HTASC_draftSolicitation_QA_21Jun17.docx

HTASC W900KK-17-R-0014 Draft Solicitation Q&A as of 06/21/2017 Huachuca Training and Support Contract (HTASC) Draft Solicitation W900KK-17-R-0014 Industry Questions and Government Answers

NOTE1: information provided within this Q&A is for informational purposes only and is subject to change; the final solicitation will contain all official information.

NOTE2: some questions are marked as “RESERVED” below. Many of these reserved questions relate to Factor 2 Small Business Participation and will be addressed with an update to this Q&A document at a later date, as soon as possible.

Section A Solicitation/Contract Form

1 Sec A Question: “A.3 Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) are marked as Firm Fixed Price (FFP) but may be utilized for other contract types such as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost, etc. for TOs issued under the resulting contract.”

Would the government please provide a scenario and/or type of services/goods provided where a Cost-No Fee CLIN might be issued under the resultant contract and/or TOs, other than an ODC CLIN?

Answer: IAW with A.3: “The Government anticipates that most Labor under HTASC will be on CPFF CLINs with travel, materials, and ODCs on Cost CLINs.”

2 Sec A Question: Reference A.3. As the Government intends to award mainly CPFF Term and Cost type Task Orders, will the Government consider adding CPFF Term and Cost type CLINs to Section B of the IDIQ.

Answer: No; IAW A.3 of the solicitation, the IDIQ Section B is structured with only FFP CLINs solely for ease of contract administration in the PD2 system.

3 Sec A Question: Section A. Please clarify where applicable, in accordance with Section A.3 and H.3, that labor will be CPFF Term.

Answer: Please reference individual TO Annexes, Section J Exhibit A, as the annexes reflect what the Government currently expects for contract types for each TO.

Section B Supplies or Services and Prices

4 Sec B Question: Will the government confirm that offerors do not need to submit a filled in Section B –Supplies or Prices and Services for the basic IDIQ contract?

Answer: All instructions are included within Section L of the Solicitation; offerors do not need to complete Section B CLINs.

5 Sec B Question: B.1 The solicitation states “The direct labor rates, escalation rates, indirect rates, and fully burdened labor rates, as proposed (or negotiated, if applicable) in the Cost/Price Excel Workbook, for both the prime and the subcontractor(s), will be binding (for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price) and will be incorporated into Section J of the resultant contract.” Will the government confirm the binding rates will be used for the pricing of TO proposals only and that the awardee will be able to bill its actual direct and indirect rates during CPFF TO execution?

Answer: Correct, rates will be binding only “for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price”; B.1 has been updated to include the word “only”.

6 Sec B Question: Reference B.1 language, would the Government please clarify that they will work with the DCAA versus the DCMA to adjust the indirect rates?

Answer: The Government has added DCAA to Section B.1.

7 Sec B Question: B.1 Can the Government please confirm that it intends to utilize the IDIQ fixed rates for Task Order bidding purposes only.

Answer: Correct; rates will be binding “(only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price)…”; B.1 has been updated to include the word “only”.

8 Sec B Question: Section L.6.1.4 says rates are binding of the life of the contract. Section B says they are binding for TO evaluation purposes. Is the government suggesting these are ceiling rates or just to be used on TO proposals? Can you please clarify?

Answer: Rates will be binding only “for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price”; B.1 has been updated to include the word “only”.

9 Sec B Question: Paragraph 3.2 states “All TOs to be awarded within 90 days of contract award”. Will there be a separate solicitation or set of solicitations for the six task orders listed in paragraph 3.2 or will the government issue the task orders under the rates and CPWS submitted in base IDIQ proposal by the awardee?

Answer: The Government will issue a request for proposal for each TO; the rates are binding only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price; awardee is expected to utilize the binding rates within TO proposals.

10 Sec B Question: Are the contract types correct being FFP? When you review the PWS workload sheets for each organization, they list the work as either FFP or CR. Can the government please clarify?

Answer: Please reference solicitation section A.3 for clarification; IAW A.3 of the solicitation, the IDIQ Section B is structured with only FFP CLINs solely for ease of contract administration in the PD2 system. The TO PWS Annexes (Section J Exhibit A) reflects the contract types the Government currently expects for each TO; contract types for each TO are subject to change and will be reflected in TO request for proposals.

Section F Deliveries or Performance

11 Sec F Question: Section F defines the base year / initial period of performance as 14 June 2018 to 13 June 2019. Attachment 0006, SOO, Section 3.2 page 2 identifies the HT-JCOE start date as 26 June 2018, 12 calendar days after the start of the initial period of performance. Does the Government expect that 26 June would be the full performance start date for a new/incoming contractor or the beginning of new contractor transition-in?

Answer: IAW F.1, the Section F delivery information may be adjusted depending on actual date of contract award; contract award is expected for third quarter, Government Fiscal Year 2018. The dates defined in the SOO are the ideal POP start dates for each TO (full performance) but will be dependent on the actual date of contract award; IAW with the SOO 3.2, all TOs will be awarded within 90 days of contract award.

12 Sec F Question: CLIN 0007 is missing from the Period of Performance list. Additionally, it appears that the missing CLIN 0007 has created a Period of Performance discrepancy in CLINs 0008—0015. Please clarify.

