LEP_Q&A_Responses_4-18-19.pdf

LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL (LEP) PROGRAM QUESTION & ANSWERS

GENERAL Q&A’S

Question 1: Since the place of performance is Afghanistan, will an Afghan Company with valid license and qualification be considered for award if meets award criteria? Can we offer you local Afghan Team

(Personnel) for performance of this project? Is there a condition that says any or part of personnel must be US citizen(s)?

Answer 1: No. This is an IDIQ contract with potential for world‐wide implementation. Currently, the only known operational locations is Afghanistan (Task Order PWS). Only U.S. Companies are acceptable, as the requirement is in support of U.S. Forces Train, Advise, Assist and Mentor mission of Host Nation forces, and all personnel on the contract require either a U.S. SECRET or TOP SECRET security clearance.

Question 2: What is the plan for vehicles? Contractor supplied, Military only, or both?

Answer 2: It is the supported units/organizations responsibility to provide transportation support to the

LEPs assigned to/with them. See also Q7, Q67, Q68

Question 3: Will Contract personnel be allowed to use NATO or USMIL hospitals if they are hurt or injured in the line of duty?

Answer 3: Yes. The military provides required “emergency medical and dental care if injured while supporting applicable operations”. However, MEDVAC support from USTRANSCOM to Landsthul, Germany may be billed to the contractor. In Afghanistan, there are three contractor medical clinics for non‐emergency medical care and for annual physicals located in HKIA, BAF and Kandahar that operate

24/7. The contractor company owning the clinics is called IQARUS.

Question 4: Will Contract personnel be allowed to use US Military hospital facilities in remote areas if they have other non‐routine medical issues?

Answer 4: See Answer to Q3 above and/or provide additional detail to the question.

Question 5: Will AFG work permits be needed by DOD Contract LEP personnel and if so is it cost reimbursable?

Answer 5: DoD contract personnel do not require Afghan work permits. Not a requirement of the

Afghan Security Agreement.

Question 6: Will the contract include interpreters or language assistants (Dari, Urdu, and Pashto)?

Answer 6: No. The contract does not include interpreters or language assistants. This contract provides law enforcement support in support of (ISO) the Rule of Law missions. It is the supported unit/ organizations responsibility to provide interpreters as necessary.

Question 7: Will the Contractor be allowed to hire an AFG Law Firm to represent personnel involved in accidents and will the repairs and damage to the vehicle be reimbursable? Payments to injured AFG citizens is also a concern and is the cost reimbursable?

Answer 7: Question is too broad to be answered at this time. Contractors MAY be authorized to operate and/or lease non‐tactical vehicles ON‐bases in Afghanistan. Contractors are not authorized to operate vehicles off‐base in Afghanistan at this time. Whether a contractor hires a law firm is up to the contractor – it is that contractor’s business decision. See also Q2, Q67, Q68.

Question 8: Will USMIL JAG Officers be assisting in any aspect of this program? If so, to what extent?

Answer 8: USMIL JAG Officer involvement/assistance is not pertinent to the LEP contract.

Question 9: Will Guardian Angels accompany contractor personnel while interacting with Afghan LE personnel?

Answer 9: Yes, Guardian Angel (GA) support is required IAW USFOR‐A policy.

DRAFT L&M Q&A’S

Question 10: Section L: (i) VOLUME I ‐ TECHNICAL FACTOR

Will the Government please provide Section L requirements for the Technical Approach Subfactor that correspond to the Section M Technical Approach Subfactor evaluation criteria?

Answer 10: The Technical Approach Subfactor has been deleted from Sections L&M. All Factors and

Subfactors have been re‐number to reflect changes, please see revised Draft L&M.

Question 11: Section M: A, 1 & 2 C, FACTOR 1 ‐ Technical, a., b.

In the first paragraph in Section A, it states the following: "The Technical Factor will contain the following subfactors: Afghanistan Business License, Technical Approach, Mission Capability/Experience, Management/Staffing, and Transition In Plan." Section C. EVALUATION APPROACH, FACTOR 1 –

Technical: Items a. and b., provides evaluation criteria for the Technical Approach Subfactor. Should the

Technical Approach Subfactor be the second most important subfactor, i.e., after Afghanistan Business

License Subfactor and before Mission Capability/Experience Subfactor?

Answer 11: The Technical Approach Subfactor has been deleted from Sections L&M. The Government has four evaluation factors, with Factor 1 now being the Afghanistan Business License, followed by

Factor 2: Technical, Factor 3: Past Performance, and Factor 4: Cost/Price.

Within the Factor 2: Technical, now has been changed from four Subfactors to three Subfactors, for which is in descending order of importance below:

Subfactor 1: Mission Capability/Experience

Subfactor 2: Management/Staffing

Subfactor 3: Transition In Plan.

Please see revised Draft L&M.

Question 12: Section M: C, Factor 1 ‐ Technical, b. and (i) VOLUME I ‐ TECHNICAL FACTOR

b. Feasibility of Approach. The last sentence of this paragraph states that the evaluation will also consider the proposed hours and labor mix. Is this applicable to Task Order 0001 only? Should Offerors address this criteria within Section L, (i) VOLUME I ‐ TECHNICAL FACTOR, under a new requirement for

Technical Approach?

Answer 12: The Technical Approach Subfactor has been deleted from Sections L&M. The proposed hours and labor mix shall be applicable to the specific tasks identified within both IDIQ PWS and Task

Order PWS. Please see revised Draft L&M.

