Attachment 0019_QA ResponsesAMD2_8OCT2020.pdf

Attachment 0019 ‐ Q A Response Amd2

Question # Question Reference (RFP #, PWS

#, etc.)

Question Answer

1 TD‐06 The TD‐06 Key and Non Key was not included in the initial files. Does this conract require Key and Non Key positions? Will the government provide the TD‐06 in followon amendments?

TD‐06 ‐ Key and Specified Non‐Key Positions is not applicable to this requirement.

2 Attachment 007 Will the government provide an updated Attachment 007 with the WDs for Fort Hood TX and Jacksonville FL?

Attachment 0007 ‐ Wage Determinations has been updated to reflect the latest released wage determination revisions for all locations.

3 PWS, page #4, Paragraph 1.1.2 The PWS states, A listing of supported organizations is in Technical Data (TD), TD‐03 Supported Organizations.TD‐03 isn't provided in the government provided attachments. Will the Government provide TD‐ 03 Supported Organizations as referenced in the PWS?

TD‐03 Supported Organizations is not applicable to this requirement. The PWS has been updated to show Paragraph 1.1.2 as "RESERVED".

4 RFP, Page #50, L.5.2.1.1 (C) (xi) Usually, The Government will express the maximum available work hours in section L.5.2.1.1 (c) (xI) or will express the maximum avialable works is "not specfied". Did the government intend to not use section L.5.2.1.1.(c) (xi)? If not, will the government provide the maximum available work hours?

This FFP requirement does not express min/max work hours.

Offerors shall review the amended RFP at L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(iv) and populate their FTE hours accordingly on Attachment 0002. No maxium available hours will be provided as this is a FFP requirement subject to the Service Contract Act in which offeror's shall propose IAW the respective Dept of Labor Wage Determination's.

5 TD‐01 The adminstrative row CLIN 0002AA, Fort Belvoir, VA. provides workload data hours of 1491. Workload data of 1491 generates a fractional FTE. Will the government verify the provided workload data?

The Government has verified the provided workload data. The hours provided support historical workload data.

6 TD‐01 The adminstrative row CLIN 0002BA, San, Diego, CA. provides workload data hours of 1491. Workload data of 1491 generates a fractional FTE. Will the government verify the provided workload data?

The Government has verified the provided workload data. The hours provided support historical workload data.

7 TD‐01 The adminstrative row CLIN 0002CA, Jacksonville, FL. provides workload data hours of 1491. Workload data of 1491 generates a fractional FTE. Will the government verify the provided workload data?

The Government has verified the provided workload data. The hours provided support historical workload data.

8 TD‐01 The adminstrative row CLIN 0002DA, Joint Base Lewis‐McChord, WA.

provides workload data hours of 1491. Workload data of 1491 generates a fractional FTE. Will the government verify the provided workload data?

The Government has verified the provided workload data. The hours provided support historical workload data.

9 TD‐01 The adminstrative row CLIN 0002EA, Fort Hood, TX. provides workload data hours of 1491. Workload data of 1491 generates a fractional FTE. Will the government verify the provided workload data?

The Government has verified the provided workload data. The hours provided support historical workload data.

10 TD‐01 Travel/Adminstrative Additional provided workload data for each location is very small. Will the government verify the workload data and adjust as required?

The additional hours in TD‐01 are minimal historical overtime hours and should be considered when submittig a proposal proposing. No adjustments required and the Government verifies the workload data.

11 RFP, Page 48, L.5.2.1.1(a)(3) The RFP Seciton L.5.2.1.1(a)(c) States the Staffing and Managemetn Plan (SMP) is limited to 4 pages.

With the requirements to be addressed along with the org charts, will the Government increase the page limit to 8 pages?

IAW L.5.2.1.1(a)(3) the Page Limit remains Four (4) Pages

12 PWS, Page 19, 1.8.2 The PWS states that "Additionally, the contractor shall, following each and every reportable accident, administer a mandatory drug screening in order to determine if drugs or alcohol caused or where a contributing factor."

Will the government provide a list of reportable accidents, as they pertain to this contract?

The Government has provided regulatory guidance to all offerors.

Offers shall follow guidelines in accordance with AR 385‐10 and DA

PAM 385‐40.

13 Attachment 0005 This locked attachment contains formula errors, specifically , in the Cost_Price_Abstract_Tab_1a, the summation contained in cell J7 does not capture all the costs contained in row 7. This summation omits column I, resulting in an erroneous total for FFP CLIN 0002. Will the Government revise the form, correcting the errors?

