W56HZV-16-R-0086_Q&A_Master_List.pdf

PdD AWS STS Solicitation # W56HZV‐16‐R‐0086

Questions and Answers

Question Number

Document Document Reference

Question/Comments Answer/Response Date Received Date Posted to

Web

1 RFP L.4.1.1.5

On page 98 of 113 paragraph L.4.1.1.5 requires offerors to submit a completed Attachment 0010 ‐ Technical Experience Matrix, which consists of three tabs (Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2, and Subfactor 3).

Will the Government please clarify if Attachment 0010 ‐ Technical Experience Matrix should be formatted for 8.5 x 11 or 8.5x14 paper with a minimum font size of 10 pt. and with a minimum of 0.5 margins as outlined under paragraph L.2.2.1.4 on page 96 of 113 of the Solicitation and embedded in the word document or can it be submitted as a separate excel file to the DVD?

Attachment 0010 is a Government provided spreadsheet that should be a stand‐alone file, and it is RECOMMENDED that it should be formatted to 8.5 x 11 or 8.5x14 paper with a minimum font size of 10

pt. and with a minimum of 0.5 margins as outlined under paragraph L.2.2.1.4.

The Government prefers that files are not embedded in MS Word as sometimes this creates file instability and errors trying to open/read. It is acceptable to submit files (such as Attachment 0010, copies of past contracts, etc.) as stand‐alone files so long as they are identified/referenced in the narrative, and the corresponding file names are listed in the table of contents. See instructions in L.2.2.1.1 which states, "A list of all attachments and substantiating data shall be provided in the table of contents."

1/26/2018 2/6/2018

2 RFP L.4.1.2.1

On pages 98 and 99 of 113, under paragraph L.4.1.2.1, offerors are required to provide a copy of the recent contract for Subfactor 1. This same requirement is also found under L.4.1.3.2 in support of Subfactor 2 and L.4.1.4.2 in support of Subfactor 3.

For instances where copies of the recent contract is required, should the copy of the contract be provided as a separate document to the DVD or embedded within the Volume I Word document?

For instances where copies of a recent contract are required, the copy of the contract should be provided as a separate document to the DVD. Please see Q&A #1 regarding embedded files.

1/26/2018 2/6/2018

3 General General

Regarding solicitation W56HZV‐16‐R‐0086 is there an incumbent for this effort? The Government is unable to accurately provide incumbent information. Occasional AWS STS work has been procured thru the Navy off the SeaPort‐Enhanced multiple award, Indefinite‐Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract; however specific details with regard to procurement history are not known. This is the Army's first STS contract supporting Army Watercraft.

1/29/2018 2/6/2018

4 RFP L.4.2.5

Page 100 of 113, Section L.4.2.5 ATTACHMENT 0003 ‐ PRICING MATRIX, provides Definitions of Engineering Levels I, II, III; Logistics Levels I, II, III; and Field Service Representatives CONUS and OCONUS. Each definition includes a requirement for a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree. There is no provision for the pricing of Engineering Technicians and Logisticians who do not typically possess a degree, but who would typically perform work in some of the solicitation’s task areas. While many of the complex tasks will require degreed Engineers, there are tasks that have historically been performed in support of Army Watercraft programs by non‐degreed Engineering Technicians and Logisticians. Not providing the ability to price and utilize these labor categories will have a two‐fold negative impact on contract performance. First, it will prevent applying to this contract the many years of experience and the skills that these individuals have developed in supporting such programs as the LSV Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). Secondly, pricing only personnel with degrees will significantly increase the cost of contract performance.

Would the Government consider including labor categories for Engineering Technicians and Logisticians who do not possess B.S. degrees or allowing for the substitution of experience for the degree?

The definitions are for evaluation purposes and will be used to state the estimated cost per hour and fixed fee per hour prior for performance of the task order. During the execution of task orders, the offeror can provide the employees it needs in order to satisfy the requirements, in accordance with the contract, regardless of the definitions provided for evaluation purposes.