Question 13: Section M: B, 2

In the second paragraph in Section B, it states, "Factor 1: Technical Factor: The Technical Factor shall consist of the Offeror's ability to demonstrate a valid Afghanistan business license through the base period of performance, Technical Approach, Mission Capability/Experience, Management/Staffing Plan, and Transition In Plan." In the bulleted items in the paragraph above, Technical Approach, does not appear as Technical Subfactor. Should the Technical Approach Subfactor be the second most important subfactor behind Afghanistan Business License Subfactor and in front of the Mission Capability/

Experience Subfactor?

Answer 13: The Technical Approach Subfactor has been deleted from Sections L&M. All Factors and

Subfactors have been re‐number to reflect changes, please see revised Draft L&M.

Question 14: Section M: C, Factor 1 – Technical

Technical Factor, Subfactor 1: Afghanistan Business License ‐ will the government please define the

"acceptable" and "unacceptable" evaluation criteria?

Answer 14: Sections L&M have been renumber and arranged for which, the Afghanistan Business

License is now Factor 1 and is no longer under the Technical Factor, which is Factor 2 now. Please see revised Draft L&M.

Question 15: Section M: C, Factor 1 ‐ Technical

The last paragraph in this section states, "Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the above adjectival ratings." Does the government mean, all Technical Subfactors except Subfactor 1 ‐ Afghanistan Business License, will be subject to the adjectival ratings, as Technical

Subfactor 1 ‐ Afghanistan Business License is rated Acceptable or Unacceptable?

Answer 15: Sections L&M have been revised for which, the Afghanistan Business License is now Factor

1 and is no longer under the Technical Factor, which is now Factor 2.

Question 16: Section L: (ii) VOLUME II ‐ PAST PERFORMANCE, (4) Section 4 – Subcontracts

In Section 4 – Subcontracts, is the government asking for a two (2) page narrative describing how subs for this RFP will be assigned and will perform work on this contract, or is the government asking for a two (2) page narrative per past performance reference that describes how subcontractors were used to perform work on that specific past performance reference?

Answer 16: Sections L&M have been revised for which, Past Performance Factor is now, Section L: (iii)

VOLUME III ‐ PAST PERFORMANCE, (4) Section 4 – Subcontracts.

Question 17: Section L: (iii) Volume III ‐ Cost/Price Factor

Third paragraph, next to last sentence regarding sanitized cost proposals, "…but must include a breakdown of the total labor hours proposed and a breakout of the types of all proposed ODCs." What does the government mean by a breakout of the types of all proposed ODCs?

Answer 17: No breakout is required for ODCs. See revised Draft L&M.

Question 18: Factor 1 – Technical: b. Feasibility of Approach

The Government has provided the current LEP and Key Personnel breakout per Task Order PWS, Section

C.4.a., Manning Requirement Breakout Table. The RFP states "The evaluation will also consider the proposed hours and labor mix" 1. Does the Government expect Offeror's to propose hours and labor mix to perform requirements of Task Order 0001 (Task Order PWS, Section C.4.a., Manning Requirement

Breakout Table is a guide)? or 2. does the Offeror refer to the manning chart in the Task Order PWS, and convert to FTEs and proposed number of hours worked? 3. Would the Government provide a per week estimate of hours worked per FTE in Task Order PWS, Section C.4.a., Manning Requirement Breakout

Table?

Answer 18: 1. The Offeror will refer to the Manning Requirement Breakout Table in the Task Order

PWS for the number of LEP 1 and LEP 2 that are required.

2. The Offeror will then be required to propose the labor rate and hours required for each labor category proposed for Task Order 0001.

3. No, the Government will not provide the estimated hours worked per FTE in Task Order PWS, Section

C.4.a., Manning Requirement Breakout Table.

Question 19: Factor 4: Small Business Participation

Can the Government clarify what is meant by an Acceptable rating?

Answer 19: The Government has deleted Factor 4 Small Business Participation.

Question 20: Section L/M: C, Factor 2b/D, 3iii

In Section M it says that no more than one team member past performance reference contract may be included in the three reference contracts provided, but in Section L it says Offeror shall submit a max of three, and for each of the top three major subs, a max of two recent contracts. Does that mean three references for the prime and two for all subs combined, or a max of six references for all subs combined

(in addition to the three for the prime)? Please clarify.

Answer 20: “No more than 1 team member past performance reference contract may be included in the 3 reference contracts provided” has been deleted.

Question 21: Section L/M: C Factor 4, D, 2iv

Are the Small Business Participation Plan and Small Business Subcontracting Plans to be based upon the basic contract only?

Answer 21: The Government has deleted Factor 4 Small Business Participation.

Question 22: Section L: D, 3 iii

Section L states "The fully loaded labor rates shall be inclusive of wages, any applicable allowances, applicable indirect expenses, and fee." Please expand upon what is considered to be an "applicable allowance."

Answer 22: The Government has been approved for Time & Materials (T&M) Contract Type for CONUS and OCONUS Labor Rates.

“Applicable allowances" is for the OCONUS work, because OCONUS labor rates could potentially include

Hazard Pay, Cost of Living Allowance, etc.

Please see revised Sections L&M: Factor 3 Cost/Price with incorporated T&M Labor Rates.

Question 23: Section L: D, 2 iii

Please confirm that if an Offeror and/or subcontractors can supply a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, and/or Provisional Billing Rate approval letter as it pertains to direct rates, no payroll records or salary survey information will be required.

Answer 23: For direct labor rates, there would only ever be a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), or Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA). A Provisional

Billing Rate approval letter would only pertain to indirect rates. If an offeror's and/or subcontractor's direct labor rates are based on an FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA, then they would need to supply the FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA. In that case, payroll records and salary survey information would not be required.

