Plan portion which includes the statement, "The vendor will submit a DRAFT QCP as part of their proposal." Is the Government requesting a full draft QCP to be included in addition to the items to be addressed in the 2 pages of the Management Approach? If so, is it acceptable for the Draft QCP be included as an appendix or attachment, and be outside of the page count?

2) On page 66, the RFP states, “The vendor will submit a DRAFT QCP as part of their proposal.” Please confirm if the DRAFT QCP is the 2 page QCP expected as part of the Management Approach evaluation factor?

3) On page 65, the RFP states that the QCP shall be addressed as part of the Management Plan.

The RFP later states that a Draft QCP is required with proposal submission.

Please clarify that the recommended 2-page QCP section of the management plan is the same draft QCP expected with proposal submission.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The purpose of the page limit is to have clear, well thought-through and concise responses for the Government to review/evaluate.

Each proposal should have one Draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) which is limited to 2 pages. The DRAFT QCP is discussed in the RFP in the following sections: section 1.14.3 Factor 3 Management Approach pages 66-67, section 2.3.1.9 Quality Control Plan on

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 16 page 74, and section 1.14.3 Factor 3-Management Approach on pages 66-67 documenting the 2 page limit for the Quality Control Plan. The Draft QCP will be used to develop the Final QCP with the successful contractor once the contract is awarded.

TRAINING RELATED QUESTIONS

1) In terms of training, does the DLA have its own established CPI training program? The RFP indicates developing training, but will the DLA be open to buying any of the vendor’s standard training materials or is the goal to develop their own in-house new training using the resources included in the contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government seeks to develop in-house training and may leverage resources included in the contract.

2) Is training required as part of the RFP? Are training material already developed? Are there any trained employees already? Are there any in-house certifications already?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: DLA has over 1,500 employees trained at various levels with an approximate 20% certification rate. Some training materials exist, but are aged. Some new content is currently in development with more waiting to be created.

3) Considering the current pandemic situation, would the DLA be open to a virtual training and coaching model with resources not tied to a particular location?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government is open to this as described in the RFP, when access to the facility is not permitted. Further, there is a mixture of coaching and project work occurring virtually and in person. The expectation at this time is that contractors will be onsite to perform duties.

PROPOSAL PAGE LIMIT RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Section 2.3.1.8 states that the government shall provide a CMP with specific criteria as a Draft Plan as part of the Management Approach. Would the government consider adding page count to provide the ability to address all of the mentioned criteria?

2) Would the government consider adding page count to provide the ability to provide a "sound management approach" to address all warranted criteria for evaluation per the RFP requirements?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The purpose of the page limit is to have clear, well thought-through and concise responses for the Government to review/evaluate. The

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 17

Government has increased the page limit for the Management Approach to a total of 10 pages. An additional section/4th section has been added to the Management Approach which needs to be a part of the offeror’s proposal and will be evaluated.

This additional 4th section is for discussion of Offeror’s non-key personnel, Offeror’s personnel resources and procedures / overall company backfill and resource strategy. This additional section is 4 pages.

The page limit breakdown for Management Approach is Contract Management Plan (3 pages), Quality Control Plan (2 Pages), Issue Resolution Plan/process (1 page), and discussion of non-key personnel and overall company backfill and resource strategy (4 pages). Please see amended RFP.

3) Each resume is limited to three (3) pages. Please confirm that letters of intent and copies of certifications do not count against the 3-page limit.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The letters of intent and copies of certifications do NOT count against the 3-page limit.

4) If Section 2.5 Personnel should be addressed as part of the bidder response to appropriately address staffing plan and other requirements, will the Government provide page count to meet this requirement?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The page limit for all sections is listed on pages 60- 61 of the RFP.

5) Since it is a requirement to respond to each factor and the PWS contains additional requirements under the Factors, would the government consider increasing the page count for Technical Approach and Management approach to provide ample space to address all requirements?

