W52P1J-17-R-0059_Questions_and_Answers_2.24.17.pdf

QUESTION ANSWER

In the RFP, the file naming conventions are different, see examples. Question: Should there be an Underscore

(_) where there is a space in the Offeror’s company name? Is there a consistent naming convention we should use?

o OfferorName_SF33 o Offerors_Name_PMP o Offeror's_Name_BOE

The Offeror should follow the naming structure given in each section of the RFP. Please note there are no compliance requirements for document naming conventions.

Discussion: In the past, the recency requirement for Past Performance was 5 years, yet now it’s 3 years.

Question: Will the Government consider allowing the recency requirement be 5 years?

"Past Performance" will not be evaluated at the BOA level. However, "Experience" is a sub‐factor to the Technical evaluation which includes a recency timeframe of three years. At this time, references provided for the

"Experience" subfactor will be determined recent in accordance with L.5.2.4(b)(1).

Can BOA holders propose new subcontractors in Step 3 Task Orders responses that were NOT part of the Step 2 BOA proposal?

Yes, Section A paragraph #4 states, "Offerors must demonstrate the technical capability to perform all three functional areas. That technical capability may be achieved with or without subcontractors. In subsequent Step Three proposals (i.e. Task Order proposals), offerors are not required to propose those subcontractors used to establish technical capability in Step Two (i.e. BOA process); however, an offeror shall propose itself and any subcontractors necessary to meet the evaluation criteria and successfully perform the requirements of each Task Order."

The final RFP release was not noted in the FBO page where the EAGLE releases for this have been posted and there was no pointer to a new RFP number within FBO. Please allow contractors who are just learning of this at least a 1 week extension.

An extension will not be granted. In accordance with FAR 5.203, a pre-solicitation synopsis was issued on 13 January 2017 on FedBizOpps identifying the final RFP release date.

From the last Q/As: On Page 2, response to the second question, “b) Yes, offeror's are required to identify specific subcontractors if required to meet the criteria for performing any functional area. Further, those identified subcontractors will also be required to have the supporting experience or contract reference as part of the proposal as indicated at Section M. " Also, The government noted that not ALL PWS paragraphs require experience submissions. QUESTION: Please confirm that that not every subcontractor needs a Past Performance form (Attach 003) and that discussion of subcontractors in the TCS is adequate.

If a subcontractor's experience is needed in order for an offeror to successfully execute the requirements identified in L.5.2.2(b)(2) through L.5.2.2(b)(4), the offeror shall provide those references in the Attachment 0003, Experience Matrix for the applicable functional areas. Only subcontractors that are being proposed in order to perform a functional area are required to have an Experience submission.

Please confirm that the PMO discussion only refers to staffing-- and not the task order management approach and processes discussed in the TCS. If it does not, may we cross reference sections?

The Government will evaluate the PMO in accordance with M.2.4; however, offeror's may cross reference documents within the Technical Volume if the offeror believes it to be beneficial to the Government understanding its approach.

The government is requesting that the TCS and the RSE be searchable PDFs. We would like to include a flow diagram or graphics in these files; however, the diagrams are not searchable as they are generally created in graphics software. Is it acceptable if the text of the document is searchable in the PDF and would not include graphics? Further, Attachment 0003 requires a signature. Generally, they are signed and scanned (which would make this document not a fillable PDF). Would the government accept a jpeg signature to accommodate this?

The Government would prefer the noted documents be provided in the format requested to the greatest extent possible. However, please note there is not a compliance requirement for the format of this document.

The PDF has a signature option using "work with certificates" that will leave the document as text searchable. For offeror's that do not have the ability to sign with certificates please use "place signature function" available in Adobe to sign the form. Jpeg is also acceptable.

Reference EAGLE II BOA RFP, paragraph L.5.2.4. Question: One of the relevant contract references includes two

Bridge contracts that extends the period of performance over two years. Block 3 of Attachment 0003 does not allow for more than one contract number be listed. Will the Attachment 0003 be modified to allow more than one contract number that includes Bridge contracts? If not, please provide guidance on how Offerors should address this issue on the Attachment 0003. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Attachment 0003 has been modified to allow additional space in Block 3.

Is a contractor who currently has a BOA required to submit a new proposal or can the existing BOA be renewed?A contractor who currently has a BOA is required to submit a new proposal against this solicitation to have the opportunity to continue within the EAGLE program.

What constitutes an ACA?