Question 24: Section L: D, 2 iii

Is the cost narrative provided in Volume III envisioned to address both the basic contract pricing as well as the Task Order 0001 pricing?

Answer 24: Yes, Volume III includes instructions regarding the contract pricing for both the Basis

Contract and Task Order 0001.

Question 25: Section L: D, 2 iv (d)

In the small business participation plan, when it says name of company, identify type of supply/service, and it has the SB categories and it says, "identify the top 10" what does that mean/refer to?

Answer 25: The Government has deleted Factor 4 Small Business Participation.

Question 26: Section L: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS – Table

The instructions do not include file names for required excel files. Will the government modify the table to include required excel file naming conventions?

Answer 26: Yes. See revised Proposal Submission Requirements table.

Question 27: Section L: (iii) VOLUME III – COST/PRICE FACTOR

Will the government provide a draft of the excel file for pricing (“FILE NAME FOR THE PRICE MATRIX

(ATTACHMENT #))?

Answer 27: At this time the Government is not providing a draft cost/pricing excel file.

Question 28: Section L: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ‐ Table; Subfactor 2: Mission

Capability/ Experience

Is it the government's intent to have all highlighted PWS' attached to the file "Offeror nameVol1SF2"? If so, it could result in a very large file. Is there a file size limit?

Answer 28: Yes. See revised Proposal Submission Requirements table. The file limit is applicable to what CD or DVD is to be used in order to submit proposal. Typical CD capacity is around 737MB and a typical single layer DVD capacity is around 4.7GB and around 8.5GB – 9.4GB for double‐sided DVD.

Question 29: Section L: Subfactor 2: Mission Capability/ Experience; (ii) VOLUME II – PAST

PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Is it required to deliver highlighted PWS' in both volumes? If so, should they be attached to both of the following files: "Offeror nameVol1SF2" and "Offeror nameVol2PP"?

Answer 29: See revised Proposal Submission Requirements table.

Question 30: Section L: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ‐ Table; Subfactor 2: Mission

Capability/ Experience

Please confirm that "specific tasks listed below" in the following sentence from Subfactor 2.5 "Offerors shall also provide a narrative demonstrating that it and its team combined have Mission

Capability/Experience performing tasks of similar scope and complexity to the specific tasks listed below, which are from the IDIQ and Task Order PWS" refers to the tasks in Subfactor 2.6 "Law

Enforcement, Investigations, Prosecutions/judicial processes, Corrections.

Answer 30: Yes

Question 31: Section L/M: C, Factor 2 ‐ Past Performance & D.3.ii (4) Section 4 – Subcontracts

For purposes of past performance references (Draft RFP Sections M and L, Volume II, Past Performance), it appears the draft RFP is mixing corporate ownership (related parent, divisions and subsidiaries) with subcontract relationships (arrangements between separate, unrelated legal entities). A clarification of

Sections L and M is recommended to state that contractor relationships between affiliates of a corporate entity are to be treated as part of the same related company. Arrangements between affiliates are not subcontracts, but rather intercompany transfers of assets at cost. Specifically, it is recommended that the final RFP state that parent companies, divisions, sub‐divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates are treated the same as the parent as there is common control as related entities, and therefore no restriction on number of past performance citations are imposed by this singular entity as the prime contractor.

If the Government does not clarify the final RFP as requested above, will the Government clarify that the limitation on team member reference contracts does not limit the offeror’s inclusion of team member contracts that have been assigned to the offeror by an affiliate, and are pending the Government’s execution of a novation agreement?

Answer 31: See revised Draft Sections L and M.

Question 32: Section L: Subfactor 2: Mission Capability/Experience

4. "The Offeror shall provide their referenced PWS with the sections highlighted that are similar scope and complexity. (Not included in the page count.)"

May offerors submit relevant sections from referenced PWS' with the appropriate contract details?

Answer 32: The Offeror shall only provide their referenced PWS with the sections highlighted that are of similar scope and complexity. “Appropriate contract details” is not sufficient information for us to provide a more specific answer.

Question 33: Section L: (i) VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR, SubFactor 2

6. Concurrent performance of at least 2 specific tasks from the Task Order PWS to mentor/train/advise/ assist to Host Nation in:

• Law Enforcement

• Investigations

• Prosecutions/judicial processes

• Corrections

There are other functional tasks identified in the task Order PWS that are critical to mission success, such as forensics, anti‐corruption, and community oriented policing. Will the government allow these tasks to be added to the current 4 tasks? If so, would the government prefer that offerors demonstrate concurrent performance in at least 3 specific task areas?

Answer 33: No. The four tasks listed are the primary Functions which the LEP provide, although experience providing such additional tasks may be viewed favorably. See IDIQ PWS LEP Qualifications

C.8. and TO PWS C.7.

Question 34: Section M: C, Factor 1

How does the Government intend to evaluate the offeror’s response to Section L requirements, (i)

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL FACTOR, Technical Subfactor 2: Mission Capability/Experience, Items 1‐6? Is it the Government's intent to provide respective Section M evaluation criteria in the Final RFP?

Answer 34: See revised Draft L&M, Section M, Technical Subfactor 2.

Question 35: Section M: C, Factor 1

In order for the Government to evaluate the offeror’s response to Section L requirements, (i) VOLUME 1

– TECHNICAL FACTOR, Technical Subfactor 3: Management/Staffing, Items 1‐5, and the second set of

Items 1‐3 under “In addition, the Management/Staffing Plan shall include the following:,” will the

Government please provide the respective Section M evaluation criteria?

Answer 35: See revised Draft L&M, Factor 2 – Technical, a. and b.

