WDTC Site Visit and Pre-Sol Conference QandA_posted 19Feb2025_complete.xlsx

MSS Site Visit 04-05Feb2025 Q&A

No fixed numbers. Rather, we assign our housing based on a prioritization system. Soldiers are Priority 1, then assorted CIV, and Contractors are Priority 5.

2. What is the housing application process?

Submit a DD1746 and necessary documents. This allows one to be assigned into available housing or join the waiting list.

3. Can you provide a current rental pricing list?

Attached. 2025 rents start April 6. Accordingly, availability and pricing is subject to change.

4. What is the time period for approval and occupancy?

If a DD1746 and necessary documents are submitted and we have suitable available housing, we can normally assign someone into housing in 7 days or less.

https://dugway.armymwr.com/programs/coyote-run-rv-park-and-campground

Access to the DPG RV Park is fairly easy. If there are spaces available, customers are welcome to complete a contract. There are 21 full hook up sites of which 11 are available but that can change as time goes on. It cost $330 a month and if renter wants access to the laundry facility it will be an additional $20 a month. DPG is looking at increasing prices in the future but no timetable set at this time. If renters have pets, they will need to provide the vet records and fill out the pet policy sheet as well. Some of the full hook ups are not winterized so if a renter plans on staying for over a year they will need to put heat tape on their waterlines. The contract addresses complete rules and restrictions but for the most part, DPG's RV Park is like any other federal campground.

Potential Offerors shall note, however, criteria at M.5.3.2.1, that indicates the Government will consider the scope of work being performed on the MSS effort in determining relevancy for individual contracts proposed for review and evaluation.

Key factors contributing to this challenge include:

1. The Government's limited ability to forecast beyond six to twelve months.

2. The potential for Task Order awards to subcontractors for specialized services (not accounted for in the historical data).

3. The three-year historical data provided in Technical Attachment A5, which may not accurately reflect future requirements.

To address these concerns and ensure a fair, competitive procurement process that yields the best value for the Government, we suggest the following revision to the pricing proposal and evaluation approach:

Recommendation: Establish a fixed number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for all contractors to bid against, supplemented by plug numbers to account for unforecasted surge, Contract Work Orders, and other variable costs.

Benefits of this approach:

1. Enables accurate evaluation based on Wrap Rate, Fringe, and other costs.

2. Prevents unrealistically low bids that may compromise service quality.

3. Ensures the Government receives the required industry-leading Test & Evaluation and Range Support.

4. Provides a level playing field for all offerors, focusing competition on efficiency and value rather than speculative staffing estimates.

5. Aligns with the dynamic nature of WDTC requirements and the potential for task order-based specialized services.

We recommend the Government consider this approach to enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of the WDTC procurement process, and prevent unrealistically low bids. This method balances the need for competitive pricing with the reality of fluctuating requirements, ultimately serving the best interests of both the Government and industry partners. The Government understands the challenges identified by industry, however, adopting the recommended approach limits flexibility in proposed approaches and creates it's own challenges tied to unbalanced or unrealistically low prices should an offeror elect to adjust the government's figures.

Accordingly, the final RFP will include a scenario-based cost/price proposal action for address within the Program Management subfactor AND the Cost proposal. This provides a level of specificity for all Offerors to price on solicited scenarios, but still provides the flexibility for an Offeror to propose a solution based on their unique approach to supporting MSS, a performance based requirement.

60 History During the Industry Day, the Government mentioned on several different occasions that Contract Work Orders (CWOs) or Task Orders were executed with the MSS Contractor, resulting in subcontractors conducting all work in execution of these orders. To ensure accurate workload forecasting and pricing, we request the following information:

1. The number of CWOs or Task Orders executed in this manner over the past three years.

2. The three-year average cost or associated Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for these CWOs or Task Orders.

This information proves critical for offerors to forecast the required FTEs and associated costs accurately. We propose two potential solutions to address this data gap:

Option 1: The Government provides these costs as a Plug Number in the RFP, ensuring all offerors account for this workload consistently.

Option 2: The Government reflects the approximate hours for these CWOs or Task Orders in Attachment A, allowing offerors to factor this work into their proposed estimate of FTEs and price.

We believe that providing this additional information or implementing one of the proposed solutions enhances the accuracy of proposals and ensures a level playing field for all offerors. This approach aligns with the Government's interest in receiving realistic and competitive proposals that accurately reflect the full scope of work under the WDTC contract. The Government is unable to provide the number of CWOs or historical average as the need for subcontract support is dependent on the contractor's internal capabilities to meet the unique needs of WDTC, which will vary across contractors. Further, the government has privity of contract with only the prime contractor. Visibility as to which CWOs they choose to subcontract and how many is not information that is available. Depending on teaming arrangements of offerors, the arrangements made for covering assigned CWOs will vary and will not be dictated by the Government.

Lack of this data does not impact the Government's ability to receive competitive, unique technical solutions to support requirements.

For example: If the employees will be working at both the Secret and Top Secret level then the FCL is required to be at the Top Secret level. This ensures that the facility where the employees will be working can handle, store and protect classified information.