Answer: Section F in TO 0001 has been updated to address the inadvertent error.

Section H Special Contract Requirements

13 Sec H Question: H.4.f. Per JTR change on 10/1/2016, Chapter 1, Part A, 1000, B, the below statement is not applicable to contractors supporting a DoD Contract.” For long-term travel required (travel for a period of 31 days or more) at one location, the applicable Meals and Incidental Expenses rate is authorized at a flat rate of 75% of the TDY location for all CONUS and OCONUS travel.” Recommend deletion of this clause/statement.

Answer: The Government does not intend to remove the language; these are terms and conditions of the contract. Per the Defense Travel Management Office, Contractor Travel Regulations, Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/faqctr.cfm): “Sometimes a contract includes a special clause that addresses travel costs. The Contractor should speak with the Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer Representative for rules that apply to the individual contract.”

14 RESERVED

15 Sec H Question: L.6.5.2 Please confirm that subcontractors/teammates may provide required data that is proprietary in a sealed package directly to the Government, to include cost details and total compensation plan?

Answer: Confirmed; the Government has updated (throughout the Solicitation) language relating to subcontractors submitting proprietary information directly to the Government.

16 Sec H Question: Para L.6.1.4 states “the proposed PM (supported by TO 0001) is sufficient for the entire HTASC PWS scope, inclusive of all TO scopes, up to the HTASC base contract ceiling. Additional PM expenses will not be proposed under TOs unless the HTASC base PWS scope or HTASC base contract ceiling is revised.” Please verify that this is intended to support all of the 6 organization PWS files supporting HTJCOE, 1-100th, NSTID, TCC, 111th NCOA and TDS?

Answer: Correct.

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

17 Sec M Question: Section M.9 does not appear to have a stated approach for evaluating Volume I. Please clarify how this volume will be evaluated if at all. (unacceptable/acceptable, adjectival rating with color score, etc.)

Answer: Please reference L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, L.5 PROPOSAL STRUCTURE, L.6.1 Volume I: General, and M.9 VOLUME I: GENERAL for requisite data relative to Volume I. Rating schemes will not be used for Volume I.

Factor 1 Program Management (F1 PM)

18 F1 PM

Question: L.6.2.1 and L.6.2.2 Will the government please describe the minimum contents and format required for a contractor PWS. Is contractor format acceptable?

Answer: Minimum requirements for the CPWS are described in L.6.2.1: “The CPWS shall clearly convey to the Government the capability to provide PM (and associated administrative support), while meeting the minimum objectives of the SOO, for the HTASC (and associated TOs) with minimal risk and cost effectiveness.” Contractor format is acceptable and this language has been added to L.6.2.1.

19 F1 PM

Question: 2.6.4 Implement detailed TO/modification procedures to include proposal response time. Can the Government expand upon this requirement, in particular the proposal response time and modification procedures?

Answer: No; the Government is looking for each offeror’s unique PM solution. PM and administrative objectives are defined in the Section J Attachment 06 TO 0001 SOO (in coordination with the IDIQ PWS requirements).

20 F1 PM

Question: L.6.2.1 “The offeror shall provide a Contractor Performance Work Statement (CPWS; and associated Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan [QASP].”

Does the Government have a specific format or structure for the CPWS and QASP? At a minimum can the Government provide more detailed instructions for the CPWS and QASP?

Answer: Contractor format is acceptable for both the CPWS and the QASP; this language has been added to L.6.2.1; the Government is looking for each offeror’s unique PM solution.

21 F1 PM

Question: TO 0001 SOO. For clarification, are offerors expected to develop the performance standards, AQLs, and incentives/disincentives for each performance objective in the TO 0001 SOO within the submitted PRS?

Answer: The Government is looking for each offeror’s unique PM solution.

22 F1 PM

Question: Sections L.6.2.1, M.3.2 and M.10.1 reference requirements pertaining to "associated TO's" and "subsequent TO PWS requirements" yet it is unclear whether an approach to meet requirements in the Bidder's Library PWSs is required per Section L or will be evaluated per Section M.

Answer: An approach to meet requirements in the Bidder’s Library PWSs is not required.

23 F1 PM

Question: Section L.6.2.1 references a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) but Section L.6.2.2 and Section M.10.2.4 references a Quality Assurance Plan. Please clarify if these are the same document.

Answer: The documents are two different documents; the Government has renamed the Quality Assurance Plan to a Quality Control Plan and has updated the PWS accordingly.

24 F1 PM

Question: Paragraph 2.3 states “For any personnel identified as Key Personnel (IAW IDIQ Basic PWS 1.6.1), define the minimum experience and qualifications required”, however PWS 1.6.1 of the basic PWS refers to, but does not identify, key personnel. Could the government please clarify those positions it will consider Key Personnel to the contract.

Answer: The Government is looking for each offeror’s uniquely proposed team of Key Personnel to satisfy Program Management as identified in Section J Attachment 06 TO 0001 SOO 2.0.

25 F1 PM

Question: L.6.2 Whereas the QCP is the document used to lay-out the approach to validating that the training achieves its learning objectives, can the government specify their which level of evaluation is desired by training intervention? For example, it may be that for all classes level 1 and level 2 Kirkpatrick evaluations will be performed and only a few courses will be targeted for levels 3 and/or 4. These might be newer courses or courses considered to be underperforming in terms of student or organizational outcomes.