The Government will amend paragraph L.4.2.5(c),(d), and (f) of the solicitation to change the definition of Level 1 to: bachelor's degree with 0‐4 years' related experience OR employees with no bachelor's degree with at least eight years of related experience. 1/29/2018

2/6/2018

2/16/2018 PM

5 RFP L.4.2.5

The RFP does not distinguish between the importance of personnel supporting this contract being current employees, contingent hires, or simply labor category pricing justified using the appropriate source data. Is greater weight given in the evaluation when proposing current employees, and if so, should payroll information be provided? It would appear that proposing current employees is in the government’s best interest with much less risk, and should be evaluated as such.

The Government will not be evaluating contractor personnel. There is no greater weight given in the evaluation when proposing current employees. Section M.4.2 describes the Cost Factor evaluation criteria. Section L.4.2.5.1 provides instructions to offerors for fully‐burdened hourly rates. More specifically, Section L.4.2.5.1.1 (c) provides instruction on support for direct labor rates. 1/30/2018 2/16/2018 AM

6 RFP L.5.5

The rate proposed for any given labor category (I, II, II) may exceed or be less than the calculated composite rate.

Since this is a CPFF contract, are offerors expected to bid, execute and bill at the actual incurred burden rate for an individual within the labor category even if the individual’s rate is above or below the composite rate?

At the task order level, the successful offeror will propose the composite labor rate per hour for the applicable category and ordering year set forth by Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix as that is what the Government will obligate at the time of award. However, the offeror will bill the Government for its actual costs in accordance with its cost accounting system, which accommodates a cost‐reimbursement type contract (See Section L.5.5).

1/30/2018 2/16/2018 AM

7 RFP L.4.1.1.2

It would appear that more recent past performance experience (within 3 years) would be weighted more heavily in the evaluation than less recent experience (4‐5 years). Is it the government’s intention to weight more recent experience more favorably?

The RFP does not contain a Past Performance Factor. The RFP contains a Technical Experience Factor.

Please refer to Section L.4.1.1.2 for the definition of recent technical experience for this Factor, and refer to Section M.4.1.1, which states that any technical experience determined not recent will not be considered in the evaluation. The Government will not weigh technical experience that it determines to be recent differently, strictly on the basis of recency.

1/30/2018 2/16/2018 AM

Questions and Answers

Question Number

Document Document Reference

Question/Comments Answer/Response Date Received Date Posted to

Web

8 RFP E.3

An ISO 9001:2015 certification in Marine Engineering Design Services enables comprehensive development and capture of all data and related products needed to support the requirements for each sub factor identified within the solicitation; this will ensure accurate translation of these products into the required CDRLs. Shouldn’t the government consider making this a required certification?

The Government will amend paragraph E.3 of the solicitation to require compliance with ISO 9001:2015 (instead of ISO 9001:2000) or an industry recognized equivalent standard.

1/30/2018 2/16/2018 AM

9 RFP L.4.2.5

The RFP, Page 100, Section L.4.2.5.c, requires a Bachelor’s degree for Engineer I, II and III. The type of Bachelor’s degree to qualify as an Engineer is not provided. To ensure that the personnel provided by a Contractor to the Government qualify as an Engineer would the Government clarify that the degree must be in an engineering or technical discipline applicable to the tasking, such as Naval Architecture, Marine Engineering or equivalent?

See Q&A #4. Also, the Government is not evaluating personnel qualifications. It is the Government's intent that the bachelor's degrees of the proposed employees align with the bachelor's degrees of the employees the offeror anticipates will perform the contract. 1/31/2018 2/16/2018 PM

10 RFP L.4.2.5

The RFP, Page 100, Sections L.4.2.5, requires a Bachelor’s degree for all Engineering, Logistics, and FSR labor categories. This disqualifies some highly capable staff from supporting the contract, such as retired Chiefs and Shipyard Apprentice Program Graduates, who can provide equivalent or better experience and capability at a lower overall cost to the Government. Would the Government consider an experienced based equivalency so that an additional 5 years of directly related experience could be substituted for the bachelor’s degree?

See Q&A #4 and Q&A #9.

1/31/2018 2/16/2018 PM

11 RFP C.1.0.7

The RFP states: The contractor shall perform the work under this contract at the contractor's facility and/or onsite where vessels are located (CONUS and OCONUS), in accordance with the Task Orders. In order to provide consistency in the Basis of Estimate from all offerors, would the Government identify if any positions are based full time overseas, full time at a field activity (Ft. Eustice for example) or within a Government owned space (co‐located with PD‐AWS in Warren, MI, for example)?

At this time, the Government does not anticipate the need of full‐time personnel support.

1/31/2018 2/16/2018 AM

12 RFP

The RFP is silent on the expected start date for the tasking that should be used for developing the rates to be submitted. This represents a risk to the Government if bidders assume different start dates.

This could result in significant differences in rate escalation. A clear start date levels the competitive field for a clear comparison between the bids, making the Government’s evaluation simpler. Would the Government consider establishing a planned start date for bidders to use for establishing rates?

September 2018.

1/31/2018 2/16/2018 AM

13 Attachment 0003 TO1

Based on the Government spreadsheet, the Program Management on Task Order 1 is only asking for hours. This is then multiplied by the composite rates calculated on the Labor – OP1 tab for either the Engineering or Logistics areas. Our Program Management is comprised of different labor categories than are in the engineering or logistics areas. How does the Government intend for these costs to be invoiced for payment?

Please see L.4.2.5.1 (a). If program management is treated as a direct cost, then the offeror shall incorporate the program management rates into each fully‐burdened labor rate included in Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix. Please see answer to Q&A #26. 2/2/2018 2/16/2018 AM

14 Attachment 0003 TO1

On the Summary tab, Row 3 says that it is excluding Task Order 1 and subtracts the TO1 amount. The formula is pulling off the Detail tab which already excludes the TO amount. This appears to cause the extended price to be artificially low. Will the Government review and fix the references?

The Summary tab was constructed this way intentionally. It illustrates that TO1 is not in addition to OP1;

TO1 is a part of OP1. The Total Proposed Contract Cost/Price, excluding any cost‐realism adjustment(s) on the Summary tab in cell B8 will equal the Total Proposed Contract Cost/Price, excluding any cost‐ realism adjustment(s) on the Detail tab in cell G62 when all inputs are made in the Pricing Matrix.

2/1/2018 2/6/2018

15 Attachment 0003 TO1 The Detail tab doesn’t represent the Task Order price. Is it the Government’s intention to exclude the Task order pricing on the detail tab?

The Detail tab was constructed this way intentionally. See Q&A #14. The Task Order 1 tab includes all TO1 relevant pricing information. 2/1/2018 2/6/2018

16 Attachment 0003 TO1 Task Order 1 tab – B3 and B10, while shaded yellow and instructions say should be filled if applicable, are locked and won’t allow input. Will the Government review and fix this sheet to allow input?

Error noted; the Pricing Matrix will be updated.

2/1/2018 2/6/2018

Questions and Answers

Question Number

Document Document Reference

Question/Comments Answer/Response Date Received Date Posted to

Web

17 Attachment 0011 SB Goals

In the calculation on the Small Business Goals, will the Government confirm that the Small Business totals should not include prime indirect costs?

The Government CANNOT confirm that the contractor's Small Business Subcontracting Plan totals should or should not include prime indirect costs.

FAR 19.704(a)(6) and clause 52.219‐9(d)(6) require a statement as to whether or not the Offeror included indirect costs in establishing subcontracting goals, and a description of the method used to determine the proportionate share of indirect costs to be incurred with SB (including ANCs and Indian tribes), VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, SDB (including ANCs and Indian tribes), and WOSB concerns.

NOTE: indirect costs represent the expenses of doing business that are NOT easily identified with a specific project but are generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the general operation of the Contractor's organization and the conduct of activities it performs. Types of indirect costs may include routine supplies and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. However, fringe benefits (e.g. services or benefits provided to employees such as health insurance, payroll taxes, pension contribution, etc.), are NOT considered as subcontracting.