Question 36: Section M: C, Factor 1

In order for the Government to evaluate the offeror’s response to Section L requirements, (i) VOLUME 1

– TECHNICAL FACTOR, Technical Subfactor 4: Transition In Plan, will the Government please provide the respective Section M evaluation criteria?

Answer 36: See revised Draft L&M, Factor 2 – Technical, a. and b.

Question 37: Section M: C, Factor 4, item e

Given the unique scope of the work to be performed OCONUS on this program, and the need for both prime and subcontractors to have a valid Afghanistan Business License through the base period of performance, will the government remove the Small Business (SB) Participation Evaluation Factor, as

ACC‐RI did on competitive acquisition, Security Ministries of Afghanistan Advisory Program (W52P1J‐18‐

R‐0011) that provides train, advise, and assist support to the Afghanistan MoI and MoD?

If the Government elects not to remove the SB Participation Factor, will the Government remove the specifically defined socio‐economic class goals, and allow the prime offeror to credibly propose the use of qualified SBs to perform this work, with supporting rationale as to why these percentages being used for this effort are appropriate for their company?

Answer 37: The Government has deleted Factor 4 Small Business Participation.

Question 38: Section L: D, 3 iii

Section L states "The fully loaded labor rates shall be inclusive of wages, any applicable allowances, applicable indirect expenses, and fee." Please expand upon what is considered to be an "applicable allowance."

Answer 38: See Answer 22.

Question 39: Section L/M: C Factor 3 / D,3 iii

The basic contract has Government provided ODC and travel costs for the Base Period and Option Years

1‐3, and states that the Government provided costs for ODCs and travel are used for evaluation purposes only. Section L and M do not address how the ODCs are to be proposed in Task Order 0001.

Will the Government provide ODC and Travel costs for Task Order 0001?

Answer 39: Yes

Question 40: Section M: Factor 4 Small Business Participation (pg 10 of 29)

Small Business requirements: Per the SBA’s SBLO handbook, subcontractor services performed entirely outside of the U.S. should be excluded from the planned subcontracted dollars for the purposes of calculating the small business subcontracting goals.

Please clarify that services performed entirely outside of the U.S. should be excluded from the planned subcontracting dollars for the purposes of calculating small business subcontracting goals.

Since there are relatively few small businesses (especially HUBZone businesses) that are capable of performing the LEP requirements and sustaining personnel long‐term overseas, will the Government consider reducing the SB participation goals as a proportion of total contract value, or consider making the SB commitment a proportion of SUBCONTRACTED dollars?

Answer 40: Factor 4 Small Business Participation has been deleted.

Question 41: Section M: Weighting of technical subfactors – if the Afghan Business License is a pass/fail evaluation criterion, it should not be weighted relative to the other subfactors. (pg 1 of 29)

Suggest the Government removes the business license from the subfactor weighting, since it’s a pass/fail criterion.

Answer 41: See revised Draft L&M.

Question 42: Section M: Validity of Afghan business license through the base period of performance

(PoP): in the DRFP materials, there is no indication of an actual date, only a duration of the PoP. For offerors to provide valid Afghan business licenses showing dates, they will require actual dates. (pg 2 of

29)

Will the Government please clarify when that base PoP is and, to meet the licensing requirements, do they mean the IDIQ PoP or the TO PoP?

Answer 42: The Government anticipates releasing the solicitation during 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019, and the solicitation will contain dates.

Question 43: Section M: Factor 1.b (Feasibility of Approach) states that the evaluation will consider the proposed hours and labor mix. (pg 3 of 29)

TO PWS clearly identifies the labor mix (number of LEP I/IIs and their assigned roles). Will the

Government state how many hours are to be worked and clarify how offerors are to be evaluated for their proposed labor mix?

Answer 43: See revised draft Sections L and M.

Question 44: Section M: Factor 2 Past Performance

Major subcontractor is defined as top three subcontractors by labor costs. This would appear to limit major subcontractors only to those companies performing on the Afghanistan TO, not across the LEP

IDIQ program. (pg 5 of 29)

Since at the IDIQ level the contract is intended to be worldwide, suggest the Government allow offerors to determine what constitutes a major subcontractor, in order to be able to showcase the capabilities of the entire offeror team, not just those assigned to work the Afghanistan TO.

Answer 44: At this time, the only performance location is Afghanistan. For purposes of the evaluation, the Government is using the definition of “major subcontractor” included in the solicitation.

Question 45: Section M, Factor 2 Past Performance

Eligibility to provide examples of experience and past performance seems confusing. For experience

(Subfactor 2), the Government allows submission of one reference for each of 3 major subcontractors to be evaluated. Under the Past Performance factor, offerors can submit a maximum of two references for each major subcontractor, but only one reference for each “team member’s” past performance (Factor

2, para (b) on page 5 of 29). The Government uses the terms “major subcontractor”, “team member” and “partner” without a clear distinction between them. (pg 5 of 29)

Will the Government please clarify the experience and past performance requirements?

Are the references provided under “experience” supposed to be the same as those provided under “past performance”?

How many references for experience and past performances may offerors submit?

What is the difference between a “major subcontractor”, “team member” and “partner”?

Answer 45: Mission Capability/Experience Subfactor is NOT the same as the Past Performance Factor.

They also require different information to be submitted for evaluation. See revised Draft L&M.

“Major subcontractor” is defined in Section M, Factor 3 – Past Performance, paragraph b.

Team member/partner/subsidiary/affiliate/etc. is discussed in this section to advise offerors who chose to submit information in the Past Performance Volume regarding such companies.

