030_Industry_Questions-Government_Responses_(AWS)_added.docx

Department of the Army Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Support Services for Army Watercraft Systems (AWS) Solicitation No.: W56JSR-17-R-0021

Questions from Industry

1. Will the updated draft RFP be posted to Fedbizops?

Gov’t Response – NO, the next posting on Fedbizops will be the final RFP.

2. When can we expect answers to be posted to the questions?

Gov’t Response – The government will provide the answers with the final solicitation.

3. Support for items such as failure analysis and obsolescence can be limited in scope or represent large efforts. Will the USG please expand on these efforts in the final RFP?

Gov’t Response – This contract is for sustainment only, technical refresh is exercised under a different contract.

4. Is the contractor owned/leased facility in JBLE going to be turned over to an awarded company or is all materials going to be required to be moved to a new facility?

Gov’t Response – It is up to the incumbent to determine if they want to release the facility to the awardee, as the facility is theirs under a rental agreement. If they elect not to, the new contractor will be required to provide their own facility and facilitate receipt of GFE from incumbent.

5. If we have to move, is this timeline built into the transition plan by the government?

Gov’t Response –If required, a 30-90 day transition period will be allowed as deemed necessary by the contracting officer.

6. Will task orders require a technical approach or just a price quote?

Gov’t Response – YES, they will require a technical approach and a price quote.

7. Will ODCs (travel, material, equipment, sub-contractors) be fee bearing?

Gov’t Response – NO, they are cost reimbursable (no fee) CLINS.

8. Do you plan to provide labor categories and hours in the pricing worksheets?

Gov’t Response – NO.

9. Are there any significant supportability issues that are critical to be resolved?

Gov’t Response – NO.

10. Is the LOE for the FFP CLINS going to be provided?

Gov’t Response – The LOE can be determined based upon the information for the 1000 incidents a year provided; this will provide sufficient information for pricing purposes.

11. Is attachment 0008 CFSR qualification due with proposal submission or at start of work?

Gov’t Response – At proposal submission.

12. Is section L and M going to be updated with more than just cost proposal requirements, or is this a cost only proposal?

Gov’t Response – YES, section L and M will be updated with the final solicitation release.

13. What is the anticipated timeline for proposal preparation?

Gov’t Response –30 days from the release of the final solicitation.

14. Anticipated number of proposal volumes and page counts?

Gov’t Response – This is in the final solicitation.

15. Section M states that “The time on site required to address the IRs will be estimated based upon the information provided in Attachment 4 and the contractor’s expertise of the associated C4ISR systems.” How will the government relate the estimated times to either cost/price or other evaluation criteria? Can the government describe the methodology they intend on using to estimate the time on site?

Gov’t Response – Attachment 4 provides background information on times to execute IR resolution. This information was gained via Metrics of the last 8 years of IR Resolution. If the proposer has a better rationale to resolve IR’s they should propose it.

16. The government will provide labor categories, level of effort and hours for each period of performance. Recent oasis TORs have used a quality infused pricing methodology as a key factor in overall proposal evaluation. Also, the TORs have included a total estimated value range that covers all elements of cost for the proposal. Would the government consider using this approach for this program?

Gov’t Response – NO.

17. Where will the access to STAMIS be provided?

Gov’t Response – Access will be provided on a Government facility. APG and JBLE are just 2 of those locations that can be considered.

18. Are the IPRs and Management Meetings in this requirement the same, and, if so, would the Government consider using just “IPR”?

Gov’t Response – IPRs and Management Meetings are not the same, although they usually occur in the same time frame.

19. Will the Government confirm that DIACAP is the current program and has not been replaced?

Gov’t Response – DIACAP has been replaced in full by the Risk Management Framework (RMF)

20. Section A of the RFP, #7. References a Section H, however there is no section H located within the document. Will the Government release a draft of Section H prior to the final RFP release?

Gov’t Response – Section H will be released with the final solicitation.

21. PWS 3.2.1 Field Service Manager description is identical to the Lead CFSR Coordinator (CONUS/OCONUS) position that was referenced in the previous Draft RFP – is this correct or should there be an alternative description for Field Service Manager?

Gov’t Response – This is correct, the title of Lead CFSR Coordinator was changed to Field Service Manager.