If indirect costs HAVE been included in individual subcontracting plans, the offeror must provide the method used to determine the proportionate share of indirect costs to be incurred with small business.

ALSO NOTE: Since indirect costs not specific to the individual contract are prorated to performance under that contract, including such costs is sometimes not beneficial and may not add any value to the goals.

When a subcontracting plan includes indirect costs in the goals, these costs must be included in the reports submitted into eSRS.

2/1/2018 2/6/2018

18 RFP L.4.2.1

Section L.4.2.1 provides the only reference to Basis of Estimate (BOE) sheets in Excel. The other references to the basis of estimates are in narrative form with regards to rates. Does the Government intend for offerors to provide narrative bases of estimates for the rates specified?

Yes, the Government intends for offerors to provide narrative basis of estimates for the rates specified.

Section L.4.2.1 also states, "Supporting narrative, including Basis of Estimate (BOE) sheets, shall be provided in files which are MS Excel or MS Word 2013 compatible." Section L.4.2.5.1.1 instructs support for direct labor rates to include a narrative explaining the basis for the estimated direct labor rates.

Section L.4.2.5.1.2 instructs support for indirect rates to include a narrative explaining the basis for the estimated direct labor rates.

2/5/2018 2/16/2018 AM

19 RFP L.2.1.1

Section L L.2.1.1 in the solicitation lists Volume 4 as Administrative yet later L.5 indicates Volume V, can the government please clarify the volume number for the Administrative volume?

Error noted; the Government will amend paragraph L.5 to change the title to Volume IV.

2/5/2018 2/16/2018 AM

20 RFP C.5.19.11

Section C, paragraph C.5.19.11 specifies that the contractor must provide a Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Manager who will be considered a Key Position. However, the RFP does not identify education or experience requirements for this position, nor is this Key Position identified in RFP Attachment #3, relative to estimated Labor Hours. Please clarify this RFP requirement.

A DMSMS Manager can be classified as an Engineering or Logistics function and therefore, should be placed within one of those labor categories as a Level I, II, or III. The level and category should be determined by the offeror. 2/2/2018 2/16/2018 PM

21 RFP C.5.19

Related to Question #20, C.5.19 of the solicitation includes requirements for a DMSMS Program and Plan. DMSMS Programs and Plans are typically applicable to production contracts. Please clarify if the DMSMS requirements are intended to be contract requirements.

Yes, it is required. See CDRL A032 and SOW C.5.19.

2/2/2018 2/16/2018 PM

22 Attachment 0003 TO1

The position of Program Manager is only referenced in RFP Attachment #3 (Task Order 1 tab). The RFP does not provide education or experience requirements for this position, nor identifies estimated labor hours. Please clarify this RFP requirement.

An offeror may or may not include additional program management cost rates and estimates other than the cost rate and estimate for the single point of contact incorporated into each fully burdened labor rate in Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix. It is the Government's intent that the proposed employee(s) and costs for program management align with the employee(s) the offeror expects to utilize and the costs the offeror expects to incur for program management in performance of the contract. Section L.4.2.5.1 (a) outlines instructions on program management. Please also see Q&As #13, #26, and #34.

2/2/2018 2/16/2018 PM

23 RFP General

I do not see a listing of interested vendors via the solicitation on the FBO. Is there a way that you could forward the listing with the points of contact for each company? Lastly, can you tell me the name and provide the contact for the incumbent company with this contract?

If you would like to include your company on a list of potential organizations interested in creating a subcontracting/teaming relationship for solicitation W56HZV‐16‐R‐0086, please refer to the FBO attachment entitled, "Instructions for Potential Subcontractors." In submitting your request to the Government, you consent to the public release of all information being provided in the request.

Regarding incumbent, please see Q&A #3.