Question 46: Section M: Factor 3 Cost/Price

Draft L&M states: “The total evaluated price will be adjusted for HUBZone small businesses, if applicable.” (pg 8 of 29)

It seems unlikely that many HUBZone companies can deploy and sustain LEPs worldwide, potentially in multiple countries on multiple TOs simultaneously, and still manage them effectively. The incentive for large companies to subcontract to small HUBZone companies may be significant, thereby creating significant program management risk to the Government.

Will the Government consider removing this HUBZone price advantage, in order to ensure that only more mature, larger companies with worldwide infrastructure, management capability and healthy cash flow are eligible to prime this contract?

Answer 46: No. FAR Clause 52.219‐4 is required to be included in the solicitation.

Question 47: Section M: Factor 3 Cost/Price

Draft L&M states that total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the probable cost for the basic contract (IDIQ) and the probable cost for the task order. (pg 8 of 29)

Since offeror prices may rank differently (lower/higher) on the base contract than on task order, how will offeror pricing be evaluated with separate prices being submitted for the basic contract (IDIQ) and the task order?

Answer 47: Please see revised Section L&M: Factor 4 Cost/Price.

Question 48: Section M: Factor 4 SB Participation

There appears to be inconsistency between the evaluation approach in (a) through (e), which implies that you get more credit the more you exceed the SB goals. Offerors will also be evaluated on the

“extent” of commitment, which implies that the greater the commitment, the more highly rated the proposal will be. But the SB factor rating definition – either red/unacceptable or green/acceptable implies that this is a pass/fail criterion. (pg 10 of 29)

Since this could have a significant influence on offeror’s teaming strategies, will the Government please clarify whether offerors will indeed receive higher ratings under SB participation if they demonstrate greater commitment or better past performance in SB subcontracting and the extent of commitment, or is the SB plan indeed to be evaluated only as acceptable or unacceptable?

Answer 48: Small Business Participation Factor has been deleted.

Question 49: Section L: 2.b

Title for Subfactor 5 is incomplete, requirements not specified. Inconsistent with Evaluation Criteria

(Section M) and L.3.c.i requirements, which omit Subfactor 5. (pg 12 of 29)

Will the Government please confirm that there is no Subfactor 5 required with the Technical Proposal?

Answer 49: See revised Draft L&M.

Question 50: Section L: 3.c

Table of Contents and Summary Section are required, but there is no indication as to whether those are inside or outside of page count? (pg 15 of 29)

Will the Government please confirm that tables of contents, lists of acronyms / glossaries, and summary sections are outside the page count?

Answer 50: See revised Draft L&M, Section L: paragraph 3,c, each file of the proposal shall consist of a

Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion (not included in page count).

Question 51: Section L: 3.c.(1)

Section L instructions for Subfactor 1 (Afghan Business License) implies that such licenses are required from all subcontractors, but Section M only mentions evaluation of the “offeror’s” (i.e.. the prime’s) license. If the Government retains the large SB subcontracting requirement and requires all subcontractors to hold Afghan business licenses, it is going to be very difficult to find SB subcontractors with such licenses. (pg 15 of 29)

Will the Government relax the requirement for subcontractors to maintain Afghan business licenses, in order to give offerors more chance to find qualified small businesses?

Alternatively, will the Government allow subcontractors on a successful team to obtain Afghan business licenses after award, in order to minimize cost outlay for small companies and to broaden the pool of qualified SB subcontractors.

Answer 51: No, the Government will not relax the requirement for the Afghan business license, nor will it allow any subcontractors to obtain the business license after award. The requirement for the business license is driven by the Bilateral Security Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan governments, has been a requirement since June 2015, and is not waivable by the U.S. The inconsistency in the

Afghan government’s implementation, processes and consistency necessitates the business license be current and valid at time of proposal submission.

Question 52: Section L: Subfactor 3(2)

Requires offerors to discuss staffing levels and labor mix; at the IDIQ level this is not appropriate

/possible, since specific staffing and level of effort is undefined, and at the TO level, the Government prescribes the LEP I/II staffing levels.

May we suggest the Government remove this requirement from the Subfactor 3 Management / Staffing

Requirements at the IDIQ level and remove the requirement to discuss staffing levels at the TO level, since the Government prescribes the staffing?

Answer 52: No. See revised Draft Sections L and M.

Question 53: Section L: Volume II Past Performance Factor

Offerors are “discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractor’s facility.” If citing a project performed as a subcontractor, there is usually no privity of contact (and sometimes no direct communication) between the Government customer and the subcontractor. (pg 18 of 29)

If such a situation exists, will the Government allow offerors and their major subcontractors to include

POC information for their prime contractor?

Answer 53: The Past Performance Volume permits a significant of information to be submitted for evaluation purposes. The POC should always be a government representative.

Question 54: Section L: Volume II Past Performance Factor

Commitment and Consent letters – the DRFP does not clarify how these differ. (pg 19 of 29)

Will the Government clarify if the written commitment and consent are two separate letters? While the letter of consent’s purpose is clear, will the Government also clarify the intent of the commitment letter, and even provide a template?

Answer 54: No template will be provided. The Government seeks confirmation that the proposed company is dedicated or committed to performing this requirement and consenting to the release/disclosure of their past performance information for the purposes of the evaluation. One or two letters with this information will suffice, as the pages are not included in the page count.

Question 55: Section M: Basis for Award

The draft L&M refers in many places to “contract award”, but makes no distinction between IDIQ award and TO award. (pg 1 of 29)

Will award of the TO be simultaneous with the IDIQ contract and will the Government distinguish between evaluation criteria for award of the IDIQ and award of the TOs?

