W900KK20R0011_CRM 2_20200410.xlsx

Sheet2

Comment: This is a major change from prior solicitation requirements negatively affecting major proposal efforts where IDIQs were being used. Companies have based bid/no-bid decisions in great part upon citable past performance requirements in the solicitation for the last two years. We have completed our Past Performance Volume and sent out all PPQs. We leveraged several Single Award IDIQ contracts performed in substantially one location that have single points of contact. Referencing a Delivery/Task Order under a Single Award IDIQ contract with Delivery/Task Orders performed in substantially one location and with a single POC may not allow a bidder to adequately convey the relevant size, scope and complexity of work performed unless referenced at the IDIQ level (i.e. Individual Delivery/Task Orders for appropriate/similar work may be small but cumulatively add up to or exceed appropriate size, scope and complexity.

Question: Will the government allow Single Award IDIQ contracts with Multiple Delivery/Task Orders performed in substantially one location and with a single POC count as one contract usable for past performance if size, scope and complexity are appropriate at the IDIQ level?

The question – can the contractor add and re-label separate stand alone documents as it determines is required within the solicitation? Or is it imperative that we adhere to the listed appendix label (i.e. Append A, or A_XXX) as denoted in Sections L.9.2 and L.10.2.

Will the Government please clarify the difference between the requirement in this section and that of Section L.3.7.1.1 with respect to the work to be performed under NCRC EPOS? Section L.3.7.1.1 indicates offerors are to distribute program requirements amongst the prime contractor and all teaming partners; this section asks for this information, along with other corporate information, only for major subcontractors. Are offerors to provide the CAGE Code and DUNS for all subcontractors? Further, will the Government please clarify how this information impacts the relevancy evaluation of our past performance references?

The purpose of the Section 1 - Organization/Teaming Arrangement portion within the Past Performance volume is to understand how the offeror's past performance examples relate to this proposed effort. For instance, by requiring this information, the Government is seeking to ensure that an offeror is not using a past performance example from a subcontractor / subsidiary / affiliate, etc that will not be involved with the EPOS effort.

Amendment 0006 made numerous changes to the past performance volume to clarify the Government's intent.

6 W900KK20R0011_Attach_31_Compliance_Matrix_20200327 We understand the compliance matrix for technical volume will not be evaluated but want to understand if Factor 2 PWS and CDRL content in subject attachment 31 is only an example or if that content is the only PWS and CDRL requirements the Government will evaluate. In other words, are the PWS and CDRL requirements listed in attachment 31, Factor 2, columns D & E, the only requirements the Government wants addressed in the proposal or should the Offeror address all PWS and CDRL requirements of the SB Lot?

Reference Amendment 006 Mar 27, Answer to Question 320 Answer provided to Question 320 did not address the issue. Initial Round 1 question was - Instructions as stated “The first page of the proposal must show - -“ followed by several requirements.

Please clarify whether this reference of “first page” is a separate page as a file for inclusion onto the DVD disk or if this information is required on the cover page of each Proposal Volume?

This question was in reference to the Government’s requirement as to the CONTENT of the “first page”. Is it the intent of these instructions that all of the noted material must be placed on the cover page of each individual volume? Or is it the intent that a separate “first page” should be included with the proposal that contains this required information?

Will the Government please confirm that offerors are to submit the entire solicitation (e.g., SF 33, only Attachments 10 and 11, and Sections A – M) in Volume V?

Request that the Government revisit the delivery requirements stated in Section L.1.17.2 in light of current National situation.

• W900KK20R0011_Attach_12_Sample_Charleston_(CHS)_Site_Services_Model_Task_Order_20200327.pdf

• W900KK20R0011_Attach_06_NITC_Model_Task_Order_20200327_20200327.pdf

Will the Government confirm this approach?

Will the Government please clarify whether this requirement is only for the Prime and "Major Subcontractors" or for the Prime and all teaming partners?

NTE value of $250,000 has been added to CLIN 2005.

Paragraphs L.5.8.6.23 (and L.9.8.6.21) have been updated to clarify the Government's intent. Plug values are only applicable to the prime's proposal.

31 W900KK-20-R-0011_NCRC_EPOS_Conformed_at_Amendment_0008_20200331 DFARS 252.246-7001 We believe that for the deliverables being priced, a Warranty of Data is not indicated; we therefore request for this clause to be removed. If the Government desires to retain the clause, please indicate what would constitute nonconforming data so the offeror can price this warranty appropriately.