The page limit table provides 7 pages for the Technical Approach and 5 pages for the Management Approach. This is significantly less than the 40 combined pages (not including Key Personnel resumes) allowed for the Technical/Management response in the previous RFP response with very similar requirements. The severe restriction on pages prevents offerors from providing the comprehensive approach that will be evaluated “to provide details on how the offeror proposes to meet the tasks outlined in the PWS” and also address their “Experience and expertise in meeting the requirements”. Since this is a Best Value evaluation, limiting offerors’ ability to provide a comprehensive response and detailed Management Plans disadvantages offerors in thoroughly explaining the strengths of their approach in meeting the ten tasks outlined in the PWS. Please increase the page limits to a total of 25 pages to enable offerors’ to represent their best value solutions.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The purpose of the page limit is to have clear, well thought-through and concise responses for the Government to review/evaluate. The Government has increased the Technical Approach response/limit to 10 pages, and the

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 18

Management Approach to 10 pages. An additional section has been added to the Management Approach, which is a discussion of non-key personnel and overall company backfill and resource strategy. This additional section is 4 pages. The page limit breakdown for Management Approach is Contract Management Plan (3 pages), Quality Control Plan (2 Pages), Issue Resolution Plan/process (1 page), and discussion of non-key personnel and overall company backfill and resource strategy (4 pages).

Please see amended RFP.

FONT SIZE RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Will the Government authorize the use of smaller font/ font size for tables, figures, graphic headers, and page headers/footers so long as they are easily readable?

2) Will the government permit the use of reduced font sizes for graphics and tables (i.e., 10pt Arial or Times New Roman)?

3) Would the government consider the use of Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, 8 or 9 Point

Font for all Tables and Graphics?

4) Will the Government authorize the inclusion of Tables of Contents and Glossary of Acronyms within Volume I that do not count toward the page limitation?

5) Will the government allow the use of reduced font sizes for graphics and tables (i.e., 8pt)?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government will allow 10 point Times New Roman font for tables, figures, graphic header, and page headers/footers so long as they are easily readable. Please follow the instructions noted in section 1.13 Instructions to Offeror.

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

1) Will the Government consider extending this RFP to June 12th?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The government will keep the solicitation close date of June 5, 2020.

2) Clarification on pricing – What’s the current status of the program? Does the RFP expect pricing of an existing, evolving program or a planned new launch? (ex. Is there an existing program? Or is Offeror establishing a new program?)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SP4703-20-R-0002 is a follow-on to SP4703-17-D- 0004 and SP4703-17-D-0005. DLA’s journey with CPI began in 2008 and has continued with varying levels of support since that time. Since 2015, HQ CPI PMO was able to rebuild the support across the Agency and are now postured to continue

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 19 maturation of the practice. Our program has a solid foundation and strategy Championed by the DLA Senior Staff.

3) Can a different implementation model and/or alternate resource strategy be proposed for consideration after the awarding of the contract and within 10 days after the initial meeting with the Contract Manager? Or is the exact model of 10 resources strictly required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: At this time, the Government believes the mix proposed is the correct mix, recommend the Offeror include in their proposal the alternative that they believe would be a better mix to meet our requirements. Please see amended RFP for the additional key and non-key personnel requirements.

4) When can we expect answers to these questions?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: May 28, 2020

5) Section I- Contract Clauses 52.212-3 states, "Offeror Representations and Certifications it shall complete section b of this provision." How does the Government want the Representations and Certifications to be submitted and in which volume?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Please include it in an appendix of Volume I- Technical Approach. This will NOT be part of the page count.

6) The RFP response date is listed as Thursday, June 5, 2020. Is the real date Thursday, June

4th or Friday, June 5th?

7) The day of the week and date do not correspond. Can you confirm the submission due date is Friday June, 5 and not Thursday, June 4?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The RFP response date is Friday, June 5, 2020.

Please see amendment 00004(May 14, 2020) to SP4703-20-R-0002 on beta.SAM.gov.