Answer 55: The IDIQ and TO will be awarded simultaneously. The evaluation criteria is described in

Section M: Basis for Award.

Question 56: Section L: Subfactor 2, paragraph 5

Clarity on the U.S Government’s definition of similar scope/complexity in the context of mission capability/experience. (pg 15 of 29)

What is the Government definition of similar scope/complexity? Will the Government confirm that experience recruiting, training, deploying, retaining and sustaining large numbers of professional personnel in support of Operation Resolute Support will meet the relevance criterion for scope and complexity?

Answer 56: See revised Draft Sections L and M.

Question 57: Section L: (Page 11)

The RFP states “The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.”

Can the Government please clarify this statement?

Can the offerors use hyperlinks to sections within the same document or link between volumes?

Answer 57: No, as stated, the use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Question 58: Section L: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (Page 15, section 2)

The RFP indicates that each subfactor be submitted in Volume 1 be submitted as a standalone file.

Additionally, the RFP states that “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary

Section, and the Narrative discussion.”

Is it the government’s intent for each subfactor to have a separate TOC and summary section?

Answer 58: See revised Draft L&M.

Question 59: Section L: (ii) VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR, (4) Section 4 – Subcontracts, (page 19)

Can the Government please clarify if this section is meant for the offeror to discuss the services provided on the cited references or to address what services will be provided under the LEP Program?

Answer 59: Yes, offerors are to provide both types of information if they apply. See revised Draft

Sections L and M.

Question 60: Section M: Factor 2 – Past Performance, “Major subcontractors” ‐ (page 5)

Can the Government please clarify this statement: “Note: No more than 1 team member past performance reference contract may be included in the 3 reference contracts provided.”

Answer 60: “No more than 1 team member past performance reference contract may be included in the

3 reference contracts provided” has been deleted.

DRAFT IDIQ PWS Q&A’S

Question 61: IDIQ PWS C.14.c.(1).

The last sentence in this paragraph states, "the contractor shall ensure the following training courses are completed prior to arrival at the CRC…," but there are no courses listed. Are the intended training courses those listed in C.14.c.(2).(a), through C.14.c.(2).(c)?

Answer 61: Yes. See revised IDIQ PWS. The contract company/vendor must ensure the contract employee completes all training identified in the IDIQ PWS under current paragraphs C.14.a., C.14.b.

and C.14.c which includes all of the sub paragraphs prior to going to the CRC. However, Rules on Use of

Force (RuF), Rules of Engagement (RoE) and Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC) is not done by the contract company, it is done at the CRC by the CRC Staff Judge Advocate.

Question 62: IDIQ PWS C.35

Please amend Section L to provide instructions for the delivery of a Quality Control plan with the

Proposal.

Answer 62: The draft Quality Control Plan will be submitted in accordance with the CDRL, although it will not be evaluated.

Question 63: IDIQ PWS C.7.a.(1)(b)

Requires the PM to have a TS/SCI clearance at contract Day 1. If the contractor has a current Secret facility clearance, is it acceptable if the PM candidate has previously held a TS/SCI, and that the clearance will be upgraded from Secret to TS/SCI following granting of a TS facility clearance to the contractor?

Answer 63: Question is unclear because it mixes individual clearances and facility clearances. Please restate.

Question 64: IDIQ PWS C.8.c.(3)

There are many LEPs from NATO countries who have been working similar law enforcement programs in

Afghanistan. Are NATO TS clearances in lieu of US TS clearances acceptable for this program?

Answer 64: To be determined.

Question 65: IDIQ PWS C.14.c.(2).(c)

“Deploying LEPs do not require Country or Theater clearance. “ Should this read Non‐Deploying LEP’s do not require Country or Theater Clearance?

Answer 65: See IDIQ PWS C.14.c.(1).(d). The Deploying LEPs fall under the Geographic Combatant Commands (currently only CENTCOM) authority and mission and do not require separate Theater or Country clearances.

However, non‐deploying personnel, such as the PM when traveling to Theater for a site/Quality Control visit, is required to obtain a Country and/or Theater clearance IAW the latest guidance in the Foreign Clearance Guide

(FCG).

Question 66: Most LEPs in civilian police forces will not hold TS/SCI clearances. Please clarify this requirement.

Answer 66: To be determined.

Question 67: IDIQ PWS C.25

States that leased vehicles will only be operated on secured FOBs. What transportation will be utilized off‐FOB?

Answer 67: Off‐FOB travel is provided by the supported military unit/organization. See also Q2, Q7 and

Q68.

Question 68: IDIQ PWS C.25

If a program vehicle is damaged by gunfire or explosives is the repair costs a reimbursable item?

Answer 68: The question is unclear, however, there are no “program vehicles”. See also Q2, Q7 and

Q67.

Question 69: IDIQ PWS C.7.a.(1)(b)

The CONUS Program Manager is required to be an Army MP O‐6. Would an O‐5 LT COL with significant program management and time in Afghanistan be considered?

Answer 69: The requirement speaks for itself and is stated in IDIQ PWS C.7.a.(1)(b).

Question 70: IDIQ PWS C.15

What is the processing timeline for the arming agreements?

