Attachment_17-Industry_Questions_&_Government_Responses_-_Part_II.xlsx

Post RFP Release Q&A

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Addition of new para. 5.2.6.1.1, reading “Small business contractors are exempted from the requirements of section 5.2.6.1, IAW FAR 19.702(b)(1).”

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Add language to At the TO level, the Contracting Officer may authorize hiring Local National or Third-Country National personnel without English fluency to fulfill non-operational functions (e.g., cooks, cleaners).

Reference: “Entry Gate Criteria” in paragraph L-19 D1(b)(ii) at p. 132.

Recommendation: Contractor requests the last sentence of the above-referenced “Entry Gate Criteria” subparagraph be deleted, allowing small businesses to meet the entire entry-gate requirement for 24 months of overseas rotary-wing CLS experience through selection of appropriate subcontractor teammates. Discussion posted in the Notes column. No. The Government gave careful consideration in establishing the Entry Gate criteria and believe OCONUS experience performed by the prime offeror to be important to the success of TO performance. NOTE: This experience could be obtained by an offeror while performing as either a prime, JV partner, or subcontractor on a previous acquisition over the past five years. Discussion: After examining the applicable small business market space, under the current terms of this draft RFP it seems unlikely the “Rule of Two” will be satisfied by two responsible and responsive small businesses in this NAICS category satisfying both the CONUS AND the OCONUS minimum requirement at the prime level without a joint venture. As a result, the small business opportunity in this Request for Proposals appears to be rendered de facto nonexistent.

It has been U.S. Government policy for 60 years to maximize opportunities for small business participation in all procurements. 15 U.S. Code § 631 states:

It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Government should aid, counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small-business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise, to insure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the Government (including but not limited to contracts or subcontracts for maintenance, repair, and construction) be placed with small-business enterprises, to insure that a fair proportion of the total sales of Government property be made to such enterprises, and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation. (emphasis added) In implementing the public policy established in 15 U.S. Code § 631, federal agencies have adopted the so-called “Rule of Two” when determining whether a procurement should be set aside for award to small businesses wholly or partially. The Rule of Two is set out in FAR 19.502-2(b):

The contracting officer shall set aside any acquisition over $100,000 for small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation that, (1) offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns… and, (2) award will be made at fair market prices. Total small business set-asides shall not be made unless such a reasonable expectation exists.

In addition, when considering multiple awards, Contracting Officers are required to consider whether the requirement is severable into multiple lots. If so, as is the case with this Request for Proposals, the Contracting Officer is required to make maximum use of small business capacity. FAR 19.502-3(b)(2).

The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that all federal agencies must allow small business set asides if the Rule of Two is reasonably satisfied regardless of the type of contract, including multiple-award contract vehicles. Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-916 (2016).

The “entry gate” criteria in the Draft RFP include a minimum requirement for all offerors—large or small—to have, in addition to CONUS experience of the same duration:

OCONUS CLS Experience: Prime Offeror and proposed Key Subcontractors together must reflect a minimum of 24 months of performance within the last five years of CLS experience performed outside of the United States and its territories (e.g. Guam, the Northern Marianas, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and America Samoa). At least 12 of the 24 months of experience must be performed by the Prime Offeror. (emphasis added) Because of this requirement, contractor’s market research shows that it is reasonably unlikely the Government will receive responsible and responsive offers from two qualified small businesses.

It is this contractor’s belief this requirement is overly restrictive in the context of the services sought by the Government. FAR 11.002(a)(1)(ii) requires Contracting Officers to “only include restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law.” Although the Draft RFP contemplates performance anywhere in the world, requiring this level of OCONUS experience unduly penalizes small businesses without providing a clear benefit to the Government in that the requirement paints with too broad a brush. The Government may adequately distinguish between these widely varying locations at the task-order level. This is in keeping with the DoD/AQ Policy letter of 26 Jul 12 that directs making restricted/unrestricted decisions at the order level on IDIQ contracts, thereby allowing appropriate overseas experience levels, if and as required, to be determined on a TO-by-TO basis.