2/6/2018 2/16/2018 AM

Questions and Answers

Question Number

Document Document Reference

Question/Comments Answer/Response Date Received Date Posted to

Web

24 Q&A General

Under Questions and Answers posted 6 February 2018, the Government advised “for instances where copies of recent contracts are required, the copy of the contract should be provided as a separate document to the DVD.”

Will the Government please clarify if it is their intent that Offerors provide a copy of each contract as a separate file on the DVD, or are Offerors to provide a separate document saved on the DVD? Can you confirm that no hard copy files are required, and that instead all files will be provided digitally as saved files on the DVD?

No hard copy files/documents will be accepted. All files shall be saved as files/documents to a DVD.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 AM

25 RFP Section I

On page 59 of 113, under Section I Contract Clauses, the solicitation includes FAR 52.222‐41 SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS MAY/2014 and FAR 52.222‐43 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS‐‐PRICE MAY/2014 however the Solicitation does not include a Wage Determination Schedule nor does it include Wage Determined Categories/Requirements. Will the Government please verify the applicability of the Service Contract Act and if applicable, please provide the applicable schedule as an Attachment and the mappings from current Solicitation/Contract labor categories to WD categories?

Error noted. The Government will amend the solicitation to remove FAR clause 52.222‐41 and FAR 52.222‐43 as the Service Contract Act does not apply to this requirement.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 AM

26 Attachment 0003

Under Attachment 3 ‐ Pricing Matrix, Task Order 1 Pricing Tab the current format requires offerors to enter hours against contract labor categories to establish a BOE and the rates for the listed labor categories pull from the Labor Tab for the applicable Option Period. In addition to the listed contract labor categories, the pricing sheet also requires for the offeror to enter hours for Program Management support (if applicable). If hours are entered for Program Management Support, it pulls the hourly rate for the listed labor category being proposed under Task Order 1 which already is inclusive of Program Management support per Section L.4.2.5.1 (a).

On page 100 of 113 under Section L.4.2.5.1, Fully‐Burdened Hourly Rates, Subparagraph (a), Offerors are instructed to identify whether Program Management support is treated as a direct or indirect cost in accordance with its accounting system and further instructs offerors that if Program Management is treated as a direct costs then the costs for program management support must be incorporated into each fully burdened labor rate included in Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix.

The current construct of Attachment 3 – Pricing Matrix is adding hours and cost for Program Management support that is already wrapped into the rates thus inflating task order pricing.

Will the Government please advise if Offerors who built Program Management support into their labor category rates consistent with L.4.2.5.1 (a) are to propose 0 hours for Program Management support as Section L does not allow for a separate rate/cost for this support? Please clarify.

Instruction for Program Management is related to whether Program Management is proposed and incorporated into the fully burdened hourly rates as a direct cost or incorporated as an indirect cost.

Example 1: Program Management is captured as a direct cost for Offeror A and incorporated as such.

Offeror A estimates that X% of the hours associated with this effort will be for Program Management and provides support for how X% was estimated and supporting calculations of how the Program Management rates and associated costs were incorporated into the fully burdened hourly rates in Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix. Offeror A inputs the applicable hours for Program Management into the "Task Order 1" tab per the instruction in rows 24‐28.

Example 2: Program Management is captured as an indirect cost (G&A) for Offeror B and incorporated as such. Since, in this example, G&A is applied to all labor costs, the Program Management costs are already incorporated into the fully burdened hourly rates. Offeror B makes no inputs (or 0 hours) for Program Management into the "Task Order 1" tab per the instruction in rows 24‐28.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 AM

27 RFP L.4.2.5

On page 100 of 113, under Section L, Paragraph L.4.2.5 ATTACHMENT 0003 ‐ PRICING MATRIX, subparagraph (c), the Definitions of Engineering Levels I, II, III include a requirement for a Bachelor’s degree. Will the Government please confirm that Offeror’s proposed personnel in support of Levels II and III must possess a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering.

Yes, Engineering Levels II and III require a Bachelor's degree. Please also refer to Q&A #4.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

28 RFP L.4.2.5

On page 100 of 113, under Section L, Paragraph L.4.2.5 ATTACHMENT 0003 ‐ PRICING MATRIX, subparagraph (f), the Definitions of FSR include a requirement for a Bachelor’s degree. Will the Government please confirm that Offeror’s proposed FSR personnel for must possess a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering.

The Government will amend Section L.4.2.5 to remove the bachelor's degree requirement for FSRs. Five years of related experience is sufficient for evaluation purposes.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

29 RFP L.4.2.5

On page 100 of 113, under Section L, Paragraph L.4.2.5 ATTACHMENT 0003 ‐ PRICING MATRIX, subparagraph (g), the Definitions of OCONUS FSR include a requirement for a Bachelor’s degree. Will the Government please confirm that Offeror’s proposed OCONUS FSR personnel must possess a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering .

The Government will amend Section L.4.2.5 to remove the bachelor's degree requirement for OCONUS FSRs. Five years of related experience is sufficient for evaluation purposes.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

30 RFP Section I

Clause I‐92, page 60. The RFP contains DFAR 252.204‐7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. The Statement of Work and attachments attached to the contract are not marked as CDI, CTI, or CUI. Please confirm if any part of the solicitation and its attachments are considered CDI, CTI, or CUI.

None of the information contained in the RFP, as of today, is Covered Defense Information (CDI), Controlled Technical Information (CTI), or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). However, CDI, CTI, or CUI data may be developed or disseminated at the task order level. Furthermore, clause 252.204‐ 7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, is mandatory DFARS clause and must be included in all solicitations and contracts.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

Questions and Answers

Question Number

Document Document Reference

Question/Comments Answer/Response Date Received Date Posted to

Web

31 RFP L.4.2.5.1.3.2

Section L.4.2.5.1.3.2, Page 101. Is it acceptable for subcontractors to deliverer their sealed package to the prime so their proprietary, sealed package can be submitted with the prime's package to ensure it is delivered on time?

Nothing in the RFP precludes an offeror from doing this, however the Government cannot and will not provide any assurances as to the protection of the subcontractor's proprietary data if the prime offeror chooses to handle its proposal submission in this manner. It is recommended that all offerors submit proprietary subcontractor data in accordance with the RFP paragraph titled, "Proposal Information Instructions for Direct Submission On Behalf of the Prime Offeror." NOTE: The Government will amend the RFP to renumber paragraph L.2.2.3 (and its subparagraphs) to L.2.5 on page 97 of the RFP released on 2018JAN16 as the Government inadvertently had two L.2.2.3 paragraphs.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

32 RFP Section I Clause I‐142 provides a max value of $45M and Section B provides a max value of $47M, please clarify. Error noted. The Government will amend clause 52.216‐19 to read $47M and will complete the missing fill‐in. 2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

33 RFP C.5.19.11

Section C.5.19.11, Page 38. This SOW paragraph requires a DMSMS manager as a key personnel position. Please indicate where this position should be included in the price? Is this considered a full time position?

A DMSMS Manager can be classified as an Engineering or Logistics function and therefore, should be placed within one of those labor categories as a Level I, II, or III. The level and category should be determined by the offeror. A DMSMS Manager will be required at the task order level. 2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

34 RFP L.4.2.5

Section L.4.2.5.1 (a) requires offerors to identify if program management time is a direct or indirect cost and if it's a direct cost then incorporate it into each labor rate; however, the spreadsheet requires offerors to identify PM hours separately. If an offeror identifies PM time as a direct cost and adds it to the labor rate, since the PM time is already accounted for in the labor rate, is there still a requirement to include PM hours on the Task Order 1 proposal as identified on the pricing matrix?

Yes, direct hours need to accounted for in Task Order 1. Please see Q&A #26.

2/7/2018 2/16/2018 AM

35 RFP C.3.2

Section C.3.2 References (C.3.2.1 and C.3.2.2) & (C.3.2.3 thru C.3.2.6), C.3.2.6 does not exist in the RFP. Is this an error or is there another requirement?