Answer: The Government is looking for each offeror’s unique solution quality control. Quality objectives are defined in the Section J Attachment 06 TO 0001 SOO 2.5.

26 F1 PM

Question: Will the Government please provide a PWS Annex with resource hours or historical manpower data related to program management and administrative support requirements?

Answer: No; the Government is looking for each offeror’s unique PM solution. PM and administrative objectives are defined in the Section J Attachment 06 TO 0001 SOO (in coordination with the IDIQ PWS requirements).

Factor 2 Small Business Participation Plan (F2 SB)

27 – 33 RESERVED

Factor 3 Past Performance (F3 PP)

The Government is updating Sections L and M Factor 3 Past Performance language to include updating the relevancy definition to replace the word "equivalent" with "comparable."; the Government also intends to utilize Past Performance Relevancy Ratings as defined in the DoD Source Selection Manual Tables 4 and 5 for the final solicitation in lieu of the current “acceptable” and “unacceptable” rating definitions.

34 F3 PP

Question: RFP Section L.6.4.1 excludes the relevant experience of qualified and capable subcontractors. By only considering the Prime’s past performance, the added value of a diverse, practiced, and skilled Team will not be realized. How will the government consider the relevant value of the entire Team versus the Prime only?

Answer: Section L.6.4.1 does NOT exclude the offeror from submitting past performance information relating to proposed subcontractors. The last sentence of L.6.4.1 is: “IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), the offeror may include projects from predecessor companies, key personnel (who have relevant experience as described above), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.”

35 F3 PP

Question: L.6.4.1 When the government says “Center of Excellence (CoE)” or “Combat Training Center (CTC)” equivalent, is a Mission Training Complex (MTC) considered a CTC or equivalent?

Answer: The word “equivalent” was replaced with the word “comparable.” An MTC may not be equivalent however, for evaluation purposes, work performed at an MTC MAY be considered “comparable.”

36 F3 PP

Question: L.6.4.4 This section states Offerors are strongly cautioned that if the Government is unable to contact past performance references directly associated to any survey; or in the case past performance information is not entered into the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database; or if no record of past performance is available for the project, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance for that project.

This is the only mention of a survey – no past performance survey was provided with the RFP. Also, not all relevant contracts, especially subcontracts, are entered into PPIRS.

Will the Government please reword this paragraph to eliminate the mention of a survey and clarify that only if NONE of these items are available would the project not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

Answer: Reference to a survey will be removed. The Government is updating Sections L and M Factor 3 Past Performance language; the Government intends to utilize Past Performance Relevancy Ratings as defined in the DoD Source Selection Manual Tables 4 and 5. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) applies.

37 F3 PP

Question: L.6.4.5 requires that the Offeror provide a POC (POC for Reference (Name, Company, and Telephone Number). Does the Government want a POC from the Offeror company or a Government POC?

Answer: Government POC; Section L has been updated for clarity.

38 F3 PP

Question: In the solicitation document paragraph L.6.4.1, it states, “The offeror shall provide descriptions for at least two projects (and no more than four projects) that are on-going (or have been completed within the past five years from the date of solicitation issuance) and are relevant to HTASC; relevant is defined as: contract which includes recruitment/retention of a 150+ workforce of contractor personnel (with security clearances) in support of DoD training centers of excellence (or equivalent, to include non-DoD) and/or Combat Training Centers. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), the offeror may include projects from predecessor companies, key personnel (who have relevant experience as described above), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.”

1. Is this requirement derived for large business only and not small businesses?

2. Does this requirement denote 150+ workforce on a single effort as a prime or as a team?

3. Will the Government remove the requirement or the 150+ workforce, lower the workforce number for small business, or allow the contractor “team” to be all inclusive to meet the requirement?

4. If the Government allows for all-inclusive will the Government increase the records submission amount from a maximum of 4 to a maximum of 6 in order for the prime and subcontractors to effectively demonstrate the requirement?

Answer:

1. No.

2. The 150+ workforce reference refers to a single reference/project.

3. Team: “IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), the offeror may include projects from predecessor companies, key personnel (who have relevant experience as described above), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.”

4. No.

Factor 4 Total Evaluated Cost Price (F4 TECP)

39 F4 TECP

Question: Does the government want offerors to include the required supporting information from Section L.6.5.2 in the Cost/Price excel workbook? Or should offerors submit the supporting information requested in Section L.6.5.2 as its own file?

Answer: Information in response to L.6.5.2 shall be provided outside of Appendix A, completed workbook; Section L.6.5.2 has been updated for clarity.

40 F4 TECP

Question: If the offeror has an FPRR that addresses indirect rates only, does this fulfill the requirement to provide additional indirect rate detail? Or does the offeror still need to provide the additional requested detail for both direct and indirect rates in Section 6.5.2?

Answer: No, the offeror is still to provide supporting data per 6.5.2.

41 F4 TECP

Question: L.6.5.2 states “The direct labor rate information shall be submitted for both the offeror and all major subcontractors.” What defines a major subcontractor? Is it the government’s desire to have ALL subcontractors regardless of work percentage submit the same level of pricing detail as the prime contractor?

Answer: The word “major” has been removed for L.6.5.2.

42 F4 TECP

Question: L.6.1.6 Offeror has not had an audit in the last two years, but has a letter from its ACO in the last year, stating that the results of its prior audit can still be relied upon and thus its Accounting System is still considered acceptable for awarding Government Contracts, does the Offeror need to provide a Pre-Award Survey in accordance with L.6.1.6 Business Systems Information and Accounting System?

Answer: L.6.1.6 has been updated to allow for DCMA documentation validating current accounting system approval/adequacy (despite audit being more than two years old) in lieu of the Pre-Award Survey.

43 F4 TECP

Question: M.13.1 Will the government be performing cost realism for all offerors?

Answer: Yes IAW M.13.1.

44 F4 TECP

Question: Will the government provide more insight on the technique it will use in its comparative analysis of direct and indirect rates referenced in Section M.13.2?

Answer: IAW M.13.1, “Volume V will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.404-1, as applicable.”

45 F4 TECP

Question: Section J Attachment 07. Will the government consider providing a separate template for subcontractor use in their pricing submissions that does not contain total government estimated hours and ODC plug numbers?

Answer: The Government is working to amend Section L to allow for separate submission for subcontractor information related to pricing.

46 F4 TECP

Question: The directions in the Cost/Price workbook state “Upon review of the related regulations and clauses, offeror shall identify if the Labor Categories listed are Exempt or Non/Exempt from the Service Contract Labor Standards. Type either "Exempt" or "Non/Exempt" directly into the cell; the Government anticipates all categories will be considered "Exempt".” The solicitation contains no Service Contract clauses or schedule. Will the government remove references to Service Contract Labor Standards in Attachment 07?

Answer: Yes; Section J Attachment 07 has been updated.

47 RESERVED

48 F4 TECP

Question: L.6.5.2 We suggest the Government request the location of each salary used in the actual average rate. Since offerors are likely to be performing in different locations this request is a bunch of apples and oranges in the same basket. To be meaningful, any actual average must be converted to the target location for HTASC work. In addition, does the PCO make provisions for direct submission of Major Subcontractor direct labor rates to the Government?

Answer: Instructions have been updated in the Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook: “Offerors shall propose rates that consider the various performance locations as defined by the PWS; proposed rates will be binding (only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price) IAW Section B of the solicitation/contract regardless of actual performance location.”

Section B.1 has also been updated to reflect that the rates will be binding for all performance locations (only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price).

49 F4 TECP

Question: The Pricing Workbook requests Service Contract Act exemption status (exempt/non-exempt) however Section I does not include FAR reference for SCA provisions (such as FAR 52.222-41). Please clarify the applicability of Service Contract Act to this solicitation.

Answer: Service Contract Act (SCA) is not applicable; Section J Attachment 07 has been updated to remove SCA references.

50 F4 TECP

Question: 1.3 The PWS identifies the primary places of performance as Fort Huachuca, Davis Monthan AFB, Goodfellow AFB, and Corry Naval Station. Is it the Government's intent for the proposed labor rates to be applicable to all identified places of performance?

Answer: Yes; instructions have been updated in the Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook: “Offerors shall propose rates that consider the various performance locations as defined by the PWS; proposed rates will be binding (only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price) IAW Section B of the solicitation/contract regardless of actual performance location.”

Ssection B.1 has also been updated to reflect that the rates will be binding for all performance locations (only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price).

51 F4 TECP

Question: Section J Attachment 7 CP Workbook. Travel/ODC/Material (Rows 241 & 242). The Pricing Workbook provides Government provided travel and ODC/Material values. Are the Government-provided values inclusive of a Contractor's disclosed indirect costs for these elements of cost, or should the values be modified to include applicable indirect costs?

Answer: These values are used for the purposes of evaluation only and the contractor shall not modify these values (IAW the CP Workbook Instructions). NOTE: these Government provided values are indicative of the Government’s expectations for Travel and Materials/ODCs, however, Travel, Materials/ODCs requirements will be specified at the TO level and also proposed (by the contractor) and evaluated (by the Government) at the TO level after contract award.

52 F4 TECP

Question: Section J Attachment 7 CP Workbook. Escalation (Columns K, P, U, Z, AE, AJ, & AO). The Pricing Workbook includes instructions to proposed labor escalation based on the provided factors. If labor escalation is included within an Offerors Forward Pricing Rates (FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA), may these values be altered to reflect the Forward Pricing Rate?

Answer: In accordance with the Section J Attachment 07 CP Workbook instructions and Section L, the provided escalation values cannot not be altered by offerors.

53 F4 TECP

Question: Section J Attachment 7 CP Workbook. Fully Burdened Rate (columns H, M, R, W, AB, AG, AL). Please confirm that the Fully Burdened Rate columns are through total cost exclusive of fee. Fixed fee should only be applied in Rows 236 & 237.

Answer: Confirmed, the fully burdened rates are to exclude fee; the Section J Attachment 07 CP Workbook instructions have been updated for clarity.

54 F4 TECP

Question: Section J Attachment 7 CP Workbook. Labor Rates and TPCP Tab. 8 of the 36 labor categories have zero labor hours identified. Please clarify if labor rates are required for labor categories with zero labor hours.

Answer: IAW the CP Workbook instructions, offerors shall populate all yellow highlighted cell which includes labor rates for labor categories with zero labor hours.

55 F4 TECP

Question: Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook. Please clarify if the Labor Rates to be proposed are to be Government-Site Rates or Contractor-Site Rates. Please add clarification discussion to Section L.6.5.

Answer: Instructions have been updated in the Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook: “Offerors shall propose rates that consider the various performance locations as defined by the PWS; proposed rates will be binding (only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price) IAW Section B of the solicitation/contract regardless of actual performance location.”

Section B.1 has also been updated to reflect that the rates will be binding for all performance locations (only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price).

56 F4 TECP

Question: The cost template includes IHS escalation factors. Section L says to provide supporting information and data to support your rates. Is the government directing IHS Global Insight for escalation or up to offeror to propose appropriate escalation factor?

Answer: Please see Seciton J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook instructions. IHS Global Insight rates are used for escalation and shall not be altered. Offeror does not need to talk to escalation in supporting information.

57 F4 TECP

Question: Will the Government please provide the historical direct labor rates by RFP labor category to assist offerors in developing their proposals?

Answer: No.

58 F4 TECP

Question: Will the Government make "should cost/will cost" adjustments to proposed direct labor rates when an offeror’s recruitment plan is to hire from the incumbent workforce? Will such adjustments be made consistently to all offerors?

Answer: In accordance with M.13.1, all proposed costs are subject to cost realism adjustments. Adjustments will be made consistently.

59 F4 TECP

Question: "The offeror shall provide labor rates based on a 40 hour work week and a standard man year of 1920 hours per year." In several of the organization PWS staffing spreadsheets, 1920 hours is not reflected. Some are listed as 2 FTE only, some have man-hours and some have both FTE's and man-hours. Can the government please clarify?

Answer: The Government has set a standard to appropriately evaluate proposals; offerors shall take the 1920 hours per year standard into consideration when establishing rates. The rates “will be binding only for the purposes of TO proposal, evaluation, and determination of fair and reasonable price)”; B.1 has been updated to include the word “only”.

60 F4 TECP

Question: 2.3.2 “The contractor shall provide management support as required. The contractor shall maintain the currency of contractor personnel qualifications by providing initial and refresher training as required to meet the contract requirements. The contractor shall make necessary travel arrangements for employees. The contractor shall provide necessary infrastructure to support contract tasks.”

Are all program management support requirements deemed overhead expenses to the contractor or will some of these positions be direct bill to the USG?

Answer: IAW many areas of the solicitation to include the Statement of Compliance, direct costs associated with PM shall be captured under TO 0001; overhead expenses are dependent on each contractor’s accounting system.

Labor Categories (LCs)

61 LCs Question: Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook. Minimum years requirements are less for a “Logistics Specialist – Senior” than a “Logistics Specialist – Novice” – is this an inadvertent error?

Answer: This was an inadvertent error; Section J Attachment 07 has been updated.

62 LCs Question: Technical Exhibit 4. May we propose additional LCATs beyond the 36 provided in the PWS?

Answer: No.

63 LCs Question: pg 53-53 Labor Category qualifications for the three (3) Logistics Specialist positions appear to be misaligned. Such that the Novice position requires a Bachelor’s and 3 years where as the Intermediate and Senior positions require 1 and 2 years respectively. Please clarify/confirm the qualifications for these respective positions.

Answer: This was an inadvertent error; the PWS Technical Exhibit 4 has been updated.

64 LCs Question: Technical Exhibit 4 Will the government consider developing a template to apply to all positions such as Senior = Bach+, with ##yrs of experience, and ##yrs of educational trade off and then list certain LCATs that will have no educational trade off (such as the Psychologist or critical Key Developers).

Answer: Please see Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook, Labor Category Descriptions worksheet.

65 LCs Question: Technical Exhibit 4 Will the government consider adding security clearance and certification columns into the LCAT chart that current only has Education and Years of Experience? Will the government consider reviewing the labor category descriptions and ensure they are consistent across all PWS work categories? As currently written, some appear to be in greater detailed and others are not.

Answer: PWS has been updated to match Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook, Labor Category Descriptions worksheet as these descriptions are the correct descriptions.

Proposal Format

66 Proposal Format Question: L.6.1.5 For Volume I; the Government is requiring the inclusion of Teaming Agreements, however to be compliant with solicitation instructions the Teaming Agreements must be scannable and in 12 point Arial font. In most cases, the fully executed Teaming Agreement is an adobe acrobat format but may not be text recognizable due to multiple signature versions (layers). Will the Government please waive all formatting requirements for Teaming Agreements to ensure compliance with L.6.1.5?

Answer: The Government has updated section L.6.1.5 (section no longer includes a requirement to submit Teaming Arrangements/Agreements) and removed M.9.1 “Exclusive Teaming Arrangements which Inhibit Competition”. Teaming Arrangements/Agreements/Commitments are required in the Volume III; the Government has waived all formatting requirements for Teaming Arrangements/Agreements/Commitments.

