Industry QA (16March22).docx

DOCX document 24 KB Posted

Attached to
Demilitarization Research & Development (R&D) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
W15QKN-22-R-0016
Issued by
Department of the Army Materiel Command Contracting Command Picatinny Arsenal

About this file

This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for Demilitarization Research & Development services. The solicitation will result in a five-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with both Firm Fixed Price and Cost Plus Fixed Fee task orders to support the US Army's Product Director for Demilitarization in developing and improving conventional ammunition demilitarization technologies and processes. The contract will be a 100% set-aside for small businesses, with proposals due by March 22, 2022. Task orders may be awarded on either a FFP or CPFF basis depending on the nature of the work.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 20

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Demil Solicitation Number W15QKN-22-R-0016 Questions / Answers to Industry

Q1. Is a DCAA-audited and approved accounting system required to provide cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) pricing for this solicitation?

An approved accounting system for cost type CLINs will be required. However, if the offeror does not currently have one, an Offeror can still submit pricing, along with the completed checklist in Section J, Attachment 0008 of the solicitation, entitled “PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM CHECKLIST”. The completed checklist will be submitted to DCAA after award if the successful Offeror does not have a current approval of their system. DCAA will conduct a review of the design of the Offeror’s accounting system. NOTE: Only the design of the accounting system will be reviewed. It does not need to be fully implemented, pending successful award of the contract. The design of the system must only show how the system will work and how it will be adequate for accumulating the actual costs associated with the Cost type CLINs.

Q2. Instead of providing both FFP and CPFF, we request that the Government allow the option of providing either firm fixed price (FFP) or CPFF pricing at the bidder’s discretion.

Answer: The Government’s intention is to issue *each task* as either CPFF or FFP. There are a variety of possible tasks, and the decision of CPFF or FFP will depend on the nature of each individual task. This is the method that was decided upon by all Government parties during the acquisition planning phase and is currently not subject to change.

Q3. If a pricing option in addition to FFP is required, will the Government accept time-and-materials (T&M) pricing in lieu of CPFF pricing?

Answer: The solicitation as it stands only allows for CPFF. All CLINs listed as CPFF should be proposed as such unless an amendment is issued to the solicitation.

Q4. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee type contract does not fit our business model. Would a proposal submission which indicated we would only accept task orders utilizing a Firm Fixed Price type contract be rejected?

Answer: The Government’s intention is to issue *each task* as either CPFF or FFP. There are a variety of possible tasks, and the decision of CPFF or FFP will depend on the nature of each individual task. This is the method that was decided upon by all Government parties during the acquisition planning phase and is currently not subject to change. Therefore, unless a solicitation amendment is issued in the future, only proposals submissions utilizing both contract types will be accepted.

Q5. In the Past Performance section, can non-U.S. Government projects be referenced and used, i.e., projects for commercial entities or foreign governments?

Answer: Yes, as long as the projects/efforts are within the past 3 years and indicates similar efforts of equal or greater complexity have been performed using the Offerors existing plant capability and demonstrate satisfaction of customer requirements.

Q6. For the small business portion, is >50% of the work required for each task or for the overall contract?

Answer: Overall contract Q7. Are subcontractors required to supply DCAA documentation/payroll records as part of the pricing?

Answer: For CPFF labor, offerors as well as subcontractors are required to provide sufficient documentation to support the direct labor rates proposed. The required data, in order of preference is included in Section L.4.3.3.3 of the solicitation.

Q8. Are FFP labor rates required of subcontractors, or just CPFF labor rates?

Answer: In accordance with Section L.4.3.2 of the solicitation, for FFP labor, only one FFP fully loaded labor rate is submitted for each labor category. Separate rates are not required for the offeror and subcontractors. However, for any SCA covered labor category that will be provided by a subcontractor, the offeror may need to obtain documentation from the subcontractor to complete the required data and ensure SCA compliance.

Q9. How will the government determine what future tasks will be awarded on FFP labor rates versus CPFF labor rates?

Answer: It depends on the nature of the task/how complex the requirement is and how clearly the government can define the requirement. In addition, once the contract is awarded, the government will consult with the contractor in making the determination, to do what makes for the best approach.

Q10. Can a named subcontractor elect to only participate on FFP tasks, without providing CPFF labor rates?

Answer: It is the offeror’s decision on the utilization of subcontractors for FFP and CPFF tasks. Only subcontractors with CPFF rates on contract will be able to perform on CPFF tasks. Offerors need to ensure the requirements of the PWS will be met and are consistent with the Management Approach detailed in the Offeror’s technical proposal for both FFP and CPFF effort.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .