A.09.01_Presolicition_nQuestions_-_Government_Responses_050817.pdf

Document Pg # Para # Question Answer

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 106 Table 1.k

The latest DRFP removes reference to PWS Para. 4 within Section B and replaces it with reference to Para.

3. Are we expected to respond to anything contained within Para. 4?

No, PWS Section 4 will not be evaluated.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006

A previous Gov response to offerors questions posted to

FBO stated the Gov is not seeking an eLearning solution.

Given the posted answer sheet was marked "Draft", is the answer still valid?

Yes, it is still valid.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 78 3.2.3.4

The PWS language states that the "Government will arrange for any additional buildings to house CSPs at Ft.

Hunter Liggett, as necessary." Does this include workspace for any biomedical maintenance or non-medical maintenance technicians we might propose as full-time FHL staff and will the Government provide the space needed to perform work if we propose it?

Yes.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006

Sample Property

Accountability Plan

The slides provided for the Site Visits state a 10 page limit for the Sample Property Accountability Plan. The current Draft RFP PWS states the Sample Property

Accountability does not have a page limit. We assume the DRFP languge is correct. Please clarify.

Draft RFP language is correct.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 116

ITO 2 c. Volume III, Factor 2 –

Present and Past Performance states "The word “contract” is defined as a single contract or a single TO/DO on an IDIQ contract. The word “contract”, as defined herein, does not mean basic IDIQ contract, for the purpose of present and past performance submissions under this solicitation."

Question: Many IDIQs have tasks with the same work being performed over a longer than 1 year period, and the Government breaks it down into a new TO or DO (or

WKRP or Purchase Orders in some cases) each year for administrative purposes. This is the same work and only has multiple task orders because the Government structures it this way. In order to encourage competition, will the Government allow offerors to include multiple

TOs where the same work is performed for the same customer over multiple years and is only structured this way for administrative purposes??

As stated, "contract" is defined as a single contract or single TO/DO on an

IDIQ Contract. As such, as long as the task orders are identified as being separate (Task Order 0001, 0002, 0003, etc) so that they will be considered a

"contract," an offeror may use multiple task orders under an IDIQ, regardless if it is the same work.

W81K04-17-R-0006, Government Responses 050817

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 116

ITO 2 c. (a) 1. (a) Section 1 –

Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and

DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of

Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

Question: If an Offeror performed relevant work as a subcontractor for a prime contractor who is likely also competing for RTS-Med award, may the Offeror be relieved of having to provide the prime contractor contact information in order to avoid a perceived conflict of interest due to the fact that both the Offeror and its past performance prime contractor are competing for the RTS-Med effort? We will provide the

Government Points of Contact as required.

No, there would be no relief in terms of providing the name of the prime contractor and POC. Based on the scenario described, the prime contractor was responsible for meeting the contract requirements; as such,your question regarding the Government POCs would not be work as the Government POCs are unable to provide past performance information on a subcontractor. Only the prime contractor is evaluated for past performance by the Government.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 124

Evaluation 5 a) Present and Past

Performance Factor states "a.

Evaluation of present and past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix B."

There is no Appendix B with referenced forms and questionnaires included with the RFP. Question: Will the Government please provide an Appendix B or delete this reference to Appendix B?

Appendix B reference was deleted.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 124-125

Relevancy. The second step of the past performance evaluation, Relevancy and Table 3 seem to indicate that each past performance citation will be assesssesd individually for relevance to the RTS-Med requirements.

Question: Will the Government consider assessing the past performance citations in the aggregate instead of inidividually for relevance? This allows contracts that are very relevant in one or some of the main task areas to be presented with the end result of all main task areas being covered when the citations are combined for relevance

No, the relevancy defintion is in accordance with DoD Source Selection

Guidance.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006

Could we get one sample of a POI for an existing training in the areas of the PWS, preferably used by

MTTs?

Yes.

Draft W81K04-17-R-0006 N/A N/A

In regards to the Collective Bargaining Agreements

(CBAs) can the Government please advise if employees under the CBA are paid bi-weekly or weekly?

Additionally, are employees paid in arrears? This may effect if an offeror is able to submit a proposal in response to the RFP.

Employees are paid biweekly. It is unknown how the incumbent pays the employees. Recommend reviewing

CBAs for CBA-specific informatino.