67 Proposal Format Question: There are multiple requirements for page footers under L.1.5 (Privileged Information) and L.4.2 (Source Selection Information) – the inclusion of all footers may impact page count (due to font size requirements) and compliance with solicitation requirements. Is the Government willing to remove or reduce page footer requirements to ensure proposal compliance and readability?

Answer: Yes; exception to font size requirements added to Section L.4.2.

68 Proposal Format Question: L.6.3.4 requires we provide description and documentation of methods employed to promote SB utilization. L.6.5.2 references Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) (provided in Volume I if applicable) and Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) (provided in Volume I if applicable). In the case where documentation (i.e. screen shots of actual of the systems we have in place, letters, or agreements) is required please confirm that these are exempt from the 10 pt Arial restriction provided documentation is legible.

Answer: Yes; exception to font size requirements added to Section L.4.2.

69 Proposal Format Question: L.6.5.2 references Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) (provided in Volume I if applicable) and Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) (provided in Volume I if applicable). Request the government specify where in Volume I these should be included.

Answer: Rates shall be proposed in the Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook, however, these rates may be referenced in Volume I’s Total Compensation Plan (and shall match those rates presented in the Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook

70 Proposal Format Question: L.6.2.1 and L.6.2.2 In order for the gov’t to evaluate the in depth capabilities and approaches for program management, recommend Volume II page count be expanded to 60 to include Program Management Plan, Recruitment/Ret Plan, Quality Assurance Plan, and Transition Plan and move the CPWS to be exempt from the page count along with TO 0001 PRS, QASP and resumes.

Answer: Page count increased from 30 to 45; Section L.5 has been updated accordingly.

71 Proposal Format Question: Based on the instructions in Section L.6.1.10, is the government requesting a model contract, or just the clauses with fill-ins extracted and completed in this Volume I section? Also, would the government please confirm that Section G does not currently have any clauses requiring fill-ins/signatures?

Answer: However the offeror deems fit/easiest; reference to Section G has been removed from L.6.1.10 and M.9.6.

72 Proposal Format Question: Reference L.6.1.8. The Government may want to have subcontractors submit their TCP directly to the Government if they desire TCPs to include detailed proprietary salary ranges and fringe rates.

Answer: Section L.6.1.8 has been updated to allow subcontractors to submit Total Compensation Plan directly to the Government.

73 Proposal Format Question: L.4.2 Please confirm that all executed Contract Documentation, to include but not limited to DCAA Letters, Teaming Agreements, recent ACO Letter, and other pre-existing signed documentation, can be submitted in their original .pdf format as the original file structure may not be searchable.

Answer: Confirmed.

74 Proposal Format Question: L.4.2; the Government provides a list of General Requirements relative to proposal formatting, including “Arial font is required with 12-point minimum font size”.

a. Will the Government consider another font selection, such as Times New Roman 12-point?

b. Will the Government please clarify if offerors are permitted to use a smaller font and half-inch margins in headers and footers for information such as page numbers, disclosure statements, etc.?

c. Will the Government consider revising the final RFP to allow offerors to use a smaller font for screen shots and graphics, so long as content is easily legible?

Answer:

a. No.

b. Section L.4.2 has been updated to make an exception for header/footer font.

c. Section L.4.2 has been updated to make an exception for font sizes within screenshots.

75 Proposal Format Question: Per Section L.6.1.5, Teaming Agreements are to be included in Volume I, General.

Per Volume III, Section L.6.3.3. f., "Extent of Commitment: The offeror shall provide documentation regarding individual and enforceable commitments to utilize any SB firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors. Copies of such commitments should be provided as part of offeror’s SB Participation Plan." As the Teaming Agreements will be utilized to show our Extent of Commitment, will the Government please clarify which Volume should include the Subcontractor Teaming Agreements.

Answer: The Government has updated section L.6.1.5 (section no longer includes a requirement to submit Teaming Arrangements/Agreements) and removed M.9.1 “Exclusive Teaming Arrangements which Inhibit Competition”. Teaming Arrangements/Agreements/Commitments are required in the Volume III; the Government has waived all formatting requirements for Teaming Arrangements/Agreements/Commitments.

76 Proposal Format Question: Per L.6.4.3, Prime offerors are to include letters of Subcontractor Consent. Currently, Volume IV has a 16 page limit. Will the Government consider increasing the Page Limit of Volume IV to accommodate the Consent Letters?

Answer: Table L.5 has been updated to exclude the consent letters from the 16 page limit.

77 Proposal Format Question: Per Section L.5, Volume II “shall not exceed 30 pages (30 pages does not include the proposed TO 0001 …. PRS and ….. QASP or any resumes….)” Per Section L.6.2, in Volume II bidders shall also include the CPWS, Phase-in Transition plan, recruitment/Retention plan, and Program Management Plan. To adequately discuss these topics we recommend that the page count in Volume II be increased from 30 pages to 50 pages or allow both the CPWS and the PMP to be excluded from the page count similar to the PRS, QASP and resumes. Doing so will allow the Offeror sufficient space to fully explain the depth and breadth of their approach to managing this effort.

Answer: Total page count for Volume II has been increased to 45.

78 Proposal Format Question: In Section L.4.2 Proposal File Instructions, General Requirements on Page 55, it is stated that “each paragraph shall be separated by one blank line”. In a table with bullets, we assume that the blank line requirement does not apply? Can the government please clarify?

