TAP RFP - W56HZV-19-R-0043 QA Responses - 2.pdf

TAP RFP – W56HZV-19-R-0043 Q&A Response (2)

1. Question: In TAP Program Questions and Answers dated 08 October 2019.

Previously asked in separate email), Answer 7 states "The anticipated completed proposal response due is 60 days from the date of solicitation release." The current due date is about 30 days from RFP release.

Would the USG consider an extension to give the 60 days mentioned above?

Answer: The RFP is updated via Amendment 0001 to change the proposal response due date from 23 March to 07 April 2020, reflecting a total of 45 days from the date of solicitation release.

2. Question: On pg 78 of the RFP, Section L.3.2 states "TMs can be accessed through the Army Publishing Directorate (APD) at: https://armypubs.army.mil/."

When accessing this site, it appears that TMs cannot be downloaded. Can you please provide more explicit instructions on how to access this data?

Answer: Amendment 0002 revises Section L.3.2 to update the address and provide more specific instructions.

3. Question: On Pgs 11 and 78 of the RFP, Sections C.2.5.1 and L.3.2 both refer to assets that require subcontractor repair to OEM standards. Does the relationship with the subcontractor for these OEM repairs have to be established prior to contract award and outlined in our proposal?

Answer: No, the relationship does not need to be established prior to contract award. Details can be provided in your proposal.

4. Question: On pg 12 of the RFP, why is there a requirement to have someone OPSEC Level II certified?

Answer: This is an Army Regulation, AR530-1 that someone must be OPSEC Level II Certified.

5. Question: On pg 12 of the RFP, C.2.8.2.3 states that the contractor shall be required to adhere to the OPSEC SOP/Plan developed and implemented by the PD MBTS, Government OPSEC officer that they support. The section referenced in the column to left seems to contradict this as it says the contractor shall provide an OPSEC Plan IAW CDRL A011. The contractor shall document compliance with its OPSEC Plan annually in the Material Status Report IAW A011.

Is it necessary to develop a plan of our own given the language under C.2.8.2.3?

Answer: No, it is not necessary to develop an OPSEC SOP/Plan. PWS clarification changes to this will be made via Amendment 0002.

6. Question: On pg 13 of the RFP, Can you please confirm that you only care about personnel working on government systems and deliverables? By way of example, is it necessary for our local IT personnel to have these certifications if such contact or work under the Contract is extremely unlikely?

Answer: Only personnel working on Government Systems and deliverables need these certifications. If IT personnel work under the Contract then they will need to acquire these certifications.

7. Question: On pg 14 of the RFP, Does everything need to be marked FOUO? Is there a classification guide for this program?

Answer: All information that requires FOUO markings IAW Army Regulation 380-5, chapter 5, para 5-1 through 5-6 needs to be properly marked.

8. Question: On pg 14 of the RFP, Not everyone has a CAC and therefore it could be inferred that we would not be able to send information via the DOD Safe site and meet our rights, duties and obligations under the Contract. Could this language be modified to require the contractor’s compliance with the IAW DFARS 252.204-7012 or NIST SP 800-71 instead?

Answer: As stated provided in the RFP, “in Section C.2.7.2 Performance Standard:

The contractor shall create one or more user accounts in TrackerLite https://trackerlite.wpafb.af.mil/LTS

This system requires a Common Access Card (CAC) to access, one CAC per user account.” Please see C – 9.1.

The language will not be modified.

9. Question: On pg 17 of the RFP, This requires an FSO to initiate an investigation, however, it is not possible for us to do. The Government would have to complete that step.

Answer: After the contractor employees fill out the CAC application, they will submit these to the COR. The COR will process them via TASS.

10. Question: RFP - How were the performance metrics arrived at? To clarify, some metrics seem to exceed commercially reasonable practices. By way of example, page 20 states that “items shall be free of dirt and contaminates” and “a unit package shall be…designed and constructed that it will contain contents with no damage to the items, minimal damage to the unit pack…” Could it instead say reasonable wear and tear would be acceptable?