Attachment 0005 has been updated

14 TD‐04 The TD‐04 narrative states normal hours of operations are Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with a 30‐minute lunch break for an eight (8)‐hour workday. That sentence in itself does not add up.

Will the Government please clarify the normal hours of operation requirement?

The Government has updated narrative in TD‐04.

15 TD‐04 Under the "Hope or Work Area" of TD‐04, it lists all work sites are open from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Is it correct to assume these are the hours expected to be manned during the workday with two (2) 15‐ minute breaks and one (1) 30‐minute lunch break, as this results in the employee's eight (8)‐hour workday?

The Government has updated narrative in TD‐04.

16 RFP, Page 43, Paragraph L.5.1.6.1 Attachment 0006

Paragraph L.5.1.6.1 requires a review of the Offeror's accounting system regarding a cost‐reimbursement type contract and corresponding Standard Form (SF) 1408. This contract, however, is a Firm‐Fixed Price (FFP) type contract. Will the Government please review and clarify this requirement, and if not necessary and/or applicable, please remove it?

Removed Attachment 0006

17 Attachment 0001, Page 5, Paragraph 1.2.5

Paragraph 1.2.5 requires the contractor to "ensure a staffing capacity of 10% of its effort in anticipation of unscheduled activities and workload fluctuations." Will the Government please clarify this requirement as meaning: A) the contractor must maintain 110% workload staffing capacity; B) the contractor must always be prepared to have an additional 10% total labor capability over workload for workload fluctuations; or C) other?

The offeror must be able to adjust to workload fluctuations up to an estimated 10%

18 TD‐01 Will the Government please clarify the historical breakdown of "Travel/Administrative Additional" row six (6) hours as they apply to the individual three (3) separate labor categories above in Rows 3, 4, and 5?

The additional hours in TD‐01 row 6 apply to all positions in rows 3‐

19 TD‐01 Are the hours in TD‐01, Row 6, "Travel/Administrative Additional," representative of estimated annual overtime?

Yes

20 Attachment 0001, Page 5, Paragraph 1.2.5

Regarding workload fluctuations, will the Government please provide both the historical frequency and corresponding historical increase of workload fluctuations on an annual basis over the past three (3) years?

TD‐01 represents the average annual workload. Fluctuations may vary based on operation tempo, mission requirements, and other factors; however, the Government has provided through TD‐01 the best available information as to the average annual workload.

21 Attachment 0001, Page 5, Paragraph 1.2.5

Regarding workload fluctuations, will the Government please provide the number of times annually over each of the past three (3) years that there has been a workload fluctuation up, the average duration by year and the average increase in Full‐Time Equivalents (FTEs) by each year when such an upward fluctuation occured?

TD‐01 represents the average annual workload. Fluctuations may vary based on operation tempo, mission requirements, and other factors; however, the Government has provided through TD‐01 the best available information as to the average annual workload.

22 Attachment 0001, Page 5, Paragraph 1.2.5

Regarding workload fluctuations, will the Goverhment please provide the number of times annually over each of the past three (3) years that there has been a workload fluctuation down, the average duration of each by year and the decrease in FTEs of each by year when such a downward workload fluctuation occured?

TD‐01 represents the average annual workload. Fluctuations may vary based on operation tempo, mission requirements, and other factors; however, the Government has provided through TD‐01 the best available information as to the average annual workload.

23 Attachment 0001, Page 5, Paragraph 1.2.5

TD‐01

Will the Government please clarify and/or explain any linkage between the TD‐01, Row 6, "Additional" hours and the Attachment 0001 Paragraph 1.2.5 workload fluctuation requirements?

No relation between additional hours and workload fluctuation. TD‐ 01 additional hours is overtime for positions within the document and PWS 1.2.5 is related to workload fluctuations for additional requiremets.

24 Attachment 0001, Page 5, Paragraph 1.2.5

TD‐01

If there is no connection between the TD‐01, Row 6, "Additional" hours and Attachment 0001 Paragraph 1.2.5 workload fluctuation, will the Government please fully clarify and explain the purpose of the Row 6 "Additional" hours?

Additional hours are historical overtime hours identified for proposal purposes

25 RFP, Page 49, Paragraph L.5.2.1.1(b)(2There are five (5) geographically‐separated work sites on this requirement; however, Paragraph L.5.2.1.1(b)(2)(iii) requires "onsite," independent quality control with direct coordination with the Corporate Quality Office. Further, Attachment 0002 does not specify any quality personnel, nor is there any TD‐06, "Key and Specified Non‐Key Personnel," required. Will the Government please clarify whether they are asking for an independent quality function capability (FTE) at each work site on this project and/or what exactly is the quality requirement?

