NMS_QA_2_May_2016.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 185 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NMS Draft Solicitation Announcement
- Solicitation number
- W56HZV15R0139
About this file
Updated Q A responses.
View the file
Other files
Show all 45
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| QUESTION | ANSWER | |
| 1 | Will the Government confirm that ground equipment and weapons are no longer a maintenance requirement, as they were omitted from the attachment 0001 density list changes published on 24 February 2016? | The requirement still includes ground equipment. Final RFP will include the omitted density listing for ground equipment. Weapons have been removed from the requirement entirely. |
| 2 | Will the Government please provide the Afghan National Army Personnel Density Projection, as this data was omitted from the version of attachment 0003 published on 24 February 2016? | Final RFP will include the omitted Personnel Density listing for the ANP. |
| 3 | Section L released 26 February omits the requirement to address FAR clause 252.237-7024 “Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. Can the Government confirm whether this was simply an omission or that offerors do not have to provide a plan for mission-essential contractor services with their proposals? | Refer to Section L-14 of the RFP for the information regarding FAR clause 252.237-7024. |
| 4 | RFP paragraph 3.2.1.1 Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance on page 479 provides contractor performance standards for both the MoD and the MoI for each year of the contract. In option year four, the standard for the MoD is to complete 0% of maintenance work orders. For the MoI, the standard for option year four is 15%. The performance standard for the MoI appears to be at odds with the mission of enabling the ANDSF in its entirety to be self-sufficient in maintaining and sustaining its vehicles and ground equipment, while maintaining combat readiness. Can the Government confirm whether the performance standard for the MoI in option year four is actually 15% as stated or 0% so that it is consistent with the MoD standard and, therefore, fully supportive of the Coalition exit strategy from Afghanistan? | The performance standards stated in the PWS are correct. |
| 5 | RFP paragraph 3.2.1.1 Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance on page 479 provides the contractor performance standard for completion of 100% of maintenance work orders within the timeframe indicated in Attachment 0017 unless deferred with COR approval. Attachment 0017 (AMOD/ANA Decree) does not specify timeframes for the completion of work orders. Can the Government provide the work order completion timeframes? | Work order completion timeframes will be consistent with Decre 4.9 (Attachment 0017) and with the level of maintenance required. |
| 6 | RFP Section C, paragraph 2.6 Phase-in states in part, “The USG will inform the contractor the priority for standing up each of the regional locations.” Based on this statement, can the Government confirm that offerors will not be expected to describe the sequence for standing up operations in each region in their phase-in approach narratives? | The USG will provide a priority listing of locations at time of award. Offerors shall provide the approach to phase-in, in accordance with Section L. |
| 7 | FP Section C, paragraph 3.1.1.1 states in part, “The contractor shall conduct Maintenance Management Training and Mentoring (MMTM) to the ANDSF maintenance management personnel on the maintenance systems (ANDSF manual (See glossary) and I-GET (See glossary), supply chain systems (ANDSF manual (See glossary) and CORE-IMS (See glossary), supervision of maintenance and supply personnel, maintenance and supply processes, maintenance and supply operations, and QC processes to achieve Transition.” To date, none of the material released by the Government addresses who the developers or proponents for these systems (ANDSF manual maintenance system, ANDSF manual supply system, CORE-IMS, and I-GET) are. Additionally, none of the material released by the Government provides documentation in the form of User’s Manuals for these systems. In order to develop the training materials required for this contract and to hire personnel experienced with these systems, offerors will need to obtain this documentation or be provided the name and contact information for the system proponents or developers. Can the Government please provide this information to all offerors? | CORE-IMS will be used as the inventory management system (CLASS IX Repair Parts). The asset management system (Property Book Items (Class VII)) and the maintenance management system are currently being tested by the ANDSF and CSTC-A. The final asset management and electronic maintenance system will be determined by final RFP release. |
The manual supply and maintenance systems utilize hard copy (Paper) MoD/MoI forms.
CORE-IMS information can be found at the following website: http://www.coreims.com/ and the maintenance system called out in the Draft RFP "I-GET" will not be used as the electronic maintenance system. The maintenance system will be identified at time of final RFP release.
8 To date, none of the material released by the Government addresses who the developers or proponents for these systems (ANDSF manual maintenance system, ANDSF manual supply system, CORE-IMS, and I-GET) are. Additionally, none of the material released by the Government provides documentation in the form of User’s Manuals for these systems. In order to develop the training materials required for this contract and to hire personnel experienced with these systems, offerors will need to obtain this documentation or be provided the name and contact information for the system proponents or developers. Can the Government please provide this information to all offerors? CORE-IMS will be used as the inventory management system (CLASS IX Repair Parts). The asset management system (Property Book Items (Class VII)) and the maintenance management system are currently being tested by the ANDSF and CSTC-A. The final asset management and electronic maintenance system will be determined by final RFP release.
The manual supply and maintenance systems utilize hard copy (Paper) MoD/MoI forms.