Answer: Most of these items are electronic components and precision electronic components can be easily damaged. Some of the parts can be ruined by dirt or contaminates getting into the internal components. Making sure that the items are clean and well packaged/protected is in the best interest of both parties.

11. Question: On pg 11 of the RFP, Section C.2.5.1 - When COR approval is requested should such approval be in writing? Could the PCO’s approval be requested in lieu thereof? Is it reasonable to expect that any and all Government representative approvals necessitated by the Contract will be returned within 30 days at most?

Answer: As provided in Section C.2.5.1: The contractor shall not initiate repair of an asset if the total cost to repair will exceed the associated MEL without prior approval from the COR. Approval will be provided by the COR in writing and returned within 30 days.

12. Question: In the RFP Pg 14 - Section C.4.1.3 and in the Exhibit A CDRL A001.

What does “erroneous” mean in this context?

Answer: Erroneous in this context means incorrect data, data that was sent with an error or wrong information in it.

13. Question: In the RFP - on Pg 16 - Sec C.9.1 and pg 6 of Exhibit A - CDRL A006 - How many audits could we expect in a year? Would prior notice be provided for such audits?

Answer: There is no set minimum or maximum on how many audits will be conducted yearly. The response time for audits will be very short, less than a week.

The offeror shall be prepared to allow an Army representative to access the property and perform a physical inventory on selected lines on a short notice. Prior notice will be provided for such audits.

14. Question: On pg 18 of the RFP for Sec C.9.2(b) - Could you please correct the typo “2013” in the phrase “…all data shall be reported no later than October 31 of each calendar year, beginning with 2013.”

Answer: This is the standard clause requirement which reflects when the clause was established, not a typo.

15. Can the USG clarify the NAICS code for this solicitation?

Answer: NAICS code is provided in the RFP. NAIC code is 81198 – All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance Vehicular Equipment Components.

16. To clarify, subcontractors direct labor rates less fee must be above floor rate?

Answer: Yes, please reference section L.4.4.3.

L.4.4.3 Floor Rates: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the Government has established direct labor rates that are by definition, realistic and reasonable.

Proposals that include direct labor rates for either the prime or subcontractor that fall below the minimum Government determined floor rates by established departments within the RFP (hereinafter referenced as the floor) will be rejected and will be ineligible for award.

17. Attachment 0004 allocates hours to individual labor descriptions. Are contractors expected to execute within the hours aligned to each labor description and category or is it for evaluation purposes only?

Answer: Yes, please reference section B.2.1.

B.2.1 Term (Level of Effort (LOE)): Each term effort will be covered on a term CLIN and will be executed IAW FAR 16.306 (d)(2). The Contracting Officer may authorize by modification a reallocation of labor hours, material, or travel amount for the term tasks within the contract. The contactor is not authorized to expend more hours, material, or travel dollars than the Contracting Officer has authorized. If a change in authorization is required, a contract modification will be issued as notice of the changes.

18. How do you want subcontractors to fill out their detailed pricing in Attachment 0004?

Currently, the subcontractor section allows only for fully burdened labor rate. If they are to insert detailed pricing in Prime sections, they will receive errors as hours may not total up correctly.

Answer: In regards to the subcontractor’s Attachment 0004 – Pricing Workbook, the hours input in column H are not required to reconcile to the hours in column E.

However, the hours input in column H shall reconcile to column X in the prime contractor’s Attachment 0004 – Pricing Workbook. If the prime contractor allocates hours to the subcontractor for less than the total hours in column E, then it will be deemed acceptable even though column F will depict a red shaded cell with a delta greater than “0” in the subcontractor’s Attachment 0004 – Pricing Workbook.

In accordance with section L.4.12, Subcontractors that have cost reimbursement agreements with the Prime Offeror shall submit their own completed Attachment 0004 showing the development of the FBLRs including all separate elements of cost.

Subcontractors may submit their un-sanitized cost proposals and supporting documentation, as described in L.4.4.2, electronically through DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. Recipient Address: shannon.n.despic.civ@mail.mil. Submittal must be no later than the RFP closing date.

https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:shannon.n.despic.civ@mail.mil