Questions_and_Answers_Set_1.pdf

RTS Engineering and Technical Services (RETS) W9113M-15-R-0007

Set 1 of Industry Questions and Government Responses

Note: The Government answers are based on information known at the time of this release. Offerors and potential offerors shall rely on the Final RFP for proposal preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

1. Question: DRFP Section M.3 – Section 2, Small Business Participation. Will the Government consider changing (iii) evaluation criteria to: “Offeror proposes Small Business in PWS areas that is technically meaningful and is adequately complex to support mission critical work”?

Answer: The evaluation criteria related to small business participation is considered sufficient as stated in the draft solicitation.

2. Question: DRFP Section A. Paragraph f of Section A, states; “The estimated contract award date is 28 November 2017". The ACC Redstone Web Portal at WWW.ARMY.MIL/ACC "Anticipated Awards Spreadsheet" lists Q3 of FY 2018 as the most likely award date. Will the Government please clarify the expected award date?

Answer: The final RFP is the only document relied upon in determining the Government's requirements. The draft RFP instruct offerors to assume a contract award date of 28 November 2017. Offerors should check FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov) for information and updates for the RETS (W9113M-15-R-0007).

3. Question: DRFP Section H.5. In order to ensure the Small Businesses are receiving appropriate work as opposed to being used as "pass through" for material purchases only, will the Government consider making the Goal 25% of Labor Value?

Answer: The small business participation goals are considered sufficient as stated in DRFP Section H, "All percentages shall be based upon the contract value."

4. Question: DRFP Section L. The requirement is for each offeror's proposed team to include the prime offeror (and each joint venture partner if the prime offeror is a newly-formed joint venture with no experience as an entity) and all subcontractor/team members. If the offeror is an existing joint venture, will the Government accept the same identifying data from the parent companies of the joint venture?

Answer: For existing joint ventures that have experience as an entity, the offeror must propose, and the Government will evaluate, the recent experience of that joint venture entity only. The experience of individual joint venture partner companies will be evaluated under two circumstances: (1) when the joint venture is newly-formed and has no experience as an entity; and/or (2) the joint venture's partner companies are proposed as subcontractors to the joint venture entity under the RETS proposal.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

5. Question: DRFP Section M. Past Performance and the Small Business Participation is a "Go/No Go" evaluation. While these ratings are in alignment with the guidelines published in the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016, we feel due to the complexity of the contract, the high potential of risks associated with performance and the need to have a high level of confidence in the awardee's ability to perform; the "Go/No Go" methodology is not in keeping with the intent of a Best Value Award, but more fitted to an Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). This is true for Past Performance especially, but also to the Small Business Requirements. "Go/No- Go" ratings do not allow offerors to differentiate themselves and create separation in their offers. No evaluation points are earned for being better than the minimum standard. Suggestion: Recommend the Government use the Adjectival Ratings in the DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 5 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method for assessing the confidence of an offeror's Past Performance and Table 6 Small Business Rating Method for assessment of Small Business Participation.

Answer: The structure of the RETS evaluation criteria, to include the Go/No Go criteria and best value evaluation factors, adequately represent appropriate discriminators for determining the best value offeror for this requirement.

6. Question: DRFP Section M. Per the reference cite: "The offeror’s past performance will also be assessed as acceptable in the event (i) the offeror has no recent or relevant performance history, or (ii) past performance information on the offeror is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned. In either of these cases, the offeror’s past performance will be considered as “unknown” and will be deemed acceptable for the past performance portion of the Go/No Go evaluation. DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016 states" In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).)

In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Recommendation: Change Section M Past Performance Evaluation on "unknown” to "neutral" per the DoD procedures.

Answer: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Government is employing the "Acceptable/Unacceptable" rating method specified in Paragraph 3.1.3.1.2, and Appendix C of the DoD Source Selection Procedures (1 April 2016).

Table C-2 of Appendix C defines an "Acceptable" rating as "...the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown". The "Note" in paragraph C.2.1.2 of Appendix C indicates that "neutral" and "unknown" are synonymous preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

terms. The rating definitions for all Go/No Go criteria will be included in Section M of the final solicitation.

7. Question: DRFP Section M. Per the reference cite: "The offeror’s past performance will also be assessed as acceptable in the event (i) the offeror has no recent or relevant performance history, or (ii) past performance information on the offeror is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned. In either of these cases, the offeror’s past performance will be considered as “unknown” and will be deemed acceptable for the past performance portion of the Go/No Go evaluation. DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016 states" In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).)

In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Recommendation: Change Section M Past Performance Evaluation on "unknown” to "neutral" per the DoD procedures.