Answer: Section L.4.2 has been updated to make an exception for tables with bullets.

Teaming Arrangements

79 Teaming Question: Section L.6.1.5, page 58 requires copies of teaming agreements be included as part of Volume I. Solicitation section L.6.3.3.f, page 61 also requires the teaming agreements as part of the Volume III submission (roughly 300 pages and 30Mb). Please confirm that TAs are included in both volumes.

Answer: The Government will only require the teaming agreements to be provided in Volume III; the Government has updated section L.6.1.5 (section no longer includes a requirement to submit Teaming Arrangements/Agreements) and removed M.9.1 “Exclusive Teaming Arrangements which Inhibit Competition”.

80 Teaming Question: Reference Section M.9.1. By what objective measure will the Government determine whether a particular exclusive teaming arrangement (teaming agreements) inhibits competition?

Answer: The Government has updated section L.6.1.5 (section no longer includes a requirement to submit Teaming Arrangements/Agreements) and removed M.9.1 “Exclusive Teaming Arrangements which Inhibit Competition”.

81 Teaming Question: This paragraph requires bidders to provide an explanation on why exclusive teaming agreements do not inhibit competition. These provisions appear to be vague and ambiguous because it is not clear what standard will be used to determine whether a teaming arrangement inhibits competition, and the provisions could be interpreted to mean that either (a) the standard will be consistent with FAR 9.6 or (b) based on some other undisclosed criteria. Can the government please provide further information that clarifies what standard will be used and confirms whether that criteria will be consistent with or independent from FAR 9.6?

Answer: The Government has updated section L.6.1.5 (section no longer includes a requirement to submit Teaming Arrangements/Agreements) and removed M.9.1 “Exclusive Teaming Arrangements which Inhibit Competition”. Teaming Arrangements/Agreements/Commitments are required in the Volume III; the Government has waived all formatting requirements for Teaming Arrangements/Agreements/Commitments.

Transition

82 Transition Question: 2.3.4 Transition: Can the government provide a definitive timeframe in which it envisions transition occurring, e.g. 60, 90 days?

Answer: Offerors are to propose their unique Phase-In Transition Plan while meeting the objectives identified in the SOO. Phase-in will begin when TO 0001 period of performance begins (concurrently to the IDIQ period of performance beginning; see Section F of the solicitation). TO 0001, Section F of the Solicitation, and Section L have been updated to align.

83 Transition Question: Para L.6.2.2 states that a Phase-in Transition Plan is required. Will the government verify if the Phase-in will be 60 or 90 days? Will the government clarify if the transition will happen after the award, or will the phase in occur during the first 60 or 90 days of the base period? Will there be a separate CLIN to track the Phase-in costs? Will this CLIN be FFP or CR?

Answer: Phase-in costs are captured under TO 0001 and are FFP (see solicitation Section J Attachment 05 TO 0001 and Attachment 06 TO 0001 SOO and PRS). Offerors are to propose their unique Phase-In Transition Plan. Phase-in will begin when TO 0001 period of performance begins (concurrently to the IDIQ period of performance beginning; see Section F of the solicitation). TO 0001, Section F of the Solicitation, and Section L have been updated to align.

Travel

84 Travel Question: Based on the above provisions in H.4, please confirm that the application of indirect burdens (e.g. G&A) is allowable in accordance with a company’s disclosed accounting practices.

Answer: Yes indirects burdens are allowable costs.

85 Travel Question: H.4 (4) includes: "The contractor’s invoices shall include receipts or other evidence substantiating actual costs incurred for authorized travel. H.4 (4)includes: "The contractor’s invoices shall include receipts or other evidence substantiating actual costs incurred for authorized travel." If a contractor has an approved accounting system and is audited by a cognizant DCAA auditor would submission of receipts be required with invoices? Suggest the following: The contractor’s invoices shall include actual costs incurred for authorized travel. In no event will such payments exceed the rates of common carriers.

Answer: The Government is reviewing the Section H Travel language; no determinations have been made at this time regarding final language (with the exception of question 13 above).

Flight and Ground Operations Procedures (FGOP)

86 FGOP

Question: M.9.5 Flight and Ground Operations Procedures. Related to AR 95-20, the solicitation states that “In accordance with Chapter 3 of AR 95-20, a Government Flight Representative (GFR) will evaluate the apparent awardee's Flight and Ground Operations Procedures, and will determine whether the apparent successful offeror "can" comply with the safety requirements of the solicitation/contract.

In demonstrating that an offeror “can” comply, does the government want demonstrated knowledge in the ability to shape flight and ground procedures compliant with AR 95-20?

Answer: No.

87 FGOP

Question: M.9.5 Flight and Ground Operations Procedures. We could not find the referenced document, Attachment 10, Required Procedures Outline, as referenced in Chapter 3 of AR 95-20 and described in Section L.6.1.9 in the draft solicitation materials. Can the Government clarify if this document was accidentally omitted? Or if the requirements described in L.6.1.9 should be included? We could not locate any supporting information in the Bidders Library List of Documents or the PWS that indicates flight or flight line ground operations are part of the HTASC contract. Airborne sensors are included, but it is unclear if they would be require any of these procedures. Also, there are no publications listed in the Bidder’s Library of Publications for Flight and Ground Operations.

