W56HZV16R0064_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_1st_set_3_NOV_2016.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Statement A. Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited

W56HZV16R0064 Pricing Questions

1) Reference: Attachment 0008’s Indirect Rates and Factors tab states, “(Assumes contract start date 1

January 2017),” but otherwise the solicitation files do not seem to specify the start of the period of performance.

Question: For pricing purposes, what date should Offerors use in their proposals as the start date for the period of performance? As the start date is critical to the timely pricing of a large-team proposal, we respectfully request an answer to this question as soon as possible.

Government Response:

The note on the Indirect Rates and Factors tab has been updated to state – Assumes contract start date of 1 June 2016.

2) Reference: Attachment 0008’s Hours Check tab lists 7,520 hours at Warren locations and 7,520 hours at contractor facilities for Project Managers in each 12-month ordering period. At 1,880 annual hours per FTE, these numbers equate to four FTEs at Warren locations and four FTEs at contractor locations.

However, section L.7.9.3 states that the requirement is “…three Project Managers full-time for Warren locations and three Project Managers full-time for contractor locations…”

Question: Are Attachment 0008’s four full-time Project Managers at Warren locations and four full-time

Project Managers at contractor locations the required FTEs for that labor category? If so, please update section L.7.9.3 to reference four full-time Project Managers at each location. If not, please update

Attachment 0008 to correspond to section L.7.9.3.

Government Response:

Attachment 0008 is correct with four full time Project Managers, the RFP (Section L.7.9.3) has been updated with correct quantity.

3) Reference: Attachment 0008’s Hours Check tab’s total formulas omit Ordering Period 5 in Column AH

(Required Hours in TOTAL) and Column AJ (Proposed Hours Prime & Sub).

Question: Should the Ordering Period 5 hours be included in these total formulas? If so, please update

Attachment 0008 to include this change.

Government Response:

Attachment 0008 Hours check tab has been revised to include the data from Ordering Period 5.

4) Reference: Attachment 0008’s Summary and Most Probable Cost tabs show a total of $150,000,000 in materials and travel for the 5-year period of performance. However, the Prime-Local to TARDEC and

Material & Travel tabs show a total of $120,000,000 in materials and travel due to the omission of

Ordering Period 5 in the total formulas for these costs in Column AP (in the Prime-Local to TARDEC tab) and Column M (in the Material & Travel tab). Moreover, section L.7.9.5.2 states, “…The Government

Provided Plug Number for Material and Travel is substantial ($120,000,000)…”

Question: Is the correct total materials and travel requirement $150,000,000 as shown in Attachment

0008’s Summary and Most Probable Cost tabs? If so, please update the Prime-Local to TARDEC and

Material & Travel tabs’ total formulas and section L.7.9.5.2 to include the material and travel dollars for

Ordering Period 5.

Government Response:

$150,000,000 is the correct value. The Prime-Local to TARDEC and Material & Travel tabs have been updated. Additionally, section L.7.9.5.2 has been revised to include the materials and travel dollars for

Ordering Period 5.

5) Reference: Section L.6 says, “…For purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is a first tier subcontractor whose total proposed costs (transfer cost) equal or exceed $25,000,000 over the 5-year period of performance.” Additionally, section L.7.1 states, “…For purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is a first tier subcontractor whose total proposed costs (transfer cost) equal or exceed

$25,000,000 over the 5-year period of performance. For cost volume purposes only, interdivisional and/or intra-company effort in excess of $25,000,000 ($5,000,000 per year) shall be considered major subcontractor effort.” Moreover, Attachment 0008’s Instructions tab says, “…(Major Subcontractor is over $25,000,000).” Furthermore, the Subcontractors-Contractor Site tab includes a footnote that says, “1. A Major Subcontractor is over $25,000,000 during entire Period of Performance.” However, the

Subcontractor Local to TARDEC tab includes a footnote indicating that, “1. A Major Subcontractor is over

$10,000,000 during entire Period of Performance.”

Question: Could you please confirm that a major subcontractor is defined as a first-tier subcontractor whose total proposed costs equal or exceed $25,000,000 over the 5-year period of performance? If so, please update the language in the Attachment 0008 Subcontractor Local to TARDEC tab’s footnote to change $10,000,000 to $25,000,000.

Government Response:

A major subcontractor is defined as a first-tier subcontractor whose total proposed costs equal or exceed $25,000,000 over the 5-year period of performance. Attachment 0008 has been updated in the

Local to TARDEC tab footnote.

6) Reference: In the TES Draft RFP Industry Questions and Government Responses released on 10 May

2016, the Government provided the following responses. The corresponding changes to the solicitation indicated by the Government in each response did not appear in the Final RFP.

4. Reference: Sections L.6, pg. 109 and L.7.1 pg. 111. The Government defines a major subcontractor as a first tier subcontractor whose total proposed costs (transfer cost) equal or exceed $25,000,000 over the 5-year period. The current wording would allow a subcontractor whose sole contribution to the contract effort is the purchase of $25,000,000 of material.

Recommendation:

As the purpose of the Experience Factor defined in section L.6 is to evaluate performance capability as applicable to the requirements of the proposed contract, we recommend that the

Government revise its definition to require that a major subcontractor have proposed labor costs that equal or exceed $25,000,000 over the 5-year period.

Government Response: The Government will clarify the definition of a first tier subcontractor to state “a major subcontractor as a first tier subcontractor whose total proposed labor costs

(transfer cost) equal or exceed $25,000,000 over the 5-year period.” Agree. The $25M should be

Labor subcontractor only.

6. Reference: Section M.7.2.2. pg. 124

Recommendation:

The Government should hold subcontractor experience to the same standard discussed in this paragraph (i.e., proposal must demonstrate how subcontractor experience will be directly applied to an awarded contract).

Government Response: the Government will amend Section M.7.2.2 as follows… “Accordingly any prime or subcontractor experience that is identified in the offerors Experience Factor proposal……”

Question: Was this an oversight? If so, we respectfully request that these changes be incorporated in the final RFP in accordance with the Government’s responses to Draft RFP questions 4 and 6 cited above.

Government Response: The changes that were supposed to be included in the RFP that were based on comments to the draft RFP have been made to the RFP.

7) Reference: The formulas in Attachment 0008’s Hours Check tab’s Column AD reference hidden, empty cells in the Subcontractor Local to TARDEC and Prime-Local to TARDEC tabs.

Question: Could you please confirm that the formulas should reference Column AH instead of the currently referenced hidden empty cells in the Subcontractor Local to TARDEC and Prime-Local to

TARDEC tabs? If so, please update Attachment 0008 to reflect this change.

Government Response: Attachment 0008, Hours check tab has been updated to pull data from column

AH in Local to TARDEC and Prime-Local TARDEC tabs.

8) Reference: Section L.7.9.5.1 states, “Prime Offeror shall enter a Ceiling or Capped Indirect Rate

Percentage that will represent the maximum amount of Indirect Expense that will be allocable to Total

Material and Travel (Does not include Facilities Capital Cost of Money rate). All Offerors Total Evaluated

Price will include the Material and Travel Plug Number and the indirect cost calculated using the Ceiling or Capped Indirect Rate Percentage. The proposed Ceiling or Capped Rate will be included as an attachment to Section H of the resulting Contract and will be applicable during the entire Period of

Performance.”

Issue: Offerors with a G&A rate based on a value-added cost input base (which is common) typically also utilize a material/subcontract handling rate. The G&A rate is applied to travel, and the material/subcontractor handling rate is applied to material. These two indirect rates tend to be significantly different—i.e., the G&A rate is much higher than the subcontract/material handling rate.

The RFP requirement to use only one ceiling rate will unfairly penalize Offerors who have significantly different indirect rates (as described above) as such Offerors will likely use the higher of the two rates as the ceiling. This requirement could artificially raise some firms over the competitive range and hence reduce competition in a manner not advantageous to achieving true best value in the interest of the

Government. Likewise, the Total Evaluated Price will be overstated relative to actual performance as the allowable indirect cost in performance will be based on the lesser of the ceiling rate or the actual rate.

The situation is further exacerbated by the Material and Travel Plug Numbers being heavily weighted to

Material ($25M per year versus $5M per year for Travel.)

Recommendation: Given the issues posed by the single ceiling rate, we recommend that the

Government allow Offerors with value-added cost input bases to propose one ceiling rate for material and another ceiling rate for travel as described above. The GFPM would also have to be modified to accommodate the two ceiling rates.

Government Response: The Government has revised Attachment 0008 to allow for contractors to propose a unique ceiling G&A rate to material/subcontract handling and a unique ceiling rate to travel.

Sections L.7.9.5.1 and L.7.9.5.2 have been revised to remove language regarding one indirect rate for material and travel.

9) Reference: The Ordering Period 5 formulas in Attachment 0008’s Prime-Local to TARDEC tab’s cells AJ36 and AJ37 reference Column E instead of F in the Indirect Rates and Factors tab. Additionally, the Ordering Period 5 formulas in the Prime-Contractor Site tab’s cells AJ32, AJ36, and AJ37 reference

Column F instead of M in the Indirect Rates and Factors tab.

Question: Could you please confirm that the Ordering Period 5 formulas in the Prime-Local to TARDEC tab’s cells AJ36 and AJ37 should reference Column F instead of the currently referenced column E in the

Indirect Rates and Factors tab? Additionally, should the Ordering Period 5 formulas in the Prime-

Contractor Site tab’s cells AJ32, AJ36, and AJ37 reference Column M instead of the currently referenced

Column F in the Indirect Rates and Factors tab? If so, please update Attachment 0008 to reflect these changes.

Government Response: Attachment 0008, Prime-Local TARDEC tab has been updated to pull data from column F of the Indirect Rates and Factors tab. Additionally, the Prime-Contractor Site tab has been updated to reference column M of the Indirect Rates and Factors tab.