22. PWS 3.2.3.1 references the use of the Maintenance Action Message DRAFT (MAM) – can the Government clarify what this is and who specifically initiates it?

Gov’t Response – This document is a notification delivered to the fleet from TACOM notifying the fleet that CECOM is responsible for the C4ISR sustainment on all Army Watercraft Vessels. The MAM states guidance to the fleet on how to initiate an incident report.

23. Section L, p. 58 of 61 references “cost element summary sample below” and “worksheet sample below”. These samples are not present unless the reference is to Attachment 05. Will the Government release a draft of those samples in Section L prior to the final RFP release?

Gov’t Response – No draft will be released.

24. Are the parts/materials listed in Attachment 04_AWSC_Material_List meant to be prices IAW the Section L instructions and included in the material cost worksheet of the Summary Cost/Price Proposal MS Excel Workbook?

Gov’t Response – YES.

25. In PWS 3.2.5 Configuration Management: The DIACAP process for accreditations has changed to the Risk Management Framework (RMF), is there any requirement for the contractor to have certified Information Assurance personnel to perform IAVM updates and requisite CM duties in support of accreditation activities?

Gov’t Response – There is no requirement for the contractor to have certified Information Assurance personnel to perform IAVM updates. The contractor will be responsible for IAVA Installations provided to them by the Government.

26. PWS 3.1.1: The Government references “vendors” and “OEMs” that the contractor is responsible for, is there an expectation that the contractor has a relationship established with all vendors/OEMs listed in Attachment 007, Sample Parts in Storage? If there are other OEM expectations, please amplify.

Gov’t Response – The contractor will be responsible for purchasing many different items throughout the execution of the contract. The more established relationships the contractor obtains, the better they will be able to support this contract, although that is not a requirement.

27. Attachment 04 contains Parts and Quantities only. Please identify the attachment or Incident Report documentation for the period 1 October 2017 through 31 March 2018.

Gov’t Response – That documentation will not be provided.

28. Is a LOE going to be provided, or does the prime have to propose a specific LOE for this effort? Specifically, is the government going to direct the initial required amount of Core and Non-Core CFSRs?

Gov’t Response – We have provided the level of effort for 1000 incidents a year for pricing purposes. Second, the government is not going to direct the required amount of Core and Non-Core CFSRs.

29. Is a government approved purchasing system required for this effort at award date? Can a prime propose the use of a sub-contractors purchasing system until the government directs the audit of the primes system?

Gov’t Response – The Prime is responsible for providing an approved purchasing system. No, the Prime cannot use a subcontractors purchasing system.

30. Is the office and warehouse requirements within 15 Miles of JBLE a hard and fast requirement? Is this waiverable? Is the government willing to waive the requirement to have a facility of this size at award to open up more competition? It is not feasible for a non-incumbent small business to have this size office space in this location prior to award.

Gov’t Response – If necessary, there will be a 30 to 90 day transition period determined by the contracting officer for the contractor to meet the critical parts storage facility requirements.

31. How will offerors request clarification within the FINAL PWS since the Government has stated no further questions will be allowed after the Q&A are posted with the final RFP?

Gov’t Response – If clarification is needed the offeror may email the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contract Specialist. The KO will clarify the requirement with the technical team and respond to all offerors if there is a change or clarification.

32. Does the STAMIS system hardware/database need to be onsite a Government facility, or can it run from a company facility and still effectively connect to the Army’s infrastructure?

Gov’t Response – YES, a SAMS-E, or GCSS-A computer must be on a Government server. This will be executed at APG or JBLE. If a contractor is already mbedded at another military facility, that location will be taken into consideration.

33. Will the Government provide licenses, software, and coding/stocking algorithm updates for the Reorder Point Tool (ROP) to the winning contractor?

Gov’t Response – Contractor will be responsible for informing the Government of recommendations of ROP coding/stocking algorithm updates.

34. Request that the Government provide additional information/rationale related to the requirement for 3000-5000 square feet of office space within or adjacent to the storage facility. Given the Government does not intend to specify the minimum number of contractor employees assigned to the storage facility or office space, recommend the requirement be revised to the following: The Contractor shall provide a primary storage facility with a minimum of 8,000 and a maximum of 10,000 square feet of storage space, and sufficient office space for assigned contractor personnel.

Gov’t Response – The Government will adjust in the final documentation to be more clear and concise.

35. Does the contractor require Government approval of a repair plan, and if so, how is the awaiting approval time accounted in the time to repair metric of 48/72hr/10days/30days?

Gov’t Response – The Government review/approval time IS NOT factored into the contractor timeline requirements as the Government typically provides an approval with 60 minutes or less. If there is a requirement for additional Government review time, the Government will recommend Government Hold for that specific IR.

36. Will the Government insist on the inclusion of material ODC components in the cost volume and will the Government include such ODC price quotes in the evaluation criteria for the proposal? Will the Government consider instead utilizing the “Plug Number” approach to soliciting offerers ODC costing approach and subsequent Government evaluation of same?

Gov’t Response – The offeror will provide its own material costs and the Government will provide value for the ODC (Plug Number)

37. Will the Government reveal the expectations and obligations of the incumbent contract holder with respect to the transitioning-out requirements to include, but not limited to: 1) what support the incumbent contractor will be required to provide in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new contract awardee, 2) the disposition of the equipment in Fort Eustis warehouse facility and warehouse inventory records especially to the extent that it will impact transition to and establishment of a new/different facility providing the same support, and 3) any other non-contractor-proprietary information related to the AWS program/activity that is critical to a smooth transition to and continued operations of the new contract awardee from the incumbent contract holder?

Gov’t Response – The government will assist on the transition from the incumbent to the awardee. An audit will occur during that transition period.

38. Draft RFP identifies a Secret Facility Clearance is required. Please clarify the level of safeguarding required.

Gov’t Response – Contractor facilities normally have a clearance level based on the highest level of security required in support of a contract, or a clearance level based on the minimum level of security required. That clearance level covers any additional contractor facilities. If no Secret Facility Clearance exists at the contractor facility, a secret clearance will be required where the critical parts will be stored.

39. Please clarify if a Sample Task will be included as part of the Final RFP requirements and if so, will the Sample Task be due at the same time as proposals?

Gov’t Response – YES, a sample task will be provided and it will be due at the same time as the proposal.

40. Would this be an LPTA award?

Gov’t Response – NO, award will be based on the Best Value, Tradeoff Analysis Evaluation Technique.

41. Where is APS-4 and APS-5 located?

Gov’t Response – APS 4 is located in Japan and APS 5 is located in Kuwait.

Industry Questions Post-Industry Day

42. In the solicitation document entitled “027_Solicitation_W56JSR-17-R-0021__5_May_2017,” the proposal submission instructions appear to conflict. On page 2 of 68, the instructions are as follows (Page 2 of 68):

“9. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: The Offerors proposal shall be submitted via Electronic Mail (E-MAIL) to david.j.clark62.civ@mail.mil and kathryn.a.ortel.civ@mail.mil no later than 1500 hours EST on 05 June 2017.”

On page 60 of 68, the instructions are as follows (Page 60 of 68):

“1. Introduction: The offerors proposal shall be submitted electronically via FedBizOpps (FBO).”

Can the Government please clarify the method by which proposals should be submitted?

“Proposal Attachments

1. Training Schedule: File Name: TrainingSchedule.pdf, Page Limit: As Required

2. Key Personnel Resumes: File Name: RESUMES, Page Limit: As Required

3. Matrix of Personnel Qualifications relative to AWS Assets: File Name: QUALMATRIX.pdf, Page Limit: Complete qualification template for each CFSR

4. Quality Assurance Plan: File Name: QAplan.pdf, Page Limit: 20 pages” Can the Government please clarify with which volume each of these attachments should be submitted?

Gov’t Response – i) The Training Schedule = Volume II, Program Management, ii) Key Personnel Resumes = Volume I, Technical; iii) The Matrix of Personnel Qualifications Relative to AWS Assets = Volume I, Technical; iv) Quality Assurance Plan = Volume II, Program Management.

43A. Can the Government please clarify what should be in the Training Schedule?

Gov’t Response –The training schedule shall include current and future C4ISR systems as pertains to CFSRs in support of the program.

