Government_Responses_27Jul17.pdf

W56KGY-17-R-0020

Government Responses to Industry Questions 25 July 2017

Question

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

1. N/A N/A

What is the Government’s deadline for the submission of questions?

Government Response: Questions can be submitted up to the proposal due date. Please note, however, that questions submitted close to the proposal due date may not be answered

2. RFP L-17 139

Reference Section L-17, page 139. The Government has included the ‘Notice of Earned Value Management

System (EVMS)’ clause in the RFP. EVMS compliance will impact Offeror’s cost, may present a challenge for some small businesses, and may not be appropriate for this type of contract opportunity. EVM is typically applied to contracts with heavy development or integration-type work. Some might assert that efforts that are service-oriented, sustainment, logistics consulting, or other work best characterized as ‘level of effort’ type of activity are not generally best serviced by EVM application.

Q: Will the Government consider removing or deviating from this clause for the EVMS requirement? If not, in what volume of our proposal should we include our documentation/written description related to EVMS?

Government Response: The Government does not plan on removing or deviating from this clause. As stated in

DFARS 234.201(1)(ii), “For cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $100,000,000 or more, the contractor shall have an earned value management system that has been determined by the cognizant Federal agency to be in compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748.”

To meet DFARS 252.234-7001 – The Offeror shall provide documentation within the Miscellaneous Volume.

An amendment will be completed to the solicitation within Table 4 of Section L to make this clear.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

3. RFP L-18.5.a. 140-141

Reference Section L-18, 5, a., (i), page 140-141, relating to Volume I – Technical. The Government does not require offerors to provide a Technical Approach in response to each section of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS) that is included in the RFP.

Additionally, Section M.1, Basis for Award on page 150 states “Offerors shall provide technical solutions for the requirements included in the performance work statement (PWS)”; yet the “Factors to Be Evaluated” section (page

150) and specifically “Factor 1” (also on page 150) makes no reference to the PWS.

There appears to be a conflict here. While section L offers no instructions regarding inclusion of the PWS in our proposal, Section M “Basis” implies that offerors will be evaluated on this topic – but then fails to express HOW we will be evaluated in the “Factors to be Evaluated” portion of section M.

Q: Will the Government please de-conflict this requirement related to the inclusion (or not) of the PWS such that Section L provides clear instruction for the inclusion (or not) of a response to the PWS in our Technical

Volume. Also – will the Government please address this conflict in Section M and provide a clear description of the Government’s plan (to include both ‘Basis’ and ‘Factors’) for evaluation of offeror’s proposal as specifically related to the PWS?

Government Response: The Statement “Offerors shall provide technical solutions for the requirements included in the performance work statement (PWS)” was incorrectly included in the solicitation and will be removed in the next amendment.

4. RFP L-18.b.1.5. 142

Reference Section L-18, b, Volume II Past Performance, (i), 5 on page 142 which requests that “Government contract administration activity’s pre-award monitor’s name and…” for each past performance reference. We are unclear who this person is/has been as we have never seen the term “Government contract administration activity’s pre-award monitor” before.

Q: Will the Government clarify who the “pre-award monitor” is (COR, PCO, ACO, etc.), and/or provide guidance on how we might proceed to determine the identity of this individual, or if we do not know may this requirement be left blank?

Government’s Response: If the contractor is unaware of who the pre-award monitor is for a particular or all of the contracts being referenced, the contractor can leave this POC information blank or state “N/A.”

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

5.

RFP L-18.b.i.13.

and Attachment

0006 Section L

Tables

141-143

Reference Section L-18, b, Volume II Past Performance, (i), 13, on page 142 which states “The Offeror must provide the most up to date PWS/SOW with each reference. The Offeror/major subcontractor must cross reference the relevancy of the work they accomplish under the provided PWS/SOW to this contract PWS”.

Also reference attachment 6, Section L Tables which indicates that Volume II - Past Performance is limited to 50 pages.

It is noted that some of the required PWS/SOW documents can exceed 50 pages themselves.

Q: Will the Government exclude the PWS/SOW from the 50-page limit or otherwise provide guidance on how offerors are to include PWS/SOW under the page constraints provided? Will the Government consider dropping this requirement in its entirety?

Government Response: PWS/SOW for the contractor referenced contracts concerning past performance will not be included in the page count for this volume. An amendment will be completed to ensure clarity.

6. RFP L-18 140-148

Reference section L-18, pages 140-148. The Government provides no Section L guidance on what is to be included in Volume IV – Miscellaneous

Q: Will the Government provide guidance (in Section L) as to what specifically should be included in offeror’s

Volume IV as well as provide details (in Section M) as to how (or ‘if’) Volume IV will be evaluated?

Government Response: The above question mislabeled the miscellaneous volume. The miscellaneous volume is Volume V. In Attachment 0006, Table 4, 4th paragraph below the table states what should be included in this volume. This volume is for the purposes of providing the Government with various documents stated within the solicitation and will not be evaluated.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

7.

RFP L-18.2 and 4.

and Attachment

0006 Section L

Tables

Reference section L-18, 2, Proposal Submission Requirements, page 140. Also reference Attachment 0006, Section L Tables.