5 8/24/17 L-20.D.(5).c) Completed Section J Attachments as Required Would the Government specify which Section J attachments should be completed and submitted within the contracts volume? It seems the RPP specifies the Section J attachments for each particular volume except this one (i.e., PP, Pricing, SB, and technical crosswalk attachments are mentioned by name to be included within their respective volumes). Here is a list of attachments that are required to be submitted with the proposal and the volume they are to be submitted in as described in Sections L and M of the RFP.

Attachment 2 - Pricing volume (See Section L - Volume IV for further instructions) Attachment 4 - Past Performance volume Attachment 5 - Small Business Participation volume Attachment 6 - Small Business Participation volume Attachment 7 - Contract Documentation volume Attachment 9 - Technical volume Attachment 10 - Pricing volume Attachment 12 - Pricing volume

Additional information/clarification has been provided in Attachment 0015 in paragraphs 5.1.5 and 5.2.5.2. Also, Appendix E has been included as a part of Attachment 0015 describing the aircraft density. A separate aircraft configuration will not be provided.

14 8/24/17 Section C - Description/Specification/Work Statement Section 5.2.6.1.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The IDIQ Section C 5.2.6.1.1, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, contains the small business (SB) goals for the overall program. The Sample Task Order (STO) PWS, however, does not specifically identify SB goals for this STO. Is it the Government's intent that the SB goals specified in the IDIQ PWS (paragraph C.5.2.6.1.1) apply to the offeror's STO plan for small business participation as provided in Volume VI? The Small Business Goals listed in the PWS are the Army's Goals, and should not be misconstrued as required goals for the specific Tasks in the Solicitation.

There are no specific goals for the sample tasks so as to drive competition among bidders. Offerors are requested to submit their competitive small business participation goals for evaluation.

15 8/25/17 L-20 Can you clarify the deadline for the receipt of questions?

Section L-20 Instruction to Offerors – A. Solicitation Points of Contact says “All questions shall be submitted in writing via e-mail to the POC's below no later than1600 hours on the 15th calendar day following release of RFP”.

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 488190.

(2) The small business size standard is $32,500,000.00.

(3) The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

Question:

1. Because the WLSS-C is a Services contract and the IDIQ or STO PWS are not requesting that the Offeror provide a product, is the size limitation a dollar value or an employee size standard for this contract?

2. If the dollar value is strictly enforced, Will your office consider a waiver for the size to either of these thresholds in the restricted pool due to the period performance?

3. [Will the Government give] consideration of the complexities and austere environments this work will be performed in when placing the dollar thresholds for small business[?] 1. The size limitation is based off of the dollar value specified in paragraph (2).

2. Small Business size standards are set by the Small Business Administration. The Government will not allow for a waiver of the size standard for this NAICS.

3. FAR 19.102 (b) and paragraph (1) states, "Small business size standards are applied by --

(1) Classifying the product or service being acquired in the industry whose definition, as found in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Manual (available at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ ), best describes the principal nature of the product or service being acquired;

Consideration was given to the principal nature of the service being acquired. Small Business size standards are set by the Small Business Administration.

1) are subject to wage determination; and

2) the offeror proposes to utilize CONUS in performance of any future TO.

NOTE: A good representative of future work is the STO PWS, Attachment 0015.

The Government will not change the requirement. The requirement to provide one set of ceiling rates for the 75 labor categories in Attachment 0010 will remain.

Issue: Form fields are missing for some of the requested sections and can’t be filled in. Other form fields are too small for the required information.

Issue: There is a disconnect between the instructions in Section L and the form fields required in Attachment 0003 and 0004. Each document uses different terminology for the POC titles and it is unclear as to whether these POCs should all be the same.

Can the Government clarify which POCs should receive a Questionnaire (Attachment 0003)?

Are these the same contacts that should be identified in Attachment 0004?

Will the Government update the instructions and Attachment 0003 and 0004 to reflect the same lexicon for all required POCs? Section L-20 states that the offeror should provide one copy of attachment 0003 to the Government contracting activity (the Contracting Officer) and one copy to the technical representative (COR) responsible for the past/current contract.

Yes. These are the same contacts needed in Attachment 0004.

Attachment 0004 will be revised in Amendment 0002 to clarify Point of Contact knowledgeable about the program. DISCUSSION: L-20.D.(3).a.(ii).(a).S7 Section 7: For all contracts identified in Section 3, Summary of Relevant Contract Experience, a Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire using Attachment 0003 and Past Performance Risk Reference Sheet using Attachment 0004 shall be completed and submitted. For Attachment 0003, the Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract (One Point of Contact (POC) and one contract per questionnaire.