CORE-IMS information can be found at the following website: http://www.coreims.com/ and the maintenance system called out in the Draft RFP "I-GET" will not be used as the electronic maintenance system. The maintenance system will be identified at time of final RFP release.
| 9 | What is the current level of implementation of I-GET at Level 1 (Organizational and Provincial), Level 2 (Regional – EMS and RMC), and Level 3 (National) within both ANA and ANP? | I-Get is no longer a requirement for National Maintenance Strategy. The electronic maintenance system currently being tested will only be at all RMC, RLSC and EMS sites. The Kandacks for the ANA and the Provincials for the ANP will not have an electronic maintenance system and will utilize the ANDSF manual system to process all work orders. |
| 10 | Is I-GET being used at the ACOP Sites? | I-Get is no longer a requirement for National Maintenance Strategy. The electronic maintenance system currently being tested will be at all ACOP sites and will be identified at time of final RFP release. |
| 11 | At what levels will the contractor be required to operate and maintain I-GET? | I-Get is no longer a requirement for National Maintenance Strategy. The electronic maintenance system identified in the final RFP release will be provided by the USG. The contractor shall operate the electronic maintenance system within the parameters in the contract for training and metoring and CLS. The USG will provide all license and software upgrades. The contractor shall ensure all licenses and software upgrades are installed and up to date. |
| 12 | Will the USG provide reference material for CORE-IMS prior to release of the final RFP? | The USG will not provide any reference material for CORE-IMS. CORE-IMS is a commercially available system and information can be found on their website: http://www.coreims.com/ |
| 13 | What is the current level of implementation of CORE-IMS at Level 1 (Organizational and Provincial), Level 2 (Regional – EMS and RMC), and Level 3 (National) within both ANA and ANP? | CORE-IMS Systems are currently being deployed through out Afghanistan. CORE-IMS will be at all regional and national level sites. The Kandacks for the ANA and the Provincials for the ANP will not have an electronic inventory management system and will utilize the ANDSF manual system to process all part requisitions. All regional and national level sites are scheduled to be operational at time of contract award. |
| 14 | Is CORE-IMS being used at the ACOP sites? | CORE-IMS is not currently being used at the ACOP sites. CORE-IMS will be utilized at all ACOP sites and is scheduled to be operational at time of contract award. |
| 15 | At what levels will the contractor be required to operate and maintain CORE-IMS? | The contractor shall operate CORE-IMS within the parameters in the contract for training and metoring and CLS. The USG will provide all license and software upgrades. The contractor shall ensure all licenses and software upgrades are installed and up to date. |
| 16 | Are there any other logistics automation systems besides I-GET and CORE-IMS that the contractor will be required to operate and/or maintain? | The final RFP will contain the logistics automation system requirements. |
| 17 | Are CORE-IMS and I-GET integrated? | I-Get is no longer a requirement for National Maintenance Strategy. The current testing of the electronic maintenance system is to integrate capabilities with CORE-IMS. |
| 18 | Training and Mentoring for ANA G-4 Staff, ANA AT&L Staff, and ANP G-4 Staff were in the previous draft RFP but not in the current draft. Has the requirement for executive level maintenance management and supply chain management training and mentoring been removed from this contract? | It has been removed because Coalition forces are now providing the necessary training for ANDSF leadership. |
| 19 | For small business subcontracting planning, what is the NAICS code for this procurement? | The NACIS Code for this procurement is 541614. |
| 20 | L.4.1.1 states, “provide information for a total of up to three recent and relevant contracts performed by the offeror.” Will a prime contractor be allowed to use a recent and relevant contract of a major subcontractor as part of their response to the Past Performance Factor? | For the three contracts that will be evaluated, a maximum of two shall be submitted for the offeror and a maximum of one for the Significant Subcontractor. |
| 21 | L.4.1.1.2 lists three PWS activities to be considered for relevancy. Does a single contract have to include all three activities in order to be evaluated as relevant? | No. Contractor does not need to submit one contract to be evaluated against all three activities. Refer to section L.4.1 |
| 22 | Please provide information for the MOI and ACOP facilities. It would also be helpful for offerors to be provided with facility condition status reports, if available, and some pictures in order to gauge the condition for estimating facility maintenance requirements. It will be very difficult to estimate facility maintenance based on the information provided in Attachment 0019. | Information regarding MOI and ACOP facilities are not available for release. |
The contractor shall include in its proposal all equipment necessary to manage MOI and ACOP facilities provided by the USG or the ANDSF listed in Attachment 0019.