Answer: The Government cannot fully answer this question without specific details regarding an amended charter. However, unless the amendment makes substantial changes to an existing JV charter (e.g., additional partners are added to the JV, prior JV partners are removed, etc.), only the corporate experience and past performances of the existing JV itself (vice the experiences/performances of the individual JV partners) will be assessed in the evaluation of RETS proposals.

8. Question: DRFP Section L. As Kwajalein is remote and access to the island is limited, the incumbent holds a significant advantage in terms of transitioning the current workforce and overall transition cost. Will the Government consider using a plug number for transition cost for evaluation purposes to level any cost advantages?

Answer: A "plug" number for transition costs will not be provided. The Government has taken special care to develop the solicitation requirements in a manner that will ensure fairness in the competition to the maximum extent practicable. All inherent advantages of an incumbent contractor cannot be completely mitigated.

9. Question: DRFP Section L. In preparation of BOEs, shall the offeror include the basis, rationale, estimating methodology and historical data used to derive the proposed labor estimates to support the proposed costs for the work identified in the offeror's approach?

Answer: The offeror shall include all pertinent information necessary to fully support and explain its BOE.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

10. Question: DRFP/DPWS 5.1.2. Is the "contract start date" synonymous with contract award OR is "contract start date" defined as the period after the 90 day transition?

Answer: The contract start date is the date of contract award, unless otherwise stated in the contract. The first 90 days of contract performance for transition execution is within the contract period of performance (does not begin prior to the contract start date.

11. Question: DRFP Section L. Will the Government provide training and certification records for the current incumbent staff?

Answer: No.

12. Question: DPWS 4.7.2. Will the Government be “Furnishing” KEAMS (Kwajalein Enterprise Asset Management System) to the contractor for use or will we have to utilize our own system for the supply/property areas?

Answer: The USG does not intend to provide KEAMS for use.

13. Question: DRFP Section L. The Basis of Estimate (BOE) Table would include several rows to identify the required skill mix. While pricing is not a requirement, this table is similar to a cost proposal and could have an adverse effect on page count limitations. Request the government consider not including Table L.3 in the Volume III, IV, V page limitations.

Answer: The presentation of skill mix for all proposal volumes will be excluded from the page limitations in the final solicitation.

14. Question: DPWS Attachment 15. Are the Labor Categories published in Attachment 15 RETS_Labor_Category_Descriptions a complete list that covers 100% of PWS requirements?

Answer: Refer to Section L Labor Category Mapping. RETS labor categories represent the USG's estimation of the labor categories required to perform the TMS and STS requirements of the PWS. Offerors may propose labor categories that do not map to a RETS labor category by identifying any such category and providing the duties/responsibilities and qualifications for the non-RETS labor categories proposed.

15. Question: DRFP Section H.29. How will operational availability be calculated?

Please provide the formula for determining operational availability?

Answer: Refer to Section H of the most current RFP (or draft RFP) available on FEDBIZOPPS and CDRL A024.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

16. Question: DRFP DPWS General. Standard Technical Services is used in CLINs, PRS, and other sections. Test Mission Services is also used. When providing historical FTEs only TMS is defined; do we presume they are synonymous?

Answer: No. Refer to the DPWS. Standard Technical Services (STS) and Test Mission Services and Improvements & Modernizations (TMS/I&M) are not synonymous.

17. Question: DRFP Section M. The Government has not defined a Technical risk rating methodology. Will the Government consider adding a Technical Risk rating to include cost, schedule, and performance, based on DoD Source Selection Procedures 1 Apr 2016 para 3.1.2.1.2 and Table 2.B Technical Risk Rating method?

Answer: No. The evaluation of Volumes III, IV, and V will employ the combined technical/risk rating method specified in Section 3.1.2.2, Table 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016.

18. Question: DRFP Section L. CPIF minimum fee is stated as $0 and Maximum fee as 15%, will the government provide target fee to be bid in the FRFP or is target fee to be proposed by the offeror? 2) Are offerors allowed to bid a maximum incentive fee less than 15%?

Answer: Target fee is proposed by the offeror. Offeror's may propose a maximum fee of less than, but not more than 15%.

19. Question: DRFP Section L. Material/ODC – Material and ODC comprise a significant number of the total value of the RFP. The draft RFP has material and ODC as Cost Reimbursable. Contractor recommends converting this to a Cost- Plus-Incentive Fee CLIN as this would encourage the Contractor to effectively manage these costs and find the most effective pricing. This incentive would benefit the Government as it would reduce overall cost and potential residual material.

Answer: USG considered Industry's comment; however, no revision is made to the Material/ODC contract type.

20. Question: DRFP Section L. CPIF – The current Incentive Fee is 70/30.

Contractor requests a stronger incentive for underrun such as 50/50. This would encourage the Contractor to effectively manage these CLINS as well as driving positive performance for the Government.

Answer: USG considered Industry's comment; however, no revision is made to the incentive fee ratio for underruns.