Will the Government please confirm that this requirement is only for the Prime and "Major Subcontractor"?

a) Amendment 0006 provided an updated version of Attachment 34, the NCRC EPOS Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter. Therefore, we believe both references in in L.3.7.2.3 to Attachment 33 should be Attachment 34.

b) The reference to Amendment 0005 should be Amendment 0006, which is when the updated cover letter was provided.

clarify?

Will the government amend this section to read as follows: Offerors who do not have a Government-approved direct and/or indirect Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Indirect Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) (no older than one year) or only have provisional billing rates must provide . . .”

It is our understanding that this additional data should not be required under FPRR

As the IDIQ, CHS, and NITC TOs will be awarded on the same date, will the Government allow the Contractor to hold one combined meeting to satisfy the requirements for PAC and Kickoff meetings, located in Orlando, FL?

Because there are several supporting documents that we typically insert into proposal submissions as scanned PDF “images” (e.g., fully executed (signed) documents, Excel cost information, system audit approvals, and forward pricing rate agreements), will the Government consider revising this requirement to “Do NOT* submit documents in PDF format that are copied as images to the extent possible”?

Section 2.5 implies that there is another contract that is/will be building out the facilities from IOC to FOC and turning it over to the Services after FOC.

1. Please confirm there is another contract responsible for building out the IOC and FOC range infrastructure.

2.

a. How many days from award does the Govt. anticipate the range will be at IOC?

b. If the range will be at IOC, what is the scope of CHS contractor’s role in achieving FOC and when will FOC planning begin?

3. On Day 1, will the range have ATO and A&A? If not, what is the scope of CHS contractor’s role in achieving those?

CONOPS are provided for informational purposes only. Offerors must submit their proposals IAW Sections L and M for the CHS sample model task order.

1. There are other contracts in place or being planned for building out the range infrastructures at the sites.

2a. Range infrastructures will support IOC capabilities at time of associated TO award.

2b. There are no current plans for the CHS Contractor to have a role in expanding the range infrastructure to support FOC capabilities.

3. The CHS Contractor will be provided a turn-key system; having already gone through A&A and having an ATO.

43 W900KK-20-R-0011 NCRC EPOS conformed at Amendment 0002 20200227.pdf and Attach 30 Event Support Outlinev220200211 Attachment 27 Cyber T&E Event Scenario Attachment 28 Cyber Training Event Scenario Attachment 29 Closed Environment Challenges Scenario Sections L.2.6.1, L.2.6.2, and L.2.6.3; Sections M.2.3.1, M.3.2.3, and M.2.3.4; and Attachments 27 – 30 The requirements in Sections L, M, and the three Scenario Attachments do not align directly to Attachment 30, Event Support Outline. Based on our mapping of requirements into the Event Support Outline, several sections do not appear to be tied to any evaluation factors.

Will the Government please clarify how it will evaluate elements of the Event Support Plan that are not tied to specific Section M criteria?

W900KK20R0011_Attach_14_CHS_PWS Section 5.1.4, paragraph 1 and Section 4.24.6, Paragraph 3 The CONOPs document states: “An Event Request (ER) will be initiated for each event. The ED will be responsible for initiating and managing completion of the ER.”

The Charleston PWS states: “The Contractor shall develop an Event Request that is provided to the NCRC Site Director for approval as soon as possible but no later than 75 days prior to the tentative start of the event.”

Will the Government please clarify who is responsible for preparing and submitting Event Requests.

Paragraphs L.5.8.6.23 (and L.9.8.6.21) have been updated to clarify the Government's intent.

Substitutions:

1. Degree - Associate's; Experience Equivalence* - 1 year relevant experience; Other Equivalence - Vocational or technical training in work-related field

2. Degree - Bachelor’s ; Experience Equivalence* - Associate’s degree + 2 years relevant experience, or 4 years relevant experience ; Other Equivalence - Professional certification

3. Degree - Master’s ; Experience Equivalence* - Bachelor’s + 2 years relevant experience, or Associate’s + 4 years relevant experience ; Other Equivalence - Professional license

4. Degree - Doctorate ; Experience Equivalence* - Master’s + 2 years relevant experience, or Bachelor’s +4 years relevant experience ; Other Equivalence - n/a

* Successful completion of each year of higher education that has not yet resulted in a degree may be counted 1-for-1 for a year of experience

L.6 and Attachment 30 Due to the scope and complexity of this solicitation would the government consider removing or at a minimum clarifying the statement in L.6 “binding assumptions are not permitted”. Rationale: Assumptions for a solicitation this large are a necessity to clarify the Offerors response and is required per Attachment 30 per number 4 Assumptions / Dependencies / Risks.