Answer: PWS Section 6 has been updated to include AR 95-20.

88 FGOP

Question: Flight and Ground Operations Procedures is referenced on pages 59 and 67 only and is not a listed as a Higher-Level Task or Subtask or referenced anywhere else within the IDIQ PWS or other TO documents and attachments.

In accordance with DCMA INST 8210.1.C, Change 1, dated 5 April 2017, the purpose of the Instruction (AR 95-20) is that it establishes requirements for flight and ground operations involving all contracted work performed on aircraft. The Instruction applies to contractor personnel whose duties include the operation, production, modification, development, or maintenance of any aircraft.

1. As a primary “training contract” does the Government expect any tasks to involve duties which include the operation, production, modification, development, or maintenance of any aircraft?

2. Would the Government remove this requirement from the IDIQ PWS?

3. If not, would the Government be willing to have these procedures removed from the IDIQ PWS and inserted only in subsequent released TOs that require such procedures for contracts that require tasks such as operations, production, modifications, development, or maintenance of aircraft?

Answer:

1. This training contract includes Instructor Pilot requirements (reference 111th/NCOA TO PWS, 4.18, Tech Exhibit 4). These requirements as identified in the PWS correspond with appropriate TO Annex and Section J Attachment 07 Cost Price Workbook references.

2. No, requirement will not be removed.

3. Requirements related to the production, modifications, development, or maintenance of aircraft are not included in this contract. Procedures are as outlined in existing IDIQ/ and the 111th/NCOA TO PWS will remain unchanged.

Clauses

89 Clauses Question: Section I includes the Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers FAR reference, which is only applicable to employees covered under the Service Contract Act. Section I does not include FAR reference for SCA provisions (such as FAR 52.222-41). Please clarify the applicability of Service Contract Act to this solicitation.

Answer: SCA is not applicable; 52.222-17 has been removed from the solicitation and the Government will complete 52.204-8(c)(2) for the final solicitation.

90 Clauses Question: The Clauses Incorporated by Reference include FAR 52.246-6, Inspection--Time and Material And Labor-Hour May 2001 and FAR 52.232-7, Payments Under Time-And-Material And Labor Hour Contracts, AUG 2012. Per A.3 and H.3, this is intended to be a CPFF Term Contract, therefore, request the Government consider removing all FAR T&M Clauses. Or, does the Government intend to issue T&M CLINs as well?

Answer: Clauses referenced here will remain in the IDIQ; TO requests for proposals will reflect contract type. At this time, IAW Section A.3, the Government does not expect any T&M line items under TOs.

91 Clauses Question: Regarding DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting: In accordance with DFARS PGI 204.73, will the Government ensure that Covered Defense Information (CDI) or operationally critical support is identified, and instructions for CDI marking and CDI disposition requirements are incorporated into the HTASC final solicitation?

Answer: Yes.

92 Clauses Question: H.3(c) “No later than one day after the CLIN period of performance end date, if the actual hours performed per CLIN are less than X% (percentage to be determined by the Government for each TO; no less than 90% for any TO) of the LOE described in paragraph (a), the contractor shall submit in writing, to the PCO, the actual LOE performed, the amount by which the estimated cost of the CLIN(s) may be reduced, and a calculation of the appropriate fee reduction in accordance with (b).” Would the Government consider a timeframe of up to 30 days after CLIN period of performance end date to submit the actual hours performed to enable the submittal of accurate LOE performed consistent with an Offerors accounting system? Recommend that the government consider a timeframe of within 30 days.

Answer: H.3 updated to reflect a timeframe of “no later than 30 days.”

IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS)

93 IDIQ PWS

Question: The Table of Contents in your PWS refers to a “Technical Exhibit 5” for class details. There is no Tech 5 included.

Answer: Sec J Att 01 PWS Table of Contents updated for clarity. The Tech Exhibit 5 is listed as reserved in the IDIQ PWS as this is part of each TO's PWS, if applicable. All HTASC expected TOs' PWSs are included in Section J of the Solicitation: Exhibit A Bidder's Library; each TO (which includes requirements to support specific courses) has its own Tech Exhibit 5 as the courses are unique to each organization.

94 IDIQ PWS

Question: Paragraph 1.10 Special Requirements: The language implies that all personnel will have to complete special training within 30 days of award (e.g. AT, iWatch, etc.). Will this be a requirement for incumbent personnel currently at the respective tasks or will their current certifications be accepted until they hit their annual requirement?

Answer: The Government has updated the PWS for clarity; incumbent personnel’s current certifications will be accepted.

95 IDIQ PWS

Question: 1.9.2 Current procedures within the DSS clearance system do not support the issuance of interim clearances and the timeline for all new clearances are extremely long. All personnel working under a DD 254 must possess a valid clearance or request a security clearance and then wait for the issuance of that clearance. Current timelines for the granting of these clearances are in excess of 9 calendar months from date of submission.

Will the government support the use of personnel who are currently working at the ICoE installation (with an appropriate clearance on hand/interim) or will the 90 day timeline be implanted for removal of the contractor from that position?

Answer: Contractor personnel possessing interim clearances sufficient to allow “both eligibility and access to classified information at the appropriate level…