| 23 | Does the USG intend to provide any historical workload data or repair parts demand history or vehicle/ground equipment condition status information with the final RFP? | No historical data will be released with the final RFP. Historical workload data, part demand history and updated density listings will be provided at contract award. |
| 24 | We noticed that Personnel Security is shown as an unexercised option throughout the Base Year CLINs. What is the intent for Personnel Security in the Base Year? | As an option CLIN, the Government has the discretion to exercise this option at initial contact award through the parameters outlined in the option CLIN clauses. |
| 25 | We did not receive the Attachments referenced in Sections L and M. When will they be released? | All RFP attachments will be released at time of final RFP release |
| 26 | Is it only the ACC that will be part of the SSA and SSEB? Will there be representation from any other organization or country? | Proposals will be evaluated by appointed Government personnel in accordance with DFARS 215.3. |
| 27 | For the Past Performance volume, is the offeror restricted to three examples total for their proposal or is the offeror permitted three examples each for the prime and every subcontractor? | Contractors shall submit up to three recent and relevant contracts. For the three contracts, a maximum of two shall be submitted for the offeror and a maximum of one for the Significant Subcontractor, per the instructions provided in Section L.4.1.1.1 in the final RFP. |
| 28 | Has a final acquisition schedule and closing date been established? | Government anticipates release of the Final RFP to be July 2016. |
| 29 | Will the Government review the Cost/Pricing forms required for proposal submission on Industry Day? | The USG will not provide any Cost/Pricing forms. |
| 30 | Will the USFOR-A or Coalition provide MILAIR transportation to all operating locations? If not, to which in-country operating locations will MILAIR be provided? | MILAIR will be provided to Other Country Nationals and EX-Patriots for emergency evacuations purposes only. MILAIR will not be provided to Local Nationals. |
| 31 | Will the USFOR-A or Coalition deploy a Quick Reaction Force in cases of an emergency evacuation or enemy assault on ANA/ANP worksite locations? Also, for security planning purposes will the USFOR-A or Coalition assist in identifying the closest QRF assets with respect to ANA/ANP worksite locations? | In emergancy situations or evacuations the Coalition will provide Quick Reactionary Force support to the ANDSF locations where USG and contractor support personnel are living and working. Coalition forces will provide emergency evacuation services for Other Country Nationals (OCN) and EX-Patriots (Expats) only. The USG will reimburse the contractor for all reasonable, allowable, and allocable costs related to emergency evacuations and extractions. |
| 32 | Will the USFOR-A or Coalition provide a security/threat brief to contractor personnel once they are in country? | No security /threat briefs will be provided by either USFOR-A or Coalition forces. |
| 33 | Will the USFOR-A or Coalition provide assistance when the contractor must coordinate with the Afghan Ministry of the Interior and Afghan Personnel Protection Forces? | No, USG will not coordinate with the Ministry of Interior or Afghan Personnel Protection Forces. It is the contractor's responsibility to coordinate with both. |
| 34 | Based on the Draft RFP, will any security support be provided under DFARs 252.225-7995 Contractor Personnel Performing in the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility? | There will be no Coalition security support for personnel performing within CENTCOM Area of Responsibility. |
| 35 | Please describe the type and composition of the security support? | Security conditions are dynamic. The contract will contain an option for personnel security. If exercised, the contractor will have control over type and composition of security it provides in accordance with Afghanistan law. |
| 36 | The Draft RFP contains DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. Does the Government anticipate covered defense information will be provided to the contractor or will be generated by task activities under this contract? | Yes. The Government anticipates covered defenese information will be be provided to the contractor and generated by task activities under this contract. |
| 38 | Is this work covered under the Walsh-Healey, Davis Bacon, or Service Contract Acts (SCA)? Is this an A-76 Transition? | The Walsh Healy Act does not apply for supplies manufactured or furnished outside the U.S.; Under the Davis Bacon Act - the contractor will not be painting, constructing or altering any facilities or public building located in Afghanistan in the performance of the contract; Service Contract Act only applies if the work being performed under the National Maintenance Strategy is performed within the US or its territories. Since services for NMS is being performed overseas, Wage Determination is not applicable. |
| 39 | What Security Clearance is required? | No security clearances are required since the bases are all ANDSF controlled. |
| 40 | What is the planned work week- number of days and which days of the week, total number of hours contractor employees shall be available for work? | This contract requires performance at various locations throughout Afghanistan (see Attachment 0002). Normal Afghan workdays are Saturday through Thursday with the exception of Afghan Holidays. Refer to RFP Section C, paragraph 2.5 |
| 41 | Will the Government please check and verify all CLIN contract types and provide industry with consistent, verified CLIN structures for bidding purposes? | The Government will verfity and ensure the CLIN Structure reflects the correct information. |
| 42 | Will the Government please confirm that it's intention is to cap indirect rates proposed only when they differ from current FPRS or FPRA rates? | There is no cap for indirect rates. If your proposed rates differ from your current FPRS or FPRA rates, provide rationale in accordance with Section L.4.3.6.7.1 |
| 43 | Since we anticipate most all of the work to be performed in Afghanistan, please confirm if it is the Government’s intent to have Small Business (SB) Goals on this Contract. If it is the intent to keep the SB evaluation factor in this solicitation, please explain this conflict. | Yes it is. The Government anticipates evaluating small business participation. |
| 44 | Will the list of today's attendees, including contact information, be released to promote partnering opportunities for companies still looking to partner? | An announcement will be posted on FBO providing instructions to companies regarding how to submit company information to be placed on a master list of potential subcontractors that will be posted on the FBO NMS webpage. |