1. Are there people at the facility available to take receipt of proposals?

2. Based on Federal recommendations, will a physical delivery of proposals be available by the current due date of 27 April 2020?

3. Would you consider an electronic submission of proposals?

Attach_37, Tab 1 Instructions (1.) states “All direct labor and all indirect costs associated with NCRC EPOS TOs shall be priced in accordance with (IAW) the Rate Schedule set forth in this workbook. All fully burdened rate ceilings shall be binding for the NCRC EPOS effective period, in accordance with section L.5.8.1.1 of the solicitation. All applicable quantities, costs, unit prices, and amounts shall be filled in for each task order (TO 01 NITC and TO 02 Model CHS Site Services). Pre-existing "plug values" have been provided by the Government for several CLINs and are not to be altered.”

Attach 37, Tab 1 Instructions, (2. Pricing and Rates) states “All TOs issued shall be priced IAW the ceiling rates set forth in the Rate Schedule identified in Tab 3 of this Workbook. The Rate Schedule is intended to cover the most commonly used labor categories necessary to fulfill the more consistent requirements expected for TO execution. These rates represent the burdened labor rates for each labor category and will apply to all related direct labor hours to be applied throughout the effective period of the contract. The fully burdened hourly rates represent ceiling rates and the Contractor may, at its discretion, elect to propose lower hourly rates while pricing individual TOs.”

The highlighted sentence conflicts with the Government response to the question #185 states “The rates included within the Rate Guide are not to be exceeded for the life of the contract. Offerors may propose lower rates for use in individual task orders.”

Based on the Government Response to Industry Question 185, we recommend the following change to remove the conflict in direction, with the Government deleting the highlighted sentence in section L.5.8.6.23 as the sentence conflicts with the government’s response (highlighted in blue) to the question #185 .

Question: In addition the sentence (highlighted in green and red) seem to imply that the proposed rate schedule in Att 37, Tab 3 Rate Schedule will be binding as ceiling rates and incorporated in EPOS Rate Guide. Can government clarify that the fully burdened rates proposed in the Tab 3 Rate Schedule in Att 37 will be separate and distinct from the fully burdened rate proposed for EPOS Rate Guide, and the ceiling for the rates schedule applies to the Task order 001 and the Charleston Sample task order with the understanding that the fully burdened rates in the Tab 3 Rate Schedule must be at or below the EPOS Rate Guide fully burdened rate for same labor category?

Question: In addition the sentence (highlighted in green and red) seem to imply that the proposed rate schedule in Att 37, Tab 3 Rate Schedule will be binding as ceiling rates and incorporated in EPOS Rate Guide. Can government clarify that the fully burdened rates proposed in the Tab 3 Rate Schedule in Att 37 will be separate and distinct from the fully burdened rate proposed for EPOS Rate Guide, and the ceiling for the rates schedule applies to the Task order 001 and the Charleston Sample task order with the understanding that the fully burdened rates in the Tab 3 Rate Schedule must be at or below the EPOS Rate Guide fully burdened rate for same labor category?

Solicitation Section L.4.7.3 History of Compliance with FAR 52.219-8., paragraph L.4.7.3.1

The government is requesting the Offeror to provide historical evidence of their utilization of Small Businesses as a percentage of the Total Contract Value / Price for the past 3 years based on the release date of the RFP (February 25, 2020). As the dates of execution of contracts vary, and the estimated values for a 3 year history from Feb 25, 2017 through Feb 24, 2020, may not be easily calculated or obtained. Would the government allow Offerors to provide the percentage of Small Business utilization based on the previous contract fiscal year for the past 3 fiscal years to address this requirement?

We recommend the requirement to be changed to the following:

L.4.7.3.1 All Offerors shall submit evidence of compliance with FAR 52.219-8, entitled Utilization of Small Business, consisting of three (3) past relevant contracts to include evidence of attainment of Small Business Participation requirements as a percentage of Total Contract Value/Price for the past three (3) contract fiscal years based on the fiscal year term dates starting at or before the date of the release date of this solicitation for each relevant contract to include requirement identification and achievement. Relevancy is defined as efforts of the same scope of the NCRC EPOS program (i.e. Range Operations, Event Planning & Execution, Range Modernization, Site Operations, etc.).