As part of the final proposal, each Offeror is required to submit (via e-mail) 12 separate files as instructed in the

RFP and Table 4 of attachment 0006. Previous experience has shown that Government email servers will not deliver email with attachments that exceed some maximum size (believed to be less than 10MB).

Q: Can the Government provide guidance on proposal delivery for proposal files (and aggregate of multiple files) that exceed the maximum file size permitted by Government email servers? Additionally:

Can the Government specify what the maximum file size that the Government mail servers can withstand?

Will it be acceptable to submit the proposal in multiple email submissions if necessary?

Will it be acceptable to submit the proposal via the Army AMRDEC SAFE

(https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx) utility?

Does the Government have specific guidance regarding file-naming for offeror’s submittals?

Does the Government have specific guidance regarding “Zipping” our 12 deliverable proposal files into a single zip-file?

Government Response:

1) The Government can receive emails sizes less than 25MB.

2) The Offeror can send multiple emails due to size constraints, if necessary.

3) The Government would accept AMRDEC Safe submittals due to possible proposal sizes. An amendment will be completed to make this clear.

4) Please see L-18.4 – File Packaging (Page 140 in the solicitation) for file-naming.

5) The Government cannot accept ZIP files from outside sources.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

8.

RFP Section H and FAR 52.219-

Reference section H, (middle of page), page 90. The RFP states: “For the purposes of FAR 52.219-159c) (i) ‘at least 50 percent of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.’”

Q: We have reviewed the Jan 2017 Limitations on Subcontracting FAR clause and are interested in the

Contracting Officer’s interpretation of whether or not all Small Business partners’ contract performance on the Prime Offeror’s team under NAICS code 541614 can also be included in the aggregate toward that 50 percent requirement or if the KO’s interpretation of this clause is that the Small Business Prime must perform

50% of the work (i.e.; not the aggregate if the small-businesses on the team)?

Government Response: The small business prime must perform 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel. The present version of FAR 52.219-14 is clear and unambiguous on its face that the prime must perform at least 50% of the services, so there is nothing to “interpret.” Until such time as the FAR

Council promulgates regulations implementing Section 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2013, FAR 52.219-14 remains the law.

9.

RFP I-151 Earned

Value

Management

System, L-17

Notice of Earned

Value

Management

System

103, Q. The PD Aerostats SETA contract will provide ongoing advisory and assistance services to PD Aerostats including POR requirements, engineering requirement development and implementation management, logistics/supply chain management, and budgetary planning and execution. As such, this is generally an LOE services contract that is non-schedule-based (i.e. it is not characterized by discrete development activities leading to tangible deliverable products, but rather, on-going O&M support and program management support activities). Imposition of EVMS on a program of this type will have minimal return on investment in terms of actionable performance measurements that cannot be achieved with standard performance monitoring. The requirement for EVMS compliance in accordance with ANSI/EIA-748 imposes significant costs on the program that can be expected to consume 3-5% of the budget, while generating very little value-add in terms of performance measurement. In addition, development of compliant EVMS systems requires significant investment by the Prime and subcontractors, which is a deterrent to competition for small businesses meeting the $15M NAICS standard. We request that in the best interest of the customer, the EVMS requirements are removed from the solicitation.

Government Response: See Question #2

10.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 5.a

140-141

Q. Provides the contractor with instructions on how to prepare Vol I of their proposal. When compared to the

PWS and Section M, Evaluation Factors, the instructions are unclear on how the customer would like the offeror to present a response to the PWS. Should the offer include a detailed response to the PWS requirements within Vol I of the proposal?

Government Response: See Question #3

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

11.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 5.b

Q. Provides the contractor with instructions on how to prepare Vol II of their proposal. Specifically, requirement i.13 states “The Offeror must provide the most up to date PWS/SOW with each reference…” The majority of the SOW potentially included will exceed 20 pages per past performance references. With respect to this requirement, will the customer consider removing the PWS/SOW from the 50 page restriction for Vol

II?

Government Response: See Question #5

12.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 5.c

Q. BOE indicates the potential for leased or purchased vehicles. We request that the customer provide a plug number or historical data regarding vehicle costs. If plug numbers are not provided, we request that the customer provide the location, quantity and type of vehicle for the current contract.

Government Response: The Government has provided plug numbers for material, travel, and ODC within

Attachment 0006. Any costs proposed above the provided plug numbers shall have BOE information associated with those costs. As for the number of vehicles, currently the Government has four (4) vehicles OCONUS and two (2) vehicles CONUS at Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG). An amendment will be forthcoming to ensure these numbers are within the solicitation.

13.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 3

Q. Provides instructions for the formatting of the assembled volumes. To adequately present graphics with diagrams, processes and workflows, we request a modification to these instructions allowing for a font size of

10-point minimum, Arial.

Government Response: The Government will not change the requirements within this section.

14.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 3

Q. Provides instructions for the formatting of the assembled volumes. To increase readability within tables, we request a modification to these instructions allowing for a font size of 10-point minimum, Arial.

15.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 3

Q. Provides instructions on the formatting of the assembled volumes, restricting page size to 8.5" x 11". On occasion, it might be necessary to provide the customer with detailed tables and illustrations that exceed this limitation. We request the ability to include 11” x 17” fold outs within the proposal volumes.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

16. Attachment 0012 -

Q. Within the WBS provided, WBS Nodes under 1.2.1.1.1.2 appear to be either incorrectly titled (column C) or incorrectly referenced to the WBS (column B). For example, WBS node 1.2.1.1.1.2.1 is currently referencing

PWS 3.2.1 but titled Systems Engineering, while the PWS (attachment 0001) 3.2.1 is titled Technical Analysis and Assessment. We request clarification from the customer.

Government Response: The Government will provide an amendment to correct Attachment 0012.

17. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Q. Theatre Operations states eight (8) OCONUS CMEs to support CENTCOM, where will these 8 CMEs be located?

Government Response: These CMEs have historically been located in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait.

Reference L-18.5.c “Pricing Assumptions”

18. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Q. Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support DHS, where will these 2 CMEs be

Government Response: Reference L-18.5.c “Pricing Assumptions” for locations. A forthcoming amendment will be providing the city name along with the state that was already provided.

19. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support EUCOM, where will these 2 CMEs be will be providing the city name along with the country that was already provided.

20. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support NORTHCOM, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

21. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support SOUTHCOM, where will these 2 CMEs

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

22. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support PACOM, where will these 2 CMEs be

23. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support AFRICOM, where will these 2 CMEs

24. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states four (4) OCONUS CMEs in CENTCOM, where will these 4 CMEs be located?

25. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states seven (7) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs, where will these 7 CMEs be located?

Government Response: These CMEs have historically been located in Texas, Arizona, Iraq, and Afghanistan

26. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support DHS, where will this 1 CME be located?

27. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support EUCOM, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #19

28. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support NORTHCOM, where will this 1 CME be

Government Response: See question #20

29. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support SOUTHCOM, where will this 1 CME be

Government Response: See question #21

30. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support PACOM, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #22

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

31. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support AFRICOM, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #23

32. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states two (2) OCONUS CMEs to support CENTCOM, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

Government Response: See question #24

33. Attachment 0009 3.1.3

Operational Analysis states three (3) CONUS CMEs, where will these 3 CMEs be located?

Government Response: As stated in Attachment 0003, “The primary place of performance for this contract shall be at PD Aerostats facility located in Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)”

34. Attachment 0009 3.1.3

Operational Analysis states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #33

35. Attachment 0009 3.1.4

Supply Management and Transportation states two (2) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

36. Attachment 0009 3.1.4 Supply Management and Transportation states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

37. Attachment 0009 3.1.5

Lifecycle Sustainment Planning states three (3) CONUS CMEs, where will these 3 CMEs be located?

38. Attachment 0009 3.1.5

Lifecycle Sustainment Planning states two (2) surge CONUS CME, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

39. Attachment 0009 3.2.1

Technical Analysis and Assessment states four (4) CONUS CMEs, where will these 4 CMEs be located?

40. Attachment 0009 3.2.1 Technical Analysis and Assessment states one (1) surge CONUS CMEs, where will this 1 CME be located?

41. Attachment 0009 3.2.2

Integration Support states four (4) CONUS CMEs, where will these 4 CMEs be located?

Government Response: Three (3) CMEs will be located at APG with one (1) at YPG.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

42. Attachment 0009 3.2.3 Test and Evaluation Support states two (2) CONUS CEMs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

Government Response: One (1) CME will be located at APG and one (1) CME will be at YPG.

43. Attachment 0009 3.2.3 Test and Evaluation Support states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

44. Attachment 0009 3.2.4

Configuration Management states two (2) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

45. Attachment 0009 3.2.5

Program Protection Support states one (1) CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

46. Attachment 0009 3.2.5 Program Protection Support states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

47. Attachment 0009 3.2.6

Cyber Security Support states two (2) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

48. Attachment 0009 3.2.6

Cyber Security Support states two (2) surge CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

49. Attachment 0009 3.3.1 Program Planning states six (6) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

50. Attachment 0009 3.3.1 Program Planning states two (2) surge CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

51. Attachment 0009 3.3.2

Contract Acquisition and Execution states five (5) CONUS CMEs, where will these 5 CMEs be located?

52. Attachment 0009 3.3.3

Cost Analysis & Estimating states two and a half (2.5) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2.5 CMEs be located?

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

53. Attachment 0009 3.3.3 Cost Analysis & Estimating states one (1) surge CONUS CMEs, where will this 1 CME be located?

54. Attachment 0009 3.3.4

Budget Planning, Execution & Reconciliation states four (4) CONUS CMEs, where will these 4 CMEs be

55. Attachment 0009 3.3.4

Budget Planning, Execution & Reconciliation states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will these 1 CME be

56. Attachment 0009 3.3.5 Administrative Support states eight and a half (8.5) CONUS CMEs, where will these 8.5 CMEs be located?

57. Attachment 0009 3.3.5

Administrative Support states one (1) surge CONUS CMEs, where will this 1 CME be located?

58. Attachment 0009 3.3.6

Information Technology Support states one (1) CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?