W56HZV-16-R-0086_Q&A_Released_2-6-2018.pdf

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

Questions 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 section L.4.2.5 of the solicitation to change the definition of Level 1 to: bachelor's degree with 0-4 years' experience and employees with no bachelor's degree.

1/29/2018 2/6/2018

Attachment

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

Attachment

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

Attachment

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

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

Questions Answers

Question Number

Document Document Reference

Question/Comments Answer/Response Date Received Date Posted to

Web

Attachment

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

Q&As