L-20.D.(3).a.(ii).(a).S3.i-xiii Section 3: Summary of Relevant Contract Experience.: iii. PCO name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers; iv. Government's technical representative/ COR name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers; v. Government contract administration activity/cognizant DCAA/DCMA and the Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs) name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

Part I of Attachment 0003 Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire: Contracting Officer, Contract Administrator, Customer POC

Attachment 0004 Risk Reference Sheet: Contracting Officer, Point of Contact knowledgeable about the Program, Alternate Point of Contact knowledgeable about the Program 33 L-20.D.(3).a.(ii).(a).S7 Section 7 “Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract.”

Issue: Form fields are missing for some of the requested sections and can’t be filled in. Other form fields are too small for the required information.

1. Can the Government please clarify what exactly should be included in Volume II under the STO for the Small Business Participation Plan?

2. Can the Government please revise the instructions for Section L for both Volume II under the STO and for Volume VI Small Business Participation Plan? The Small Business Participation Plan identified in the STO PWS paragraph 5.2.5 shall be submitted in accordance with L-20 D (6) b.

There is adequate guidance in the RFP for submission of the Small Business Participation Plan, no revision is needed. It is unclear if the offeror should submit the Small Business Participation Plan in both Volume II and Volume VI.

a. In section L-19.D(2).S4.B.ii the RFP requires the offeror to submit a Task Order Management Plan in accordance with the STO PWS (Att 0013). The STO PWS 5.2.5, Task Order Management Plan, states that the offeror should provide a Small Business Participation plan as part of the TOMP.

b. In section L-19.D(6).i the RFP states that the Small Business Participation Plan required for Volume VI should be completed for the Sample Task Order (STO).

he Government answered part of this question in the initial DRFP round of questions as question #18 released 21 Apr 2017. The Government stated that section L would be updated to accurately reflect where this information should be presented. However, Section L still states to include the Attachment 0005 with the Small Business Participation Plan for the STO.

Additionally, Volume VI, Section L-19.D.(6).b.(iii).(b).i says:

36 8/30/17 STO-PWS Attachment 15 5.8 Training Support/Mentorship The Government states the contractor shall develop and maintain an on-the-job/mentorship training plan that provides continuation of skills and knowledge for Host Nation… In order for the contractor to properly allocate personnel and resources to the training/mentorship program, the number of students, the frequency of traingin, and the types of instruction must be provided.

Please provide the number of students, frequency of training, and types of instruction.

Will the Government provide the required training support packages?

If the Government is not providing the training support packages, will the contractor be required to provide the training support packages?

If no, how will the Government establish an RPL by platform?

Will future RPLs be task order-specific or platform-specific? No.

RPL's will be defined and provided by TO.

Both.

39 8/30/17 STO-PWS Attachment 15, Appendix C ASL In the Draft Q&A, the Government states the MI-17 and MD-530 ASLs will not be provided, however the Governmnent provided the ASL for the spare parts on the MD-530, and the ASL for POL on the MI-17 platforms. The Government did not provide the MD-530 POL and did not provide the MI-17 spares.

Does the Government expect the contractor to price the quantities as listed in Appendix C?

Will the Government be issuing an MI-17 spare parts ASL, and MD-530 POL ASL for the contractor to price?

On the MI-17 ASL for POL, many of the items are listed three times with the same part number, nomenclature, and quantity; please clarify or confirm this is correct? The ASL's are provided as GFP, all other material support identified by the Offeror to support this effort should be appropriately accounted for in their estimates.

The ASL's for both aircraft have been updated and can be found at Appendix C to the STO PWS.

Question A: Will the Government accept the copies of SAM records as an attachment to Volume VI?

Question A: Will the Government accept the copies of ISR records as an attachment to Volume VI?

Question A: Will the Government accept this plan as an attachment to Volume VI?

Yes. Past Performance information shall be provided on proposed team members in performance of the STO.

Q: Request the USG identify current US Army Recognized Civil or Military Airworthiness Authorities within NATO and outside the Russian Federation (RF) or CIS for the Mi-17/35 aircraft.