| 45 | Is there an equivalent US grade level that the training materials need to be written too? | No, the training material should be written to an Afghanistan appropriate level. U.S. grade level cannot be determined due to different regions and their education levels in Afghanistan. English translation to Dari, pictoral based information and hands on training work best for their learning and understanding. |
| 46 | Is there a requirement for the Prime Contractor to have a DCAA approved accounting system? | Section L will include the requirements regarding the accounting system. |
| 47 | What is the requirement for a security clearance in the new RFP? | There is no current requirement in the RFP for security clearances. |
| 48 | Will the Government consider adding use of the Afghan Companies as an evaluation factor to both support the Afghan economy and build the capacity of Afghan Firms? | No, we do not anticipate evaluating the use of Afghan companies. |
| 49 | Has the Government considered adding a mentor protégé program similar to the ANDSF Facilities O&M program, where Afghan owned firms will be used to perform aspects of the NMS work? | FAR Clause 52.219-4070 PILOT MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM is included in the RFP. |
| 50 | The contractor is responsible to lease a 128 bay facility in Kabul. Is there an existing lease or must the contractor secure a new facility? | The RFP contains the requirements for the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF). The contractor has the discretion on how to satisfy the requirement. For example it can be one or multiple facilities in one location, as long as it meets the requirements in the RFP. |
| 51 | What supply management system is the contractor required to use for its CLS responsibilities? | CORE-IMS will be utilized for the inventory management system for training and mentoring the ANDSF and to perform CLS. |
| 52 | The Army has asked contractors to price security, dispite the fact that the unbrella security contract is being implemented. Will this cost be part of the pricing evaluation? | Yes. Security pricing will be part of the evaluation factor, as stated in Section L. |
| 53 | Why has senior leader mentoring dropped off? | Coalition forces will be supporting this requirement. |
| 54 | Will the Government please clarify whether any life support facilities or equipment (i.e. generators) will be provided as GFE? | The contractor shall include in its proposal all necessary life support for its personnel. |
The contractor shall include in its proposal all equipment necessary to manage facilities provided by the USG or the ANDSF listed in Attachment 0019.
| 55 | Will the government indentify by position who must have a security clearance by level of clearance? | No clearances will be identified. |
| 56 | What educational or literacy level should be assumed for the Afghan Trainees? | The contractor shall provide English to Dari translation, classroom and shoulder to shoulder training. Due to the different education levels in Afghanistan, pictoral based information and hands on training work best for their learning and understanding. |
Section L addressess how the offeror should address assumptions upon which its proposal is based.
| 57 | will the contractor have a requirement to provide targeted education for Afghan to support the maintenance and supply tasks - e.g. reading comprehension for manuals or arithmetic for shop measurements and tolerences? | Contractor will have to provide how it will train and mentor in accordance with RFP. |
| 58 | What does NMS stand for? | National Maintenance Strategy - Developed to achieve an organic maintenance and sustainment capability in the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) for vehicles and |
ground equipment.
| 59 | Has the MOD and MOI leadership formally accepted their responsibilities under NMS? | At this time, there is not any formal agreement in place. |
| 60 | Will there be an affordability Cap for security? | No, security is not included in the affordability cap in accordance with Section M.2.1.3 |
| 61 | Where will TACOM determine if the contractor will be utilizing its security solution provided in the proposal or if security will be provided under the DoD's alternative security services contracting vehicle that is projected to be available before April 2017? | Decision will be made upon execution of option for security. |
| 62 | Will TM'S and training materials be produced in English and Dari (not Pashtu) only? | Yes, English and Dari will be the only two languages for the technical manuals and training materials. |
| 63 | Technical Manual Translation - Will translation only encompass a direct word for word translation of existing technical manuals, or will alternative format structured toward how the end-user learns be entertained? | The RFP includes the requirements for translation. |
| 64 | What measures does the Government have in place to control pilferage of parts, usage of counterfeit parts and corruption issues related to procurement by the Afghan government of spare parts? | CSTC-A and MoD/MoI mentoring and advising will address any pilferage issues. The contractor shall reference Section C, paragraph 3.2.3 of the RFP regarding counterfeit parts. |
| 65 | Can the Government confirm that the reference at L.4.1.1.5 to "other than the Corporate Entity or Division" could include proposed subcontractors? | The Government confirms. |
| 66 | During the September 2015 Industry Day, the published DRFP had a 36% SB requirement. Now, as of the 02MAR16 Industry Day, the Small Business requirement is now 3%. That is a 33% reduction.? | The previous released draft Request for Proposal (RFP) did not include a small business evaluation factor. The latest draft RFP (released February 2016) now includes a small business participation factor. The goals for this factor are as follows: 3.0% for Small Business (SB), 0.4% for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 0.4% for Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), 0.3% for HUBZone Small Business (HZSB), 0.3% for Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), and 0.3% for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB). Refer to Section M.4.4 for more information. The 3% goal is based on the entire contract value of NMS. This was figured out based on history of similar contracts and was based on the amount of work that would be done CONUS and then it was extended to show total contract value. |
| 67 | What is the difference between the subcontracting plan submission and the small business participation factor? | The differences between the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Factor, as outlined in Section L.4.4.9, are as follows: |
The Small Business Subcontracting Plan:
(1) is not required of small businesses.
(2) is developed and submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and its ALT II and DFARS 252.219-7003 incorporated by reference in Section I (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) and TACOM Clause 52.219-4004 in Section L.
(3) is evaluated in accordance with the FAR, DFARS, and AFARS.
(4) has goals that are expressed as a percentage of Total Subcontracting Amount.
(5) has goals broken out for the basic and each option separately.
The Small Business Participation Factor:
(1) is required of all offerors, including small businesses.
(2) is developed and submitted in accordance with this Section L clause.
(3) is evaluated in accordance with Section M.
(4) has goals that are expressed as a percentage of Total Contract Amount.
(5) has goals which are not broken out for the basic and each option separately.
| 68 | Will contractor employees be covered by the existing Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) or a similar bilateral agreement? | The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Afghanistan is for NATO forces and to cover its mission to train, advise and assist Afghanistan Forces. There is a Bi-Lateral Security Agreement in place with the U.S. and Afghanistan. Other Country Nationals (OCN) and Ex-Patriots (Ex-Pats) hired on the NMS contract will be provided Coalition support to evacuate their personnel in Emergency situations only. Local Nationals hired on the NMS contract are not covered for evacuation purposes and would be supported by their own government. The contractor shall follow all U.S. and Afghanistan laws under the NMS contract. Since the USG has little control of supervision, screening and oversight of contractor employees the USG will seek protection for OCNs and Ex-Pats only on a case by case basis for immunity within the Afghanistan judicial system. | |
| Additional Questions received | |||
| 69 | REFERENCE: Recent contracts are defined as, “those performed within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.” Considering that this solicitation has been delayed significantly, some good contract experience in Afghanistan is now outside this window due to the force draw down. QUESTION: Will the government consider increasing the definition of Recent contracts to those performed within five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation? | The Government will not alter the recent contracts experience from the previous 3 years. | |
| 70 | REFERENCE: Section L refers to Attachment 0014 as the Relevancy Matrix. The matrix provided as Attachment 0014 indicates ATTACHMENT 0017 in the top right hand corner. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the government please clarify the correct Attachment number? | Attachment 0014 has been updated to reflect the correct attachment number in the top right corner. | ||
| 71 | REFERENCE: The matrix appears to be an Excel spreadsheet saved to an Adobe Acrobat file. QUESTION: Will the government provide the template in Excel or Word format to facilitate standardization of submissions? | The Government will make a final determination of proper format for each attachment prior to RFP release. The formats determined will be what is released with the final RFP. | |
| 72 | REFERENCE: When completed, the staffing matrix could be a sizeable number of pages. Volume 2 – Mission Capability has a 60-page limit to cover the Management Approach, Training Approach, and the Staffing Approach. The completed Staffing Matrix is a required part of the Staffing Approach. QUESTION: Will the government consider excluding the Staffing Matrix from the page count in Vol. 2? | Attachments do not count towards the page limit, as descrbed in Section L. | |
| 73 | REFERENCE: The Travel CLINs (0033AA-AE and 0034AA-AE) reference PWS 2.8 which states, “The contractor shall invoice costs for travel IAW the Joint Travel Regulation Public Law 99-234 and FAR 31.205-46 Travel Costs.” This PWS reference has no indication of which travel costs are to be billed to the Travel. QUESTION: What travel costs, i.e. Phase-In (PWS 2.6), Intra-theater Transportation (PWS 4.2), and/or Official Business, are to be included in the Travel CLINs? | Contractor is allowed to bill in accordance with Section B and the JTR. | |
| 74 | REFERENCE: RFP states: “The offeror shall propose the total number of trips and total cost with a detailed explanation. The offeror may use a Cost Estimating Relationship (CER) for travel as an alternative estimating methodology. If a CER uses estimated travel, then please provide a detailed explanation supporting how the CER was developed.” The performance requirements of the draft RFP do not provide any basis of estimate for the travel requirements of this contract. QUESTION: If the government cannot provide more detail regarding the travel requirements, will the government consider using plug numbers for the Travel sub CLINs? | No, the offeror's proposed staffing matrix may dictate the amount of travel required. | |
| 75 | REFERENCE: RFP states: “The Government contemplates award of a Cost Reimbursement contract resulting from this solicitation.” QUESTION: The term “Cost Reimbursement” does not capture the FFP CLINs indicated in Section B. Please clarify. | Although the contract does include additional CLINs such as FFP, the majority of the effort is Cost Reimbursement. As a result, the contract as a whole is referred to as a Cost Reimbursement contract. | |
| 76 | REFERENCE: RFP states Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) “must be handled in accordance with the NMS Security Classification Guide (Attachment 0027)” QUESTION: Please provide the referenced Attachment 0027. | Controlled Unclassified Information must be handled in accordance with DoDM 5200.01-V4, AR 25-1, AR 25-2, and the PEO CS&CSS Armoring Systems Security Classification Guide. The reference to the NMS Security Classification Guide is incorrect as this document does not exist. The referenced attachment (0027) will be provided upon award as this document is not necessary during the pre-award phase. | |