21. Question: DRFP SF33, number 12. What is the acceptance period for proposals submitted?

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: As stated in Block 12 of the SF33, the proposal/offer acceptance period is 60 calendar days unless the offeror specifies a different period in Block 12. The Government requests that offerors specify at least a 220 day acceptance period.

22. Question: DRFP Section L. Please explain what is meant by an "informal" joint venture.

Answer: An informal joint venture is not a separate legal entity, but is formed through a written agreement between two or more individual business entities and typically performs the work with each of the individual entities’ own separate employees (i.e., unpopulated). In contrast, a formal joint venture is formed as a separate legal entity, based upon a written legal agreement between all partners and may either be populated (i.e. have its own employees) or unpopulated.

23. Question: DRFP Section M. When will offerors with proposals rated a “No Go” be notified that they are no longer considered for evaluation?

Answer: Yes. Offeror's who proposal are determined a "No Go" will be notified as soon as practicable.

24. Question: DRFP Section I, Clause 52-216-10.e. Please provide information to compete current highlighted blanks in this section Answer: Refer to the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps.

25. Question: DRFP Section I. Clause 52-222-2.a. Please provide information to compete current highlighted blanks in this section Answer: Refer to the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps.

26. Question: DRFP L.3 Volume Descriptions; Volume VI-Cost/Price proposal. Will the Government be providing a cost model template in excel format for the cost/price proposal?

Answer: A cost model spreadsheet is not being provided. Each offeror's cost proposal must provide the information required by Section L. The cost and pricing information provided must be in accordance with an offeror's estimating and accounting practices and procedures, and cost accounting standards (CAS) disclosure statement (D/S) (if offeror is required to have a CAS D/S).

27. Question: DRFP Section B, pg. 3, 4; Table L.6, pg 107Table L.6 provides estimated "Quantity/Unit" as total hours for each period of performance. These hours are provided for TMS LOE for the base and option periods. Will the Government entertain providing the estimated "Quantity/Unit” total hours for STS portion of each period?

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: Information similar to that found in DRFP for the STS [and I&M] CPFF LOE Labor CLINs will not be provided for the STS CPIF Labor CLINs. The final RFP will provide additional information to assist offeror's in estimating labor hours and costs for the STS requirement.

28. Question: DRFP Section H.33, pg. 53. The DRFP states that OCI will be evaluated as a Go/No Go qualifier. Currently, the client's determination of an offeror's OCI status will be performed concurrently with the proposal period. Other Government solicitations have conducted an advisory OCI pre-screening before the RFP was released, which helped offerors make bid decisions and conserve resources. Will the Government entertain providing a pre-proposal opinion of an offeror's potential OCI with respect to RETS?

Answer: Please refer to the most current version of the RFP (or draft RFP) for revisions to Section H, L and M for OCI.

29. Question: DRFP Section L.2.C, Table L.1. Regarding Volumes with multiple sections [L.2.c, Table L.1] that must be addressed. Is it the Government's intent that these sections will be included in one singular proposal volume file?

Answer: It is assumed that "one singular proposal volume file" is in reference to one CD/DVD file. If that is the correct interpretation of the question, the Government's response is that proposal volume submissions may be segregated between more than one CD/DVD if necessary as long as the content of each CD/DVDs is properly marked/identified.

30. Question: DRFP L.1, pg. 93; Table L.1, pg. 95; Volume II, pg. 97. Pending the answers to previous questions, is it the Government’s intent that each section of Volume II should be submitted as a separate file or that Volume II should be submitted as a single file?

Answer: See answer to Question 29.

31. Question: DRFP L.3, Volume III, Section 2, pg. 101. Table L.4 provides an “estimated allocation of total LOE” for a list of TMS labor categories. Will the Government consider providing a similar table for STS Support Activity?

Answer: Yes. The final RFP will exclude the Professional Employee Compensation Plan from the collective page limitation for Volumes III, IV, and V.

32. Question: DRFP L.3, Volume IV, Section 1, pg. 103. Table L.4 provides an “estimated allocation of total LOE” for a list of TMS labor categories. Will the Government consider providing a similar table for STS Support Activity?

Answer: As provided in the draft solicitation, a definitive number of labor hours are provided for the CPFF LOE TMS CLINs. Labor hours for all other labor CLINs (STS, Phase-In, and Phase-Out) must be estimated by the offeror. However, the preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

final RFP will provide additional information to assist offeror's in estimating labor hours/costs for the STS requirement.

33. Question: DRFP Volumes III through V [L.2, Table L.1, pg. 95. The page limitation of 100 pages is for Volumes III, IV, and V, with the exception of Vol. III Part F of Section 1 and Volume IV Section 1. What is the Government’s expectation for continuous page numbering (including the embedded unlimited portions) to show compliance with the page limitation?