Answer 70: The processing time to receive Arming Approval may vary considerably based on the mission location of the LEP and varying processing times at different steps. The contractor controls the initial requirements by ensuring the LEP is qualified in advance on the appropriate weapon(s), and has completed all prerequisite documentation and uploaded in the Civilian Arming Approval Management

System (CAAMS). Once that is completed, the COR obtains the Requesting Official (RO) signature

(internal to USACIDC) on the RO memorandum; and then forwards the RO memorandum to the appropriate Senior Operational Commander (SOC) for approval and signature. The SOC signature requirements have varied in the past, however most are completed within one to two weeks. Upon receiving concurrence from the SOC, the RO memorandum is uploaded in CAAMS by the COR and the arming request is submitted (in CAAMS) to the Arming Contractor Oversight Directorate (ACOD) for QC and Legal Review. The ACOD prepares an Arming Authorization Letter (AAL) for approval and signature by the Deputy Commanding General (DCG), U.S. National Support Element – Afghanistan (for

Afghanistan) (USNSE‐A). Once approved, the ACOD forwards the AAL via email to the COR, and also uploads it in CAAMS. The COR ensures the Program Management’s Assistant Operations Officer is provided a copy of the AAL who provides it to the LEP. At that point the LEP is ready for movement to the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC). The contractor is held accountable only for those portions which it has control over.

Question 71: IDIQ PWS C.15

Will the arming agreements be processed through the AFG MOI and approved by DIAG and the APPF?

Answer 71: Per USCENTCOM, CAAMs is the only system to be used for all arming approvals in

Afghanistan. The ACOD provides the specific instructions and forms to be used and uploaded into the

CAAMs system for approval. The contractor must have someone in their management trained in the

CAAMs system and have access to QC and upload documents. The COR also has functions in CAAMs to upload certain documents, QC and transmit to the ACOD staff. Daily coordination via telephone and email is usually required between the contractor’s Program Management and the COR for this function.

Upon receiving the Arming Authorization Approval Letter (AAL), it is the contractor’s responsibility to then obtain an Afghan Weapon Permit, IAW the bilateral security agreement and Afghan procedures for each LEP.

Question 72: IDIQ PWS C.15

If an authorized DOD LE LEP weapon is seized by AFG Police or MOD personnel is an assessed fine a reimbursable costs?

Answer 72: U.S. Contractors (company and individuals) are subject to Afghan Law IAW the security agreement between the US and Afghanistan. As such, there is potential for a situation such as this to occur. All weapons authorized under the LEP contract are U.S. Government weapons, and so the U.S.

Government (Department of State and/or Resolute Support) would be involved with the Afghanistan

Government in order to have the weapons returned. Any potential fine imposed by the Afghan

Government would be the responsibility of the contractor, and would be negotiated on case by case basis with Army Contracting Command on whether or not the fine is reimbursable.

Question 73: IDIQ PWS C.3

Will the Government please provide the specific countries of performance in order to process the Host

Nation Business License?

Answer 73: Afghanistan is the only country for performance at this time.

Question 74: IDIQ PWS C.5. Scope

The CRC for all contractors is Fort Bliss, Texas, Can an alternate CRC be used besides Fort Bliss, such as government approved site in the US?

Answer 74: No. Current policy (CENTCOM) requires use of the CRC. No other options are allowable/acceptable, as Ft Bliss is the Army’s designated CRC.

Question 75: IDIQ PWS C.6.a

The contractor is responsible to provide personnel who are appropriately trained and ready for immediate deployment into theater from the CRC, when filling current vacancies or new positions. The contractor is responsible for coordinating all travel, billeting, and meals of LEP or CMT personnel to complete all necessary administrative in‐processing and orientation training prior to their arrival at the

CRC. These costs are reimbursable as other direct costs (ODC). This mentions travel, billeting, meals etc.

Do the LEP's and OCONUS Staff receive a deployment kit ‐ such as uniforms (5.11's), cold weather gear, load bearing vests, etc.?

Answer 75: See IDIQ PWS C.28.b.(1) and (C.28.b.(2) for the specifics.

Question 76: IDIQ PWS C.7. Key Personnel

The PM shall be a retired Army Military Police O‐6/Colonel with an excellent working knowledge of military police, investigative organizations and operations as well as a good understanding of military organizations and operations and have prior experience managing contracts in COCOM.

Does this include USAF OSI or NCIS GS 15 or above or US Flag officer?

Answer 76: No. The requirement speaks for itself and is stated in IDIQ PWS C.7.a.(1)(b). See also Q69

Question 77: IDIQ PWS C.7. Key Personnel

The CM must have been a prior LTC/O5 or COL/O6 Military Police Officer, does this include USAF OSI or

NCIS GS 15 or above or US Flag officer?

Answer 77: No. See answer to #76.

Question 78: IDIQ PWS C.8.b.(3).(d)

“Experience as a supervisor, manager or task force lead in a federal agency, federal task force state agency or large police department.”

Does this include USA CID, USAF OSI and USN NCIS?

Answer 78: No. See revised IDIQ PWS.

Question 79: IDIQ PWS C.8.b.(5).(a)

“Experience as a warden, deputy warden / assistant warden, unit manager, supervising officer, supervisory lead or shift supervisor in a state or federal corrections institution/setting…”

Does this include the US Military Disciplinary Barracks at Ft Leavenworth, KS?

Answer 79: Yes.

Question 80: IDIQ PWS C.14.a.(1). Pre‐Hire Weapons Qualifications.

All LEPs must qualify with an M9 and selected LEPs also on the M11 prior to arrival at the CRC and must obtain an Arming Authorization Letter (AAL) prior to arrival at the CRC. This qualification shall be conducted at a local range in the vicinity of the LEPs home area.

Is the pre‐hire weapons qualification criteria the same as ‐ referenced in section C.15.e?

C.15.e All weapons qualifications must be submitted on an official USG approved scorecard with the type of weapon clearly identified on it, the name/location/address of the range, and the printed names of the officer in charge (OIC) and range safety officer (RSO) and full signature of each (not just initials).