| 77 | REFERENCE: Detailed standards and AQLs as written out in paragraph C.3, Performance Requirements, makes understanding the intent of the USG difficult. Standards and AQLs are clearly spelled out in Attachment 0009, Performance Requirements Summary. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the government consider replacing the detail with a reference to Attachment 0009? | No changes being made. Standards and AQLs, which are identical in the PWS and PRS, will remain in the PWS so that they are seen and understood with their supporting requirement in the PWS. | ||
| 78 | REFERENCE: The briefing given by Mr. Thomas Miller at Industry Day was a clearer explanation of the Performance Requirements than is currently written in the draft RFP. When you remove the standards and the AQLs, there is not much substance, nor is there any significant delineation of the differences in the requirements to support the ANP from the requirements to support the ANA other than the different work order breakdown for transition. QUESTION: Will the government consider revising C.3 to give more detail as briefed by Mr. Miller, and to point out different requirements between ANA and ANP wherever they exist? | No additional information will be added to Section C.3. The ANA and ANP require different levels of support. The requirements dictate how much CLS is required to maintain combat readiness of each organization. The training and mentoring is a Performance Based requirement. Attachment 0003 describes maintenance and supply personnel at all required locations. | |
| 79 | REFERENCE: RFP states “STD: Complete 50% of the maintenance work orders in the base year.” QUESTION: In order to better determine potential transition efforts, what percentage of CLS work is the ANA expected to be performing at the start of this new contract? | The PWS requires the contractor to complete 50% of the work orders in the base year. This is a Performance Base effort, contractor shall determine the distribution of work required to achieve the required performance standards. The USG anticipates the ANA will complete the portion of the work orders not completed by the contractor. | |
| 80 | REFERENCE: The requirement to lease the Central Maintenance Facility is going to cause many issues with Afghan property owners. We anticipate extreme competition with no guarantee that owners will give the same pricing to different offerors or that any pricing given will be honored after an award is made. This potential PR nightmare is not justified given the high probability of a post-award change order. QUESTION: Will the government consider providing a plug number for leasing of the central maintenance facility for evaluation purposes and to maintain fair competition? The requirement to identify property that meets the requirement should still remain in the technical proposal. | No, a plug number will not be provided. The contractor may lease or buy the facility(ies) to meet the CMF requirement. | |
| 81 | REFERENCE: There is no information in the draft RFP from which to develop a basis of estimate to price the Facilities Management and Maintenance sub CLINs for any ANP site. The answer provided to Question #22 from Industry Day does not resolve the issue of estimating the separate sub CLINs for Facilities Management and Maintenance at the ANP sites. QUESTION: Will the government consider giving plug numbers for the Total Cost of each of the sub CLINs for Facilities Management and Maintenance at the ANP sites with offerors providing their fixed fee? | Yes. The following draft language will be added to Section L of the draft solicitation: For the Facility Management & Maintenance subCLINs, the offeror shall submit the facility management and maintenance cost, as stated in Section B of this solicitation. The offeror shall not propose facility management and maintenance cost greater than or less than what the solicitation requires. The offeror shall propose a fixed fee to be applied to the facility management and maintenance cost. | |
| 82 | REFERENCE: PWS 4.2 directs, “The contractor shall provide an Intra-Theater Transportation Report IAW CDRL A005. CDRL A005 is the Personnel Status Report. Also, we could not find this report in the CDRLs listed in Section B or Attachment 0009. QUESTION: Will the government add this report to the CDRL or delete the requirement from the PWS? | Any contractor personnel traveling in, out, or around Afghanistan will be captured by location on the PERSTAT, IAW CDRL A005 | |
| 83 | REFERENCE: RFP states: “the Government will assign a confidence rating reflecting the extent to which the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance relates to L.4.1.1.2.” QUESTION: Will the government be providing rating scales for Past Performance and other factors? | The Government will not provide the rating scales. The Government will be utilizing the standard adjectival scales found in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. | |
| 84 | REFERENCE: Section C.3.1.1.1 Requirement is for Five Years senior level maintenance management experience. | ||
| QUESTION(S): Can the Government clarify what is meant by Senior? Does this mean a Field Grade Equivalent? A Senior NCO Equivalent? A Warrant Officer? | The USG anticipates removing the reference to "senior level", changing C.3.1.1.1 to the following reference "Five years level maintenance management experience…." | ||
| 85 | REFERENCE: Section C.3.1 The requirement throughout para C3.1 calls for Classroom and Shoulder-to-Shoulder training. QUESTION(S): Will the Government clarify their intent on the requirement for Classroom? Will actual classrooms be made available? Will the classroom just be a room in the motor park area? Is there a specific training location or schoolhouse that is the intended location for training? How does this compare to U.S. Military AIT training? | The contractor will need to determine the best location to conduct training during the phase in and IOC at each location. The ANDSF training location cannot be compared to the U.S. Military Advanced Indivdual Training (AIT) school house. | |