Error noted. The Government will amend the last sentence of SOW paragraph C.3.2 to change the reference of C.3.2.6 to C.3.2.5. Therefore, it will state, "The rest of the process (C.3.2.3 thru C.3.2.5), when required, will be specified in the applicable Task Order." 2/7/2018 2/16/2018 PM

2/23/20182/16/2018

Under Question & Answer released on February 16, 2018, the Government's response to Question Number 26 provides examples of the Government's intent for the application of Program Management support per L.4.2.5.1.

Following the framework for the examples provided by the Government, it appears the approach still results in an inflated task order cost to the Government. In order to ensure that Offeror's price which is inclusive of Program Management costs per L.4.2.5.1, we request the Government modify the Task Order pricing requirements to either capture the hours for Program Management support but not include them in the calculation of total cost or Since Program Management support is already built into the hours or add the ability to propose a separate hourly rate for Program Management support rather than building it into the proposed rates.

Scenario:

Offeror A direct charges Program Management support and as such has included costs associated with Program Management support in each fully burdened labor rated included in Attachment 0003‐Pricing Matrix per Section L.4.2.5.1 of the RFP. Offeror A has an Engineering rate of $20.00 an hour fully burdened with Engineer and Program Management costs . Task 1 requires 32 hours of Lead Engineer time at the $20.00 an hour rate, extended price is $640.00, inclusive of Program Management costs. Given this example, 5% of the $640.00 includes costs and hours for Program Management support to be direct billed. Stated differently, $1.00 of the $20.00 proposed for the Lead Engineer is for Program Management Support.

If Offeror A includes an additional 2 hours of Program Management time calculated using the Engineering rate, the Task 1 calculation becomes 32 hours at the $20.00 rate with an extended price of $680.00. This seems to indicate that the 5% of Program Management time built into the $640.00 plus the additional $40.00 generated in including 2 hours of Program Management time in the Task Order 1 sheet are over estimating Program Management support costs needed.

As demonstrated in the tables above, Offeror's whose Program Management costs are not includes in their indirect rates have an unfair disadvantage is total evaluated cost as Program Management is already in their indirect wraps so the would not had to add hours for Program Management support.

The total proposed price for OP1 is inclusive of the proposed price for Task Order 1. As a result, the proposed prices for Task Order 1 (Cell "B2") and OP1 ‐ Excluding Task Order 1 (Cell "B3") within the "Summary" Tab of Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix are calculated as follows:

* Step 1: The total proposed price for OP1 is calculated utilizing the Government‐provided labor hours and Material/ODC/Travel dollars.

* Step 2: The total proposed price for Task Order 1 is calculated utilizing (a) the Government‐provided labor hours for the Lead Engineer and Lead Logistician; (b) the Fully‐burdened Hourly Rates proposed by the Offeror within the "Labor ‐ OP1" Tab; (c) the proposed travel cost and any associated indirect costs;

and (d) additional proposed labor hours for Program Management (if the offeror accounts for program management as a direct cost).

* Step 3: The "Summary" Tab of Attachment 0003 ‐ Pricing Matrix takes the total proposed price for OP1 (from Step 1) and subtracts out the proposed price for Task Order 1 (from Step 2). The proposed price for Task Order 1 is then identified in Cell "B2" and the proposed price for OP1 (excluding Task Order 1) is identified in Cell "B3".

Based on the calculation above, the proposed price for Task Order 1 does not influence the total proposed contract cost/price. As the proposed price for Task Order 1 increases, the proposed price for OP1 (Excluding Task Order 1) decreases by the same amount. Similarly, as the proposed price for Task Order 1 decreases, the proposed price for OP1 (Excluding Task Order 1) increases by the same amount.

The Task Order 1 tab creates a standardized approach for offerors, in accordance with each offerors specific accounting practices, to be able to propose hours for PM if charged direct or zero PM hours if the offeror captures PM costs as indirect costs. The successful offeror will bill actual costs in accordance with its cost accounting system, which accommodates a cost‐reimbursement type contract (See Section L.5.5).

Q&A #2636