L.5.2.1.1(b)(2)(iii) revised to remove "onsite."

26 Attachment 0001, Page 13, ParagraphWill the Government please provide the average number of times the Project Manager (PM) (or other Corporate Officer) is required to attend briefings, conferences, or other Government‐designated meetings in the execution of this effort or as requested by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) (other than the five (5) annual site quality visits/reviews), and where such meetings will be located?

The government will not provide this information.

27 Attachment 0001, Page 11, Paragraph 1.4.1

TD‐01

TD‐04

Given JPPSO offices are required to be staffed eight (8) hours a day, five (5) days a week for 40‐hour weeks, will the Government please provide the weekly hours expected of each Site Lead given their 32 hours a week requirement?

TD‐01 is an estimated historical hours break down by TASK not person. Offerors should use their own staffing solutions to meet all requirements of the RFP.

28 A achment 0007TD‐01 The senior skilled travel labor category makes a higher wage than the Lead position (including the 5% lead uplift) in San Diego, CA. Will the Government please provide any historical and/or expected practice to ensure the Lead position is paid more, above the WD, than the subordinate travel positions he/she leads?

The contractor must provide its own staffing solution based on its applicable business decisions that are consistent with the RFP. The Government cannot provide any further information related to this question

29 Attachment 0001, Page 15, Paragraph 1.5.2.1 Attachment 0012

Is it a correct statement that no site personnel on this contract require a SECRET clearance, and if not, will the Government please clarify the requirement as the Attachment 0012 does not specify?

DD Form 254 (Att 12) requires personnel at San Diego and Jacksonville locations to have secret clearance eligibility (block 8a), furthermore blocks 11m (cont'd in block 13) requires Tier 3 investigations for access to NAVSUP sites (San Diego and Jacksonville). ADDITIONALLY, block 10k & 11m (cont'd in block 13) references contractor requires access to FOUO across all sites/contract performance.

30 Attachment 0001, Page 15, Paragraph 1.5.2.1 Attachment 0012

Attachment 0001 Paragraph 1.5.2.1 requires the contractor to have the capability for receipt, storage, and generation of classified materials up to and including SECRET; however, the DD‐254 does not support this requirement. Will the Government please clarify this requirement?

DD Form 254 (Att 12) requires personnel at San Diego and Jacksonville locations to have secret clearance eligibility (block 8a), furthermore blocks 11m (cont'd in block 13) requires Tier 3 investigations for access to NAVSUP sites (San Diego and Jacksonville). ADDITIONALLY, block 10k & 11m (cont'd in block 13) references contractor requires access to FOUO across all sites/contract performance.

31 RFP, Page 49, L.5.2.1.1(b)(2) Attachment 0002

TD‐01

TD‐01, Row 6 has a requirement for "Travel/Administrative Additional" which in Column D (Task) repeats all three (3) above separate and different task requirements and corresponding all three

(3) above separate and different required labor categories. Will the Government please clarify how they want this one (1) line item of very minimal hours identified on the Attachment 0002 and Organizational Chart in terms of a labor category?

Additional hours are historical overtime hours identified for proposal purposes

32 TD‐01 TD‐01, Row 6 has a requirement for "Travel/Administrative Additional" which in Column D (Task) repeats all three (3) above separate and different task requirements and corresponding all three

(3) above separate and different required labor categories. Will the Government please clarify how they want this one (1) line item mixed with three (3) separate and different labor categories priced per hour?

Additional hours are historical overtime hours identified for proposal purposes

33 RFP, Page 54, Paragraph L.5.4 Currently there isn't any file for assumptions in Volume 4. Where should Offerors provide assumptions in Volume 4?

The RFP does not require any proposal assumptions.

34 PWS, TD‐01 Historical Workload Data

In TD‐01, the Government mapped Travel tasks to SCA Travel Clerks I and II. Based on the PWS requirements, and the WD Labor Task descriptions, the Travel Clerks do not meet the job requirements.

PWS task align more with LCat General Clerks.

Would the Government reconsider the LCat required to perform PWS job tasks?

The Government does not dictate which labor category to propose, Contractor's are to use their own unique solution to staff the requirements.

35 TD‐01 Historical Workload Data The Task column for Administration indicates the requirement is a Lead position. This part‐time lead (0.8 FTE) will be supervising approx. 24 personnel at the Jacksonville, FL and Fort Belvoir, VA locations.

Due to the large span of control, would the Government consider changing this position to a full‐time exempt supervisor at the Jacksonville, Fl and the Fort Belvoir, VA locations?

Offerors must meet all the requirements of the RFP and must develop an appropriate staffing solution. The Government has provided through TD‐01 the Historical Workload Data to allow offerors to compete intelligently and on an even playing field;

however, it is the responsibility of the offeror to review the requirements, including the TD‐01 information, and propose an adequate staffing solution.

36 TD‐01 Historical Workload Data Would the Government consider changing the Part‐Time Lead (0.8 FTE) at Fort Hood, San Diego, and McChord, WA to a Full‐Time Lead?

The Government is not providing a minimum only historical and the Contractor is to staff their proposal to meet ALL requirements of the RFP.

37 Attachment 12, DD 254 DD Form 254 (Att 12) implies that personnel at San Diego and Jacksonville locations have secret clearances.

Would the Government clarify if all personnel at these two locations require secret clearance?

DD Form 254 (Att 12) requires personnel at San Diego and Jacksonville locations to have secret clearance eligibility (block 8a), furthermore blocks 11m (cont'd in block 13) requires Tier 3 investigations for access to NAVSUP sites (San Diego and Jacksonville). ADDITIONALLY, block 10k & 11m (cont'd in block 13) references contractor requires access to FOUO across all sites/contract performance.

38 Attachment 12, DD 254 (a) Will personnel at the Ft Hood, Fort Belvoir, and JBLM locations require a secret clearance?

(b) If answer above is yes, which personnel at Hood, Belvoir and JBLM require a secret clearance?

DD Form 254 (Att 12) requires personnel at San Diego and Jacksonville locations to have secret clearance eligibility (block 8a), furthermore blocks 11m (cont'd in block 13) requires Tier 3 investigations for access to NAVSUP sites (San Diego and Jacksonville). ADDITIONALLY, block 10k & 11m (cont'd in block 13) references contractor requires access to FOUO across all sites/contract performance.

39 General What is the final due date for Q&A's? It does not appear to be included within the solicitation package.

12 OCT 2020 per amended RFP

40 Attachment 0005 How should PM costs be priced on Attachment 0005 due to the PM working from a corporate site and there is no PMO CLIN identified?

This is a business decision for each respective contractor.

41 RFP Section L.5.4.2.7(b) Are onsite personnel required to perform any travel? Travel requirements are identified in PWS para. 1.4.2.1 42 TD‐01 Workload Data ‐ PPO PWS

5.2/Administrative The CLIN hours are showing 1,491 which indicates these positions are part‐time. Is this correct or should they be full‐time (1864 hours)?

No, the question assumption fails to account for cross utilization.

TD‐01 is an estimated historical hours break down by TASK not person.

43 TD‐01 Workload Data ‐ Travel/Administrative Additional

Are additional hours presented for this section overtime projections?

How is distribution of these hours differienatied among the labor categories?

Additional hours are historical overtime hours identified for proposal purposes

44 Attachment 0017 The number of telephones do not match the number of positions provided in TD‐01, are these numbers correct? The number of computers do match the number of personnel per site.

GFE list has been verified. but is subject to change.

45 W52P1J20R0055, page 47, L.5.1.6.2 As this is a FFP contract with no ODC and for a limited number of SCA WD personnel, recommend removing this requirement.

removed L.5.1.6.1 & L.5.1.6.2

46 W52P1J20R0055, page 47, L.5.1.7(b) The information required by this paragraph should be included in the pricing volume. Recommend moving all references to Volume 4, Attachment 0005 to paragraph L.5.4.

There will be no change to the RFP regarding this question.

47 W52P1J20R0055, page 56, L.5.4.2.5. As this is a FFP contract, recommend deleting the requirment for DCAA/DCMA POCs.

There will be no change to the RFP regarding this question.

48 W52P1J20R0055, page 54, L.5.4 Cost/Price Factor.

Does the Govt require a Cost Price Narrative document or only Attachment 0005?

Only attachment 0005 per the RFP.

49 W52P1J20R0055, page 56, L.5.4.2.7. Does the Govt require a cost price buildup showing all direct/indirect rates to support the FFP rates provided in Attachment 0005?

No per the RFP.

50 W52P1J20R0055, page 2, A.7. As there is an incumbent contractor, can the Govt provide the number of incumbent employees and there hire date so that we can calculate the productive hours for SCA WD requirements (PTO, etc.).

Government does not have this data, it will be provided as a deliverable to the newly awarded contractor during transistion period from incumbent.

51 Attachment 0005, Allocation Tab 1b Allocation Tab 1b includes a column for the Offeror to input Option to Extend values for each CLIN as opposed to calculating automatically at 50% of Option Year 4 values. Is this correct?

This is correct

52 L.5.4.2 Cost/Price Proposal Specific Instructions.

Does the Government want the contractor to provide all cost/pricing assumptions and associated rationale in a narrative format

No per the RFP.

53 PWS, page #32, Paragraph 5.2 As per 5.2, the RFP indicates The Department of Army will be transitioning to a new operating system that will replace the Defense Personal Property System (DPS). The new system is tentatively scheduled to start a two‐year phased approach beginning sometime in Calendar Year 2021. The RFP advises the contractor that certain functions may be required in both systems until the transition is complete. Please clarify which functions may be required in both functions.

It is unknown at this time.

54 PWS, page #32, Paragraph 5.2 Additionally, with regard to the notice in 5.2, are there checks built into the system during the time of transition?

The government is unaware of any at this time.

55 PWS, page #32, Paragraph 5.2 Also regarding 5.2, it appears our personnel will be required to dual input during the transition from the legacy system to the new system as referenced in PWS. Please confirm if this is the case.

Yes, this is the case.

56 PWS, page #32, Paragraph 5.2 Re: 5.2, Assuming personnel are required to dual input during this two‐year phased approach, can you please provide additional information regarding the phased approach such that we can adequately account for impacts on staffing, which will differ from historical staffing. For example, will all sites cut over simultaneously from the legacy system or will the transition be staggered? Is the phased approach referencing the roll out across individual sites or functionality? How long will the transition period last? Additional information will help the Contractor better assess the impact to operations.

All sites will transition from the legacy systems at the same time.

Phase in for MilMove (post development) is approximately 12‐ months. MilMove, DPS and ETOPS will be used to counsel, process, award shipments, approve and certify invoices. DPS and ETOPS (Legacy Systems) Sunset is tentatively scheduled September 2022.

57 PWS, page # 34 para. 5.2.9; page # 34 para. 5.2.13.1; page # 35, para.

5.2.14; page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 ;

page # 40, para. 5.2.25.1/5.2.25.2

There are numerous tasks in the PWS that indicate that the Contractor may be liable for the additional costs. In order to understand the potential risk and likelihood to incur such costs, would the Government please provide historical information regarding additional costs for which the contractor was liable?

Over the past five years no additional costs have been incurred.

58 PWS, page # 34 para. 5.2.9; page # 34 para. 5.2.13.1; page # 35, para.

5.2.14; page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 ;

page # 40, para. 5.2.25.1/5.2.25.2

Alternatively, please provide the volume of shipping for these five offices and their success rate(s). For example, if these five offices do 100M in annual shipping and have a 99.5% success rate, this is potentially up to a $500,000 annual cost to the contractor for failures for which the contractor was liable.

The awardee will not allocate or book any shipments at the five sites, they will assist USG employees (allocators) that process the shipments. Therefore, the contractors are not liable if the shipment does not get booked.

59 PWS, page # 34 para. 5.2.9; page # 34 para. 5.2.13.1; page # 35, para.

5.2.14; page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 ;

page # 40, para. 5.2.25.1/5.2.25.2

Is there a way to determine with the current or future system that an error is attributable to the original JPPSO office and not the software or further downstream?

No.

60 PWS, page # 34 para. 5.2.9; page # 34 para. 5.2.13.1; page # 35, para.

5.2.14; page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 ;

page # 40, para. 5.2.25.1/5.2.25.2

How does the government determine an error is attributable to the contractor?

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. This will be provided at time of award

61 PWS, page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 Given that a DD1299 may initially be filled out by either a Servicemember or Contractor, how does the Government determine if a mistake is attributable to a contractor or a servicemember?

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. This will be provided at time of award

62 PWS, page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 Please confirm as per 5.2.22.1, that the process for annotating the DD1299 requires the Contractor to contact and document each NTS NSP contacted starting with the lowest rated and working upwards in terms of rates until they identify one that is available.

A servicemember may generate a DD1299 by filling out an application on move.mil. If the servicemember does not do this, the counselor in the front office may also generate the form. The front office counselor verifies that all information is correct before forwarding to the back office for execution. The contractor would not be responsible for mistakes made in the front office, but does verify that the information is correct coming from the front office.

The TSP is not selected until the request is sent to the back office for execution. Contractors do contact the TSP and verify rates, but these are pre‐determined in DPS for routine shipments. If there is a short‐fuse shipment, it is offered up to the first available TSP regardless of the cost.

63 PWS, page #37, para. 5.2.22.1 As per 5.2.22.1, please provide historical figures for what amount of additional shipping cost(s) annually are charged to the Contractor for not annotating the DD1299 if the lowest rated NTS TSP is unable to handle the shipment.

None