8) What are the next steps?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: RFP SP4703-20-R-0002 is a Competitive 8(a) set-aside. Only vendors that are competitive 8(a) may provide a proposal. Please follow the instructions and information in RFP SP4703-20-R-0002 to provide a proposal.

9) On page 59, the RFP states, “Tab indexing shall be used to identify all sections within a particular proposal volume. There shall be no writing on the tab index page other than the writing required to identify the particular section.” Please confirm that since all Offerors are to submit their proposals electronically, that tabs are not required within the electronic files?

10) The last paragraph of Section L 1.13 states that, "Tab indexing shall be used to identify all sections within a particular proposal volume. There shall be no writing on the tab index page

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 20 other than the writing required to identify the particular section." Given the proposal submission is not a print hard copy and will be an electronic email submission only, how shall offerors comply with the tab indexing requirement?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Tab Indexing is NOT required. Please see attached amended RFP SP4703-20-R-0002 05-28-20.

11) Is it a requirement for the bidder to provide the information stated in Section G Contract Data

Administration as part of the submission? If so, should this be included as part of Factor 3, Management Approach or within a separate Volume? If a new Volume, please provide the Volume name.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Please put this in an appendix in Factor 3- Management Approach.

12) Is it a requirement for the bidder to provide the information stated in Section I Contract

Clauses as part of the submission? If so, should this be included as part of Factor 3, Management Approach or within a separate Volume? If a new Volume, please provide the Volume name.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Please put this in an appendix in Factor 3- Management Approach.

13) Can the government add an Interested vendor list option to this notice so a vendor may try to identify a partner?

14) Where can I bid with a Prime 8(a) status vendors for the Lean Six Sigma bid?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Please go to System for Award Management at www.sam.gov for possible 8(a) interested vendors.

15) The RFP states, “The Technical Abilities and Experience shall address the offeror’s understanding of the Governments requirements and process for the subject under this PWS, in a building equal to the HQC in size and complexity.” This statement, especially the part referencing building size, appear related to a different solicitation. Please clarify its expectations for what the offeror’s technical abilities and experience must address?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: This statement was removed from the RFP. Please see amended RFP SP4703-20-R-0002 05-28-20.

FAR CLAUSE RELATED QUESTIONS

1) Proposal requires 10 resumes of committed candidates, yet FAR 52.222-17 non-displacement of qualified personnel is applicable. Are there any incumbents that would qualify under this FAR Clause? If so, if seems disingenuous to have a signed letter of intent from an individual

FOUO – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page | 21 we propose when there is a possibility they may not get hired if an incumbent has the first right of refusal. Will the government please clarify?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Key personnel and non-key personnel of this requirement are not applicable to FAR clause 52.222-17 Non-displacement of Qualified Personnel.

2) FAR Clause 52.222-41 SCA Labor Standards is marked but none of the labor categories are

SCA. Will the government please clarify the intent of marking this why this FAR Clause?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: FAR Clause 52.222-41 should not be marked.

Clause is removed from RFP. Please see amended RFP.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELATED QUESTIONS

1) For the purposes of past performance is a Task Order considered a contract?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: Yes. However, the task order must be the same or similar in size and complexity as this requirement.

2) In para 2.4.3, Performance Standards, the only material difference between Good and Fair is the phrase "meets contract requirements with only minor issues" and yet it represents a penalty of 5% on that month's invoice. In order to add clarity to the determination process, please provide representative examples of what is meant by "minor issues."

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: The Government does not intend to use these standards indiscriminately. The successful contractor will be given notification of any performance issues and an opportunity to correct them before any invoice will be decremented.

However, if the contractor does not take appropriate action to correct performance, then the Government will have the right to reduce the contractor invoice payment.

3) Please confirm that item 11. Assigned Personnel is asking for the following(1.13.2.2 Past

Performance Proposal; 2 Past Performance Project Description Format on page…