44. Item number 2 in the requirements for the past performance volume (Volume IV) states the following (Page 63 of 68, Section L.2.c ):

“The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form entitled CONTRACTORS PAST PERFORMANCE. Offeror can customize formatting; however, basic layout should be reflective of the example provided. The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror.”

Can the Government please provide the form entitled “Contractors Past Performance”?

Gov’t Response –The form has been included as the “PAST PERFORMANCE TAB, 028” to the solicitation.

45. PWS attachments 001, Incident Reports with Resolutions, and 002, SIF Guidelines (Solicitation Reference), were not included with the solicitation release (Page 28 of 28). Can the Government please provide these attachments?

Gov’t Response –Attachments were included with the solicitation. Please see “TAB 001, Incident Reports with Resolutions”, and “TAB 002, SIF Guidelines (Solicitation Reference)” in the solicitation package.

Solicitation: “For the purpose of cost evaluation, a sample material requirement list has been included in which twenty eight (28) highlighted parts are listed as a baseline for the purpose of material cost evaluation.”

Is it the government’s intent that the contractor should price the 28 highlighted item’s and their associated quantities in attachment 019_AWSC_Material_List as the value for the Incidental Parts & Materials CLIN?

Solicitation: “The time on site required to address the IRs will be estimated based on information provided in Attachment 04…” Attachment 04 is LCU CLASS Modernization Assets. Did the government intend to reference Attachment 001 – Incident Reports with Resolutions?

Gov’t Response –YES, Attachment 001 is the correct attachment.

50. Reference: Page 61 of 68, Proposal Volume III: Cost/Price Solicitation: “Based on the Offerors technical, management and teaming support approach, the Offeror shall identify the price to support all Incident Reports (IRs) from the period of 1 Oct 2017 through 31 March 2018 identified in Attachment 019 (AWSC Material List).”

“Follow process rules, prioritization guidance and response times of Attachments 0002 (SIF Guidelines) & 0013 (Field Maintenance Process). The Offeror is to assume that all necessary parts are available and Government approval is provided within 24 hours of IR submission and that only one site visit will be necessary for IR resolution. The time on site required to address the IRs will be estimated based on information provided in Attachment 04 and on the contractor’s expertise of the associated C4ISR systems.”

Attachment 019 is the AWSC Material List. Did the government intend for the IRs to be priced out to be found in Attachment 001 – Incident Reports with Resolutions?

Gov’t Response –YES, Attachment 001, Incident Reports With Resolutions, is the appropriate attachment to use for pricing IRs. 1) The 6-month period has been eliminated. 2) The 28 IRs highlighted in Attachment 001 are provided as a basis that Offerors’ can use to extrapolate data to come up with a 12-month price, and ultimately, a full 5-year period of performance price. 3) To clarify, Offeror’s are to price all of the parts and materials included in Attachment 019_AWSC-Material_List, and may use the 28 highlighted Incident Reports (IRs) in Tab 1 and the 10 highlighted IRs in Tab 3 of Attachment 001, Incident Reports With Resolutions, as a basis to extrapolate costs for 1000 IRs for the Core CFSRs and 71 IRs for the Non-Core CFSRs on a per annum basis for the total 5-year period of performance (CLINs are provided for 12-month increments for a total of 5 years). The Incidental Parts & Materials CLIN should include a price associated with ALL of the parts and materials on a per annum basis for the total 5-year effort.

Solicitation: “Follow process rules, prioritization guidance and response times of Attachments 0002 (SIF Guidelines) & 0013 (Field Maintenance Process). The Offeror is to assume that all necessary parts are available and Government approval is provided within 24 hours of IR submission and that only one site visit will be necessary for IR resolution. The time on site required to address the IRs will be estimated based on information provided in Attachment 04 and on the contractor’s expertise of the associated C4ISR systems.”

Per the guidance provided in Attachment 002 – SIF Guidelines, the priority of an IR is calculated by two factors, the AWS Impact Asset Impact Guide and the Urgency as designated by the unit. Attachment 001 – Incident Reports does not contain any information regarding the Urgency as designated by the unit. Will the government provide this information?

Gov’t Response –The information can be determined based upon Attachment 002 (AWS Asset Impact Guide).

55. Reference: Answers to Questions from Industry (#4 and #30) and RFP Section C 3.1.5.2 If the Government intends to provide a 30-90 day transition period why is it necessary for the warehouse location to be available immediately upon award? This requirement limits competition and provides an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent. Recommend the Government change the language in the RFP to state that the “warehouse must be available within 30 days of contract award.”

Gov’t Response – If necessary, there will be a 30-90 day transition period determined by the contracting officer to meet the critical parts storage facility requirements. This determination will be based upon factors such as the successful Offeror’s storage facility requirements at the time of award. The need for a transition period is not a factor which will influence the award of the solicitation. However, costs of storage facilities must be included in the Offeror’s cost/price information for evaluation purposes regardless of immediate availability.

56. Reference: Answers to Questions from Industry (#4 and #30) and RFP Section C 3.1.5.2 It appears that the incumbent has an unfair advantage in pricing. While Section L of the RFP references a data range of Oct 2017 thru March 2018 as the time period of the IRs provided, in the list of IRs in Attachment 001 – Incident Reports with Resolutions the Resolution notes include dates that stretch back to 2016 and reference additional documentation (1149’s, process cards, related IRs) making it appear that these are actual IRs that have been resolved by the incumbent. This provides the incumbent with an unfair advantage when pricing the proposal because they have the exact information about the level of effort required to resolve the incident. In addition, given the significant number of IRs and the 30day time period for proposal development the incumbent’s knowledge of the incidents exacerbates the incumbent’s competitive advantage. In addition, the Government’s direction for the offeror to use their “expertise of the associated C4ISR systems” is an unfair direction if these are actual incidents because the incumbent has the actual documentation of the response LOE. They have their “expertise of the C4ISR system” and the response documentation. Recommend the Government provide the actual LOE and any additional documentation that the current incumbent delivered to the Government concerning these incidents. And given the volume of information and effort recommend extending the proposal due date to July 5, 2017.

Gov’t Response –1) The 6-month period has been eliminated. 2) The solicitation has been extended to 15 Jun 2017. 3) The information relative to this competition has been set forth and will not change.

57. Reference– Page 59 Proposal Volume III and PWS: Cost/Price Under Direct Labor it states “…provide a listing of each proposed Direct Labor Category with its base labor rate, corresponding amount of hours, and extended cost by Contractor Fiscal Year.”

If each subcontractor is required to provide the same level of information/detail as the prime and a subcontractor’s fiscal year is different than the primes, there will be a disconnect on pricing as it is likely that the sub would price a different FY period then the prime. Shouldn’t the pricing be provided by Contract Year/GFY rather than a company’s fiscal year?

Gov’t Response –NO. Please provide the data as requested.

58. Reference– Page 59 Proposal Volume III and PWS: Cost/Price Under Travel Cost values are provided by CLIN (exclusive of indirect loadings), is it an accurate understanding that the provided travel values should be loaded into Section B exclusive of indirect loadings and no indirect loadings should be applied to the travel “plug” values provided?

Gov’t Response –YES, Travel costs should be proposed without indirect loadings. In addition, Travel shall not be fee-bearing.

59. Reference– Page 61 Proposal Volume III and PWS: Cost/Price It is this contractor’s assumption that the overall Section B submission would include the estimated cost/price by CLIN for satisfying the PWS requirements over a 5 year period of performance, 1 base year and 4 option years consistent with Attachment 18, Sample Worksheet. In filling out Section B, it is also the assumption that CLIN 1004-5004 would reflect the Government provided travel values plus indirect loadings without fee. Additionally for CLIN 1005-5005, Incidental Parts & Materials, it is assumed the Government wants the contractor to price out only the highlighted 28 parts in Attachment 019 and include that amount plus indirect loadings without fee for these CLINs.

Will the government please provide the specific timelines for entering data into the SIF so the response to this requirement can be properly evaluated?

Gov’t Response –An entry will be made within 24 hours of initial contact with the customer and when a status change or an update is required.

62. Question Number 39 (see above): Please clarify if a Sample Task will be included as part of the Final RFP requirements and if so, will the Sample Task be due at the same time as proposals?

Government Answer – NO, a sample task will not be provided.