Per FAR Information Guidance (IG) 5317.9000, “Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) are agreements between contractors working on government contract projects that specify requirements for them to share information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, or resources". Please refer to FAR IG 5317.9000 for further information and guidance.

Referencing L.1.1, are these instructions applicable to both Step 2 (BOA) and Step 3 (TOs)?

Please review each RFP carefully as each RFP will contain its own instructions.

This requires that specific labor categories must be addressed by the Contractor. How is a Contractor supposed to address this requirement without a specific workload or will the Final RFP contain a sample TO where the workload is provided?

Refer to the RSE RFP L.5.2.2(b)(1) through L.5.2.2(b)(4) language and propose labor categories specific to those areas identified in the RFP. FTE numbers are not required for this submission; only the specific labor categories an offeror is proposing to perform the effort along with the rationale. Also, please reference language in

L.5.2.2(c).

Is the page count for the BOE (4 pages) included in the page count for the RSE (13 pages)?

No, the BOE and RSE document have separate page limitations. Please refer to L.5.2.2(a)(3) for the RSE page limit and please refer to L.5.2.2.(c)(3) for the BOE page limit.

Questions and Answers (Q and As) based on Solicitation - 17 February 2017

This requires that the Contractor identifies the tasks that the Offeror and subcontractor(s) will perform. How is a Contractor supposed to address this requirement without a specific workload or will the Final RFP contain a sample TO where the workload is provided?

Refer to the RSE RFP L.5.2.2(b)(1) through L.5.2.2(b)(4) language and propose labor categories specific to those areas identified in the RFP. FTE numbers are not required for this submission; only the specific labor categories an offeror is proposing to perform the effort along with the rationale. Also, please reference language in

L.5.2.2(c).

This requires that the Contractor identifies the leads, supervisors, management, etc, that will be used. How is a

Contractor supposed to address this requirement without a specific workload or will the Final RFP contain a sample TO where the workload is provided?

Refer to the RSE RFP L.5.2.2(b)(1) through L.5.2.2(b)(4) language and propose labor categories specific to those areas identified in the RFP. FTE numbers are not required for this submission; only the specific labor categories an offeror is proposing to perform the effort along with the rationale. Also, please reference language in

L.5.2.2(c).

Is there a sample task order to respond to as part of the EAGLE BOA renewal process? We are getting feedback from industry partners that there is, but we are unable to locate it on FBO.

No, there is not a sample task order associated with the EAGLE BOA RFP. Technical requirements are provided within the RFP. All RFP documents have been posted on FBO.

Question: Can SBA approved 8(a) Joint Ventures also compete for EAGLE Small Business (SB) Set‐Aside task orders? Yes, 8 (a) Joint Ventures can compete on EAGLE Small Business Set‐Aside Task orders.

L.5.1.5 requires submittal of a PCP, but Section M does not state that the PCP will be evaulated. Please clarify? Section M, M.1.3 states how the property management plan will be evaluated.

The Ind Day Slide says "L.5.2.2.(c) states "Proposed position titles not identified in the SCA Directory of

Occupations (5th Edition) must be defined by the offeror in its RSE (see L.5.2.2(b))." Does this apply only to SCA non‐exempt labor categories or does it also include exempt labor categories that are part of the BOE?

Government Feedback Applies to SCA only. The RFP will be updated to reflect this information. but the RFP only says "Proposed position titles not identified in the SCA Directory of Occupations (5th Edition) must be defined by the offeror in its RSE (see L.5.2.2(b))." The question is must Position Descriptions be provided in the RSE for exempt personnel?

Per L.5.2.2(c), offerors must define any proposed labor category that is not identified in the SCA Directory of Occupations 5th Edition. This means that you must define the exempt labor categories as well as the non‐exempt. This response was also provided in the Q&A from the Draft RFP. The Industry Day

Slides is not where this question has been formally answered; please refer to the Q&As.

There are several problems we have come accross in working with Attachment 0003. Issue #1: on each page there is a “Experience Submission Number : __ of 3” at the top of the page and you are to fill in 1, 2 or 3. The first template is Maintenance, if you fill a “1” in there when you get town to the third maintenance template there is a 1 there already and if you change it to a 3 then the first one changes to a 3, somehow they are linked and need to be unlinked.

Issue #2: Block 1 for the company name is limited to a single line of about 36 character and spaces and does not wrap as other block do. Can’t put the full legal corporate name in and using the full corporate name may result in a compliance issue.