Answer: The final solicitation will require offerors to include “excluded” proposal information as an attachment or exhibit to the applicable proposal volume/section/part, as applicable.

34. Question: DRFP. Does the government expect all RETS labor to be estimated by the offeror, or are there fixed hours for either STS or TMS that the government will provide a plug number for?

Answer: See answer to Question 32.

35. Question: DRFP L.3, Volume VI. Will the Government provide the cost model spreadsheets for offerors to review and provide feedback in advance of the final

RFP?

Answer: See answer to Question 26.

36. Question: DRFP L.3, Volume VI, Section 8, b. “Offerors are advised that a proposed share ratio other than 70/30 may render the offeror ineligible for award.”

We assume this share ratio is intended for overruns and underruns. Please clarify.

Answer: Please refer to the most current version of the RFP (or draft RFP) Section B.1, Section H and FAR 52.216-10. The 70/30 CPIF share ratio is used to calculate increases or decreases to target incentive fee as a result of cost performance (cost underruns or overruns).

37. Question: Draft Section L Section 1 - Past Performance, Part B-Small Business Performance, Page 5. Offerors are required to address their “… track record of meeting small business subcontracting and/or participation goals applicable to the performance history examples provided in Part A above.” If a Prime offeror is a small business (SB) and the Offeror’s performance history examples are from SB prime contracts devoid of SB subcontracting requirements, how will the SB Prime Offeror’s Past Performance rating be impacted?

Answer: Please refer to the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps for revisions to Section L - Past Performance, Small Business Participation Plan.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

38. Question: Draft Section L Section 2 – Small Business Support, Part A - Small Business Participation Plan, Page 5. It is stated that SB prime offerors “… own proposed participation as a prime contractor, as well as its proposed participation of any small business subcontractors, counts towards the percentage of total acquisition value goals set forth in Section H.5 of the solicitation. However, small business prime offerors are not required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve the small business participation goals, but may meet or exceed the goals through its own planned performance as a prime.” It is our understanding that a SB Prime offeror without socioeconomic designations (e.g., SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, HubZone, and VOSB) does not have an obligation to meet/exceed the specified Section H.5 goals for each/all socioeconomic designation, and therefore would have their Past Performance rating impacted if the offeror did not propose to meet/exceed some/all of the socioeconomic designations. Please clarify if our understanding is correct.

Answer: Please refer to the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps, Section L - Small Business Participation Plan: The offeror (both large business and small business prime offerors) shall provide a Small Business Participation Plan that demonstrates compliance with the commitments set forth in Section H of the solicitation. Small business prime offerors are not required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve the small business participation commitments, but, small business prime offerors are not relieved from meeting socio-economic goals, (i.e. Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Woman-Owned Small Business, etc.).

39. Question: Draft Section M, Past Performance Paragraph (1)(i), Page 17. It is stated that “Relevant is defined as federal contractual efforts that are similar to the requirements specified in this solicitation in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity as indicated by performance that … (iv) required the submission and management of small business subcontracting goals through a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and/or Small Business Participation Plan.” The vast majority (if not all) of a SB Prime offeror’s contracts would not include SB subcontracting requirements, yet nevertheless can be highly relevant to the RETS contract. For SB Prime offerors, would the Government consider removing the requirement that cited Past Performance come from contracts that included small business goals through Small Business Subcontracting Plans and/or Small Business Participation Plans?

Answer: Please refer to the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps, for revisions to Section M – Past Performance

40. Draft Section M, Subfactor B – Corporate Experience and Key Personnel Qualifications, Paragraph “a.” Page 20.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

a. Question: Would the Government consider removing the $20M annual contract value restriction from the Corporate Experience requirement since offerors are certain to possess relevant experience in discrete components of the RETS PWS for contracts less than $20M in annual revenue?

Answer: USG considered Industry's comment; however, no revision is made to the potential value of at least $20M annually. Section M REVISED to make the annual value applicable to prime offerors only.

b. Question: Would the Government consider removing the “execution under cost-type contracts” restriction from the Corporate Experience requirement since offerors are certain to possess relevant experience in discrete technical components of the RETS PWS for fixed price/T&M type contracts?

Answer: USG considered Industry's comment; however, no revision is made to execute under a cost-type contract.

c. Question: For SB Prime offerors, would the Government consider removing the requirement that cited experience come from contracts that included small business goals through a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and/or Small Business Participation Plan since the vast majority (if not all) of a SB Prime offeror’s contracts would not include SB subcontracting requirements, yet nevertheless contain highly relevant scope elements to the RETS PWS?

Answer: Refer to the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps, Section L - Small Business Participation Plan: The offeror (both large business and small business prime offerors) shall provide a