62A. There was no “Sample Task” included within the Solicitation released on 5 May 2017. Will the Government please provide or clarify?

Gov’t Response –The Government has elected not to provide a sample task.

Which version of the PWS takes precedence?

Gov’t Response –The PWS in section C is the correct version. Attachment 024 has been removed.

64. Attachment 024 PWS uses the acronym “MARE” for Mare Island, CA Port Hueneme, Ca and provides 2 locations (Mare Island and Port Hueneme) Density and Locations in Section C lists vessels at “7. Port Hueneme, CA (HUEN)” (one location).

Please clarify location(s) and acronym or advise which PWS takes precedence.

Gov’t Response –The PWS in section C is the correct version. Attachment 024 has been removed.

Since responsibility for APS-4 and APS-5 are not part of the scope of this contract, request the Government provide POC’s and instructions for how to leverage and staff (with associated timeline requirements) these resources in support of this contracts execution.

Gov’t Response –The contractor is required to provide a Materials Management Plan addressing their capabilities and elements of their plan. Included would be their proposed support of APS 4 and APS 5.

67. “Proposed strategies shall be developed to address each significant risk.(CDRL D002)” Is the definition of “significant risk” entirely up to the vendor in the “Contractor’s Risk Mitigation Plan” (CDRL D002) or will the Government provide some guidance in determining what constitutes “significant”, or any other categorization of level of risk?

Gov’t Response –YES, risks are contractor independent.

68. Reference: List of Attachments The List of Attachments cited on page 31 is not consistent with Attachments 001-027 released with the Solicitation. Can the Government please clarify or revise so the List of Attachments and Attachments posted are consistent.

Gov’t Response –Attachments have been updated appropriately.

69. This section runs on until Pg. 60, 3rd paragraph which ends with:

“…for the twenty eight (28) items highlighted in the Government provided attached material list.”

This section is repeated (nearly) verbatim starting on Pg. 62, 2nd paragraph running through Pg. 63 with the only difference being the last sentence of the section which ends with:

“…for the twenty eight (28) items highlighted in the Government provided AWSC Material List (attachment 019).”

“Material: The proposed material costs are to be listed on the Incidental Parts/Material CLIN worksheet (as included in the sample Cost CLIN) for all POPs. The costs on the CLIN worksheets for all POPs must be the result of calculations using the list of material identified in the Government provided material list attached in section J. The proposed material costs are exclusive of all indirect loading at the prime or subcontract level.”

The specific reference to “Incidental Parts/Material CLIN worksheet” does not appear as a worksheet in the file (or ‘workbook’) 018_W56JSR-17-R-0021_Sample_WorkSheet.xlsx.

The offeror presumes that this is meant to reference the worksheet tab titled “Material Cost Worksheet” in the file (or ‘workbook’) 018_W56JSR-17-R-0021_Sample_WorkSheet.xlsx.

Can the Govt. either confirm the presumption above or clarify/resolve the requirement?

Gov’t Response –Confirmed.

Gov’t Response –The Government is requesting a CFSR apprentice training program plan and anticipates that the Offerors will provide such a plan which will address the requirement for a program to provide a stream of trained and experienced CFSRs throughout the life of the contract. The Offeror will provide what they believe to be an acceptable training program, to include current and future C4ISR systems as it pertains to CFSRs in support of the program. This will allow the Government to review the expertise of the Offeror in creating an apprentice program based on the information provided and on individual research into the area.

Gov’t Response –NO.

72B. Will the Government confirm that the resumes are to be included as an “attachment” to Proposal Volume I, Technical?

Gov’t Response –YES, resumes should be an attachment to Volume I, Technical.

'The Offeror shall describe its approach, to include its feasibility and associated risks, for meeting the requirements of section 3, Program Management Factor Evaluation, as stated above'.

There is nothing stated 'above' and if it is, it is not clear as to what the Government is referring to. Will the Government please clarify the intent of this statement?

Gov’t Response –A correction has been included in the latest version of the solicitation.

76. Reference: approximately 1/3 of the way down the page, which states:

“NOTE: Those proposals that exceed the page counts as noted above for each volume or attachment will not be evaluated. If there are more than forty-five lines of text on any page, the sum of the additional lines will be removed from back to front of the particular volume or attachment and will not be evaluated.”