Issue #3: Block #3 has a similar issue but is limited to about 67 character and space. Some contract numbers with TO suffixes and full contract names cannot be inserted such as the full legal contact name. The box text does not wrap as some other boxes do.

Issue 1: Resolved. See updated Attachment 0003.

Issue 2: See page 1 of the updated Attachment 0003. The BOA offeror name block has been increased.

Abbreviated offeror name on subsequent pages is allowed.

Issue 3: Block 3 has been updated to accommodate 159 characters.

Issue #4: Block #5 award and POP dates. The RFP says “L.5.2.4(c)(6) Line 5: The required format is

MM/DD/YYYY” yet if you attempt to do this an error message come up saying you need to enter in “dd‐mmm‐ yy” format. When you do it displays the information in another format “dd‐mmm‐yyyy” This is a compliance issue.

Issue #5: In the second Maintenance template it will not let me enter any text in Block #10 for the COR, it superimposed as a red text floating box in the middle of the form.

Issue #6: On some templates (not all) in Box #7 and #10 the text shows up in a very much larger font that the other boxes. You cannot control text font in style or size from what I see on this pdf form.

Issue 4: Resolved

Issue 5: Resolved

Issue 6: Resolved

GovWin states 'The Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (AMC), Army Sustainment Command

(ASC), has a requirement for Year 3 requirements under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE)

Program as the eighth Step 2 BOA RFP." " Is this statement true?

No, the statement is not correct. W52P1J‐17‐R‐0059 is not Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) 8 and is not the year

3 requirements. W52P1J‐17‐R‐0059 is the RFP commonly referred to as "EAGLE II". W52P1J‐17‐R‐0059 BOA RFP contains the requirements identified for approximately the next 12 months. Current EAGLE BOA holders must propose against this solicitation to have the opportunity to continue within the EAGLE program. Please note

Govwin is not a Government resource, please use FBO and the EAGLE website at http://www.acc.army.mil/contractingcenters/acc_ri/eagle/index.html.

Question – Section L.4.1.1 of the RFP requires that all documents include “the complete offeror's name, offeror's CAGE Code, BOA RFP number, and proposal submission date in a header and/or footer”. The format of

Attachment 0003 – Experience Matrix, does not allow us to add this data. May we assume this information is not required for our completed Attachment 0003 submission?

This information is provided elsewhere in Attachment 0003 and is not required to be in the header or footer as the format does not have a header or footer.

Will the Government accept experience within the past 5 years?

Past Performance will not be evaluated at the BOA level. However, "Experience" is a sub‐factor to the Technical evaluation which includes a recency timeframe of three years. At this time, references provided for the

"Experience" subfactor will be determined recent in accordance with L.5.2.4(b)(1).

Will the Government consider experience of the management team in lieu of or in addition to company experience? Not at this time.

L.5.2.2(c) states, "Labor Basis of Estimate (BOE): The offeror must provide its labor basis of estimate, in narrative format, in relation to the BOA PWS requirements associated with the PMO, maintenance, supply, and transportation functional areas identified at L.5.2.2(b)(1) through L.5.2.2(b)(4). The offeror's BOE must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the effort through its analysis of the effort, realistic assumptions and staffing decisions in order to successfully perform the PWS requirements associated with the PMO, maintenance, supply and transportation functional areas identified at L.5.2.2(b)(1) through L.5.2.2(b)(4). " The second paragraph of this section goes on to say, "functional area elements identified at L.5.2.2(b)(1) through

L.5.2.2(b)(4). ". Can the Government clarify if the Labor BOE must address the entire Functional Area or rather only the elements identified within L.5.2.2(b)(1) through L.5.2.2(b)(4)?

In accordance with L.5.2.2(c,) offerors must address only the elements identified at L.5.2.2(b)(1) through

L.5.2.2(b)(4)

The RFP Instructions at L.5.2.2.(b) state "The offeror shall provide a RSE in a narrative format based on the information provided in its TCS and in support of the PWS requirements." (Emphasis added). The RSE narrative must clearly identify and detail an approach relative to each of the functional areas noted below..." The functional areas noted at L.5.2.2.(b)(1) through (4) are PMO, Maintenance and Supporting Operations, Supply

Services and Transportation Support. The PWS at sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 states "The following subparagraphs outline the tasks that will be evaluated under Step Two (BOA)..." We want to comply with the RFP instructions and give the Government a complete response, but are unsure whether to address all PWS requirements of each functional area. As an example, Central Issue Facility (CIF) Operation for Organization Clothing and

Individual Equipment (OCIE) is outlined at subparagraph 2.2.2 of the 2.2 Supply Services section of the PWS. CIF operation is an installation‐based service, unrelated to a Unit Supply Support Activity, its property accountability actions nor its use of LIS. So while CIF is a task outlined within the PWS requirements of the Supply Services functional area, it is exclusive of the tasks called out in the RFP instructions. We ask the Government to clarify what it will evaluate in the RSE: all tasks outlined in the PWS subparagraphs or only those specified in

L.5.2.2.(b)(1) through (4)?