Answer 80: Yes. All scorecards whether fired at a local range in the vicinity of the LEPs home (pre‐hire), at the CRC, and re‐qualifications in Theater must be on and approved scorecard. The Contractors

Program Management can determine how they will provide them to the LEP.

Question 81: IDIQ PWS C.14.d.(2).

Upon arrival at the CRC and prior to any pre‐deployment training, LEP personnel will receive their issue of Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE), Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) or Special

Individual Protective Equipment (SPIE).

Kits do not include (military) uniforms, hat and field jacket. Should the contractor create a list of uniforms/mission clothing and essential items for a supplement deployment kit?

Answer 81: See #75.

Question 82: IDIQ PWS C.14.c.(3). Physical Agility Test.(Reserved)

This section is reserved, but is there a physical ability/agility requirement for the candidates?

Answer 82: No, there is currently no physical ability/agility requirement for this contract or for

Afghanistan.

Question 83: IDIQ PWS C.16.b.

The Contractor shall provide the USG with copies of invoices for equipment and vehicle leased ISO the

LEP Program in the Monthly Report. Are USG vehicles provided to the LEP's or CMT or is the contractor required to lease vehicles in support of the LEP program? (If so, how many?)

Are there vehicles in use/issued to the incumbent contractor?

How many, type and are they lease or GFE?

Answer 83: No. See also answers to Q2, Q7, Q67 and Q68. Currently there are no vehicles being leased on the current contract.

Question 84: IDIQ PWS C.26. Communications.

The contractor obtains four (4) cell phones for the PMO and CMT. All monthly telephone calling costs will be identified in the monthly invoicing. Costs while conducting Government business only shall be submitted as a reimbursable ODC. The USG is not responsible for other noncontract related telephone costs.

Are local phones acceptable, or do the phones need to have international calling capability back to the

US?

Answer 84: Four phones are authorized per the contract. The contractor will need to operationally determine what type of phone communications are necessary to effectively communicate and perform the contract. Routine communications with the CMT is done through the available Government‐ provided desk VOiP phones located in the office (see # 87).

Question 85: IDIQ PWS C.28.d.(1)(a).

Any LEP slated to be deployed for at least:

i. Twelve (12) months will be provided two (2) fifteen (15) day DONSA periods exclusive of travel.

ii. Nine (9), but less than 12 months will be provided one (1) fifteen (15) day DONSA period exclusive of travel.

Does the 15 days start upon CONUS arrival?

States exclusive of travel days, are those the in‐country travel days or from theater to the US?

Answer 85: Yes, if the DONSA location is within CONUS/U.S. Alternatively, if a DONSA is taken in a foreign country (i.e. Germany), the 15‐days begins upon arrival in the foreign country. However, if travel to a foreign country for DONSA takes more travel days then would be required to travel to CONUS, then the DONSA days begin on the day arrival in CONUS would have otherwise occurred.

Question 86: IDIQ PWS C.28.d.(1)(a).

The intent is to provide personnel with a full fifteen (15) day DONSA period in CONUS, exclusive of travel

Does the DONSA period have to be to CONUS locations, or can it be to another location preferred by the

LEP?

Answer 86: Does not need to be CONUS or U.S. May be a foreign country. See answer to #85.

Question 87: IDIQ PWS C.28.c.(1)

The CID Task Force will provide any automation support for the CMT.

Will CID provide computers, printers, etc? (Definition of automation support?)

Answer 87: The CID Task Force provides the CMT with office space, computers (NIPR/SIPR/CENTRIX), printer access (may be networked on same as CID elements), scanners (if necessary/available) and land‐ line phone (DSN VOiP and SVOiP).

Question 88: IDIQ PWS C.8.a.(1).

Experience gained as a sworn member of a municipal, county, state or federal LE or Corrections agency.

Will the USG accept Military Police experience as a qualifier for a LEP position, or only civilian?

Answer 88: See IDIQ PWS C.8.b and C.8.c.

Question 89: IDIQ PWS Program Management C.7.a.(1)(b)

The government stipulates that the PM shall be a retired Army Military Police Colonel at the 06 level.

May offerors submit candidates at the 05 or 07 levels who meet all other requirements?

Answer 89: See answers to #69 and 76. The requirement speaks for itself and is stated in IDIQ PWS

C.7.a.(1)(b).

Question 90: IDIQ PWS C.8.b.(2)

The government states that LEP I personnel: “Must have a Top Secret (TS) Clearance, and suitable for employment in a billet cleared to TS/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Select LEPs will be required to have SCI Eligibility.”

Will the government please clarify which LEP positions will carry an SCI clearance, or provide the criteria by which such decisions will be made?

Answer 90: In accordance with the Task Order PWS para, C.4.a (Manning Requirement Break‐out) chart on page #2 (notes column), the following positions require SCI: Train Advise Assist Command‐South

(TAAC‐S) and JTF Parwan LEP 1s.

Question 91: IDIQ PWS C.14.a.(1).

Pre‐Hire Weapons Qualifications. The Government states: “All LEPs must qualify with an M9 and selected LEPs also on the M11 prior to arrival at the CRC and must obtain an Arming Authorization Letter

(AAL) prior to arrival at the CRC.”

Will the government please provide either a list of the ‘selected LEPs’ or the criteria by which the selection decision is to be made so that the contractor may inform these personnel that they also must qualify on the M11 prior to arrival at the CRC?

Answer 91: In accordance with the Task Order PWS para, C.4.a (Manning Requirement Break‐out) chart on page #2 (notes column) all JTF‐Parwan LEPs require the M11. All Investigative LEPs projected for a

JTF‐Parwan…