Given the format instructions on page 60, namely, margins of 1” all around and either Arial or Courier font – MS Word naturally formats the page to provide 46 lines per page vice 45 lines per page – single spaced. Will the Government allow 46 lines per page or consider removing this stipulation entirely from the solicitation – relying instead on minimum margins, font types and sizes to control word/line density per page?

Gov’t Response –Concur. Solicitation has been revised.

77. Reference: “Follow process rules, prioritization guidance and response times of Attachments 0002 (SIF Guidelines) & 0013 (Field Maintenance Process).”

This appears to be a fragment of a sentence – missing a subject – e.g.; “The offeror shall…”. Can the Government clarify what is being solicited by this sentence?

Gov’t Response –This sentence should start with “The Offeror shall”.

RFP, (027), Pg. 61, Proposal Volume III: Cost/Price, 6th sentence, states:

“Travel and Material shall be proposed as Cost Reimbursable items in accordance with FAR 16.302 (Fee/Profit is unallowable for these contract line items).”

Then… RFP, (027), Pg. 62, CPFF/FFP CLIN Worksheet Same and Material Cost Worksheet Samples are attachment 18 (W56JSR-17-R-0021 Sample Worksheet), “Material:”, states:

“Material: The proposed material costs are to be listed on the Incidental Parts/Material CLIN worksheet (as included in the sample Cost CLIN) for all POPs. The costs on the CLIN worksheets for all POPs must be the result of calculations using the list of material identified in the Government provided material list attached in section J. The proposed material costs are exclusive of all indirect loadings at the prime or subcontract level.

78A. The requirement for the inclusion of costing for a sub-set of equipment that is “Cost Reimbursable” is arbitrary. The evaluation criteria associated with this requirement is vague. If the objective sought (by the Govt) is the revelation of proposed fees (e.g.; G&A, M&H, etc., as appropriate) the Govt. should simply include a “plug-number” and require exposure of material related fees as well as the absence of profit-fee. If this equipment is included in a cost evaluation such that a lower price receives a better score – we believe this to be a capricious element of evaluation and likely to produce post-award protest from any number of offerors not awarded. If the requirement is meant for the purpose of demonstrating the ability to research such parts and identify sourcing for same – it should be so stated and evaluation criteria should indicate as such. Will the Government clarify the requirement associated with this equipment list as well as address the specific criteria for evaluation associated with this cost-reimbursable element of the proposal -or- consider removing this requirement from the solicitation?

Gov’t Response –The material list represents material used in support of this requirement. Offerors are to provide their costs associated with obtaining such material, as the successful Offeror will be required to provide the parts/materials under this effort. As this requirement relates to all Offerors, an even playing field is maintained.

78B. The solicitation instructs offerors to list material costs in the “Incidental Parts/Material CLIN worksheet”. There is no such worksheet – it is assumed that the Government is referring to the “Material Cost Worksheet” in attachment 18, filename 018_W56JSR-17-R-0021_Sample_Worksheet.xlsx. The solicitation requires these material costs to be “…listed on the Incidental Parts/Material CLIN worksheet (as included in the sample Cost CLIN) for all POPs” (emphasis added). There is no indication in the RFP suggesting the time-variable of these equipment purchases. Attachment 18 provides a simple list of equipment and parts – but no ‘TIME NEEDED’ element. Will the Government clarify the requirement for material costing over the entire five (5) year Period of performance?

Gov’t Response – i) YES, the Government is referring to the “Material Cost Worksheet” within Attachment 018, W56JSR-17-R-0021_Sample Worksheet”. ii) Attachment 019, AWSC Material 100 Deliverable Revised, contains quantities associated with a 12-month period. iii) All information necessary for this requirement has been provided.

Gov’t Response –Information must be provided for all prime contractors and their major subcontractors.

Will the Government define “Physically complete”? If the Government intends for it to mean 90% of the period of performance (Pop) be completed, that rules out projects/contracts that are, for example, at the beginning of Option Year 3 of a 4 year contract with only 75% (3/4) of the Pop complete?

Gov’t Response –As option executions are never guaranteed, 90% complete would represent 90% completion of whatever current POP was in place.