| 86 | REFERENCE: Section C.3.1 | ||
| QUESTION: Is the training to be presented intended to be collective training, that is training at the unit level, or will individuals will be trained at their unit? | In addition to other requirements, the PWS requires the contractor to conduct training at the unit level. In accordance with Section L, the offeror shall provide its training approach, at all levels, in its proposal. | ||
| 87 | REFERENCE: Section C.3.1 | ||
| QUESTION: Is there any requirement for an Individual Training program much like the TRADOC system? | No | ||
| 88 | REFERENCE: Section C.3.1.2.3 Warehouse SCM requires training of Senior Warehouse Logistics Management Personnel. QUESTION(S): Will the Government please provide a clearer definition of Senior Warehouse Logistics Management Personnel? Are “Senior” personnel: Field Grade equivalents? Warrant Officer equivalents? Senior NCO equivalents? | No, the USG will only provide Attachment 0003, Personnel Density, as to what ANDSF personnel will be stationed at each location. | |
| 89 | REFERENCE: Section M.4.4 The NAICS for this effort is 541614 (Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services). | ||
| QUESTION(S): If a Prime intends to subcontract a specific function under the contract to a subcontractor, can the Prime flow down to a subcontractor a NAICS code that more accurately captures the work that particular subcontractor will be doing? For example, if a Prime intends to subcontract recapitalization work on vehicles to a subcontractor, can the Prime flow down NAICS 336992? | It is between the Prime and Subcontractor to determine the appropriate NAICS for its subcontract. | ||
| 90 | REFERENCE: On the Industry Day slides, there is a mention on Slide 20 of “USG/ANDSF provided facilities”. QUESTION(S): There are no USG facilities illustrated in the slide deck, nor are any called out in the PWS or included exhibits; facilities are ANA or ANP sites. Is the USG going to provide facilities? If so, where and how many? | The PWS has been clarified. These are not U.S. facilities and are owned by the ANDSF. The ANDSF facilities will be provided and estimated building sizes are identified in Attachment 0019. | |
| 91 | REFERENCE: The PWS delineates CLS levels per year – for example, 95% for the base year ANP, 50% for the base year ANA, etc. QUESTION(S): How are these percentages determined? Specifically, what metric is being used – is it only ‘total maintenance work orders performed’? What system is used to track ANA maintenance work order completion? | Currently, the ANDSF manually tracks maintenance work orders completed. During the period of performance, the contractor shall provide training and mentoring to the ANDSF on the use of the electronic maintenance system. Refer to Attachment 0021 & Attachment 0022 for the maintenance process flow charts. The PWS requires the contractor to complete a percentage of total annual work orders. Contractor shall track work orders peformed in accordance with CDRL A008. | |
| 92 | REFERENCE: Core IMS does not track work orders and is not a maintenance management system; if the Government decides to utilize an unknown and unproven system on NMS. | ||
| QUESTION(S): Will the contractor be fully trained on this system? If the system, on installation, fails to perform as expected, what remedy does the Government have for tracking this key performance metric? | The electronic maintenance system identified in the final RFP release will be provided by the USG. PWS has been updated to reflect the ANDSF electronic maintenance and supply systems. | ||
| 93 | REFERENCE: There is an exhibit with the DRFP release that states total ANDSF fleet size (Att 0001). For anyone working in Afghanistan currently, it is evident that metrics such as ANA fleet density are highly unreliable (the ANA themselves admit this, as recently as the Defense Maintenance Symposium in Dec 2015, where MG Nabi – Chief of Training – stated that the ANA did not know if they had 15,000 or 30,000 vehicles available). Will there be a baseline fleet density count performed? If not. QUESTION(S): Will the government stand by the figure given in the exhibit as a calculation for pricing for any ensuing proposal? Pricing to support a fleet of 60K vehicles vs a fleet of 80K vehicles is substantially different and affects all BOE calculations. | Attachment 0001 is based on Coalition provided vehicles and equipment to the ANDSF. There is no set base of estimate. | |
| 94 | REFERENCE: ACOPs – for clarification, there are 8 ACOP locations marked in the Industry Day slide deck – 4 for the ANP, and 4 for the ANA; these 8 locations are also marked in the CLINs. Is it the Government’s intention to add ACOP to the ANP support structure? Currently, ACOP is an integral part of ANP maintenance (and should therefore be included under CLS in NMS), but has only been performed under the ANA side of the current ATEMP contract on dedicated ACOP sites (the four listed on the ACOP slide are current ANA ACOP sites). QUESTION: If it is the USG intent to have ACOP sites for both the ANP and the ANA, is it also the intent to collocate these sites? | As stated in the PWS, the four ACOP sites will support both the ANA/ANP. Support and co-location are mutally exclusive. | |
| 95 | REFERENCE: In Section L, paragraph L.4.3.6.2.1, the Government states that “the offeror shall provide cost information from the subcontractor equivalent to that required of the offeror.” | ||
| QUESTION: Does the Government intend that any subcontractor providing a price that is more than 10% of the total price must have a DCAA compliant accounting system? | Prime is responsible for ensuring that the Subcontractor has a approved DCAA compliant accounting system. | ||