The language from the PWS at sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 which states "The following subparagraphs outline the tasks that will be evaluated under Step Two (BOA)..." has been removed in amendment 0002. In accordance with the RFP, the RSE narrative needs to support the functional areas noted at L.5.2.2(b)(1) through (4).

We are struggling to understand the requirement to completely re‐propose as oppose to a MOD for the

Attachment 0003. As you are aware, small businesses are resource constrained and every dollar counts.

I requesting your assistance to see the government will allow a MOD to the existing contract for existing BOA

Holders.

IAW DFARS 216.703 Basic Ordering Agreements, the period during which orders may be placed against a basic ordering agreement may not exceed 5 years. That period was determined after the first EAGLE BOAs were executed. All current EAGLE BOAs will remain in effect until 28 Sep 2017.

Therefore, all current EAGLE BOA Holders will require a new BOA.

Additionally, the technical standards offerors will be evaluated against at the BOA level have been changed. For instance, the team arrangement process has changed and some components of an offeror’s BOA Technical approach will be incorporated into any Step 3 Task Order award. These are just two examples of the Follow‐On

EAGLE BOA changes. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors desiring to compete for future EAGLE requirements submit a proposal in response to this BOA RFP.

How do we put a header on the Att 0003 if it is an uneditable locked document. This information is provided elsewhere in Attachment 0003 and is not required to be in the header or footer as the format does not have a header or footer. Section L.4.1.1 has been revised in Amendment 0002.

I believe I need to have all of my subcontractors sign the cover page and send to me so I can include them if I choose to use their PP submission, correct? If so, how would you like us to prepare our final Matrix to you? Can I attach just the signature page for each sub and include them in our Team submission?

Only the Offeror proposing on the BOA RFP is required to sign the Attachment 0003 indicating that it is authorized to provide the referenced experience. Subcontractors are not required to sign the Attachment 0003.

On the new Attachment 0003 box 3 on the 3rd Maintenance, Supply and Transportation sheets is only allowing

10 characters which is not adequate to enter a contract number.

As revised in Amendment 0002, the Attachment 0003 has been updated to allow for the appropriate number of characters.

We understand that the proposal will be "machine read". Question #1: How will acronyms affect the machine read document? Question #2: Due to the limited space in block 11 can we forgo defining acronyms if they are used in the Government provided PWS?

The Government does not have the ability nor the intent to have any contractor's proposal be "machine read."

All EAGLE source selections are conducted by subject matter experts in accordance the DOD Source Selection

Manual, the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations (to include the DFARS and AFARS as appropriate) and the terms and conditions of the solicitation. If the acronym is in the Government PWS offerors can forgo defining the acronym.

Can you confirm the Eagle II BOA is now just called the Eagle BOA please? At Industry Day the BOA was referred to as the "Eagle II BOA", but was later referred to as just "Eagle" in the solicitation. I just want to make sure it isn't a successor BOA like the LOGCAP I, II, III, IV & V.

Yes, the BOA discussed at the Industry Day is for the follow‐on EAGLE BOA effort (what you describe as “EAGLE

II”) and corresponding task orders. The synopsis for this requirement was released on 13 January 2017 and the

RFP number W52P1J‐17‐R‐0059 was released on 2 February 2017. It is important to note that the Acquisition strategy for EAGLE was extended; therefore references made to EAGLE II should be referenced as the “follow‐on to EAGLE.” The program will still be called “EAGLE” and the reference to “EAGLE II” in the industry day slides was used to help industry clearly understand that the current EAGLE Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA’s) would expire at the end of FY17, thus requiring industry to submit new proposals for new BOA’s under the follow‐on effort. As presented in the EAGLE November Industry Day slides, the follow‐on EAGLE BOAs are scheduled to be executed in July 2017 with Task Order competitions to begin in August 2017. The synopsis provides estimated task order projected award dates.

Questions and Answers (Q and As) based on Solicitation - 24 February 2017