| 96 | REFERENCE: By and large, the bulk of the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs in the DRFP are relating to training and mentoring. It clearly states that this Incentive is cost-based. So, to be clear: if the contractor performs training in a less costly manner, the contractor receives a higher fee. | ||
| QUESTION(S): Wouldn’t the customer and the Afghan government be better served by a qualitative metric for training and mentoring? | To ensure the delivery of quality service, the contractor must meet acceptable quality levels in order to be eligible for a cost incentive. | ||
| REFERENCE: While AQL is mentioned, it is clearly stated in the CLIN list that CPIF is ‘(cost-based)’, and there is no metric given in the PWS for the AQL. CPIF is typically used in procurement – not in training and service contracting. QUESTION(S): If the goal of the NMS effort is to train the Afghans to manage their own maintenance and supply, how does a CPIF structure, incentivizing the training provider to have a better cost, assist in attaining that goal? Why is there no incentive for more efficient training, more personnel trained, or even for provision of innovative training methods? | It must also meet the AQL established for that effort to be eligible for an incentive fee. | ||
| 97 | REFERENCE: In order to better manage tasks and costs, wouldn’t a task order based contract be more efficient? In that manner, the Government would be able to assign specific tasks and periods of performance; with the constantly shifting situation in Afghanistan, such a contract would retain the flexibility needed to adjust to changing circumstances, while requiring very specific tasks to be performed and completed. This would also reduce oversight: currently, the highly complicated CLIN structure proposed by the Government would be highly labor intensive for those providing contract supervision and administration. The USG footprint is small and the plans are for it to get smaller; the security situation has worsened substantially since 2014. | ||
| QUESTION: Why would the Government not use a contract type that is more likely to provide a successful outcome from an operational standpoint, and require less Government people on the ground in a hostile environment? | This effort involves performance uncertainties and unpredictable operating conditions. In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.301-2(a)(2), a cost-reimbursement type contract is suitable for use when the uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract instrument. | ||
| 98 | REFERENCE: In a Congressional Hearing on 16 Mar 2016 (the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing on Afghanistan Reconstruction), Mr. John Sopko, the Special Investigator for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) replied to a question from Representative Maloney on contracting in Afghanistan. He was asked about using specific contract types in Afghanistan. His response to her question was: “…I would never use a cost plus contract in Afghanistan. You’re basically asking for the American taxpayer to end up getting fleeced, and that’s what you had here. There is no risk, … that somehow we’re sharing risk in a cost-plus contract. The only person sharing the risk is the US taxpayer. The person doing the work is going to get the additional funding, and that’s what you see here: five additional years to do the contract and a cost overrun of hundreds of millions of dollars. I would never use a cost plus contract in a place like Afghanistan.” |
| QUESTION: With such a focus on efficient contracting in Afghanistan, why has the Government created such a highly complex “cost plus” contract structure for NMS, when the current incumbent contract for training and maintenance services in country is firm fixed price? | The Government does not consider the proposed cost plus contract structure for NMS as highly complex. It should be noted that there are key differences in requirements between the incumbent contract for training and maintenance in Afghanistan and the proposed requirements for NMS. The purpose of NMS is to provide services that support the United States strategic objective to strengthen the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) independent sustainment capability as the Coalition exit and the war effort transfers to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA). This effort involves performance uncertainties and unpredictable operating conditions. In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.301-2(a)(2), a cost-reimbursement type contract is suitable for use when the uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract instrument. The NMS solicitation utilizes a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type for the training, mentoring, and Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) efforts. This contract type incentivizes the contractor to lower costs during the period of performance and meet the performance metrics outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The NMS solicitation utilizes firm fixed price CLINs for requirements where performance uncertainties can be identified and reasonable estimates of their cost impact can be made, and the contractor is willing to accept a firm fixed price representing assumption of the risks involved, IAW FAR 16.202-2(d). | ||
| 99 | REFERENCE: Section L 4.1.1.2 paragraph C states that relevant past performance includes those contracts were 50 people or more were deployed and managed for at least one year in SouthWest Asia. However, Att 0015. A contractor who has done similar work in Qatar or UAE would now qualify with past performance, yet would face a completely different environment. Recommend that the Section L be changed to reflect the PPQ. | ||
| QUESTION: Past Performance Questionnaire, specifically calls out Afghanistan as the place of performance. Why doesn’t the Section L state Afghanistan specifically? | Attachment 15 will be updated to be consistant with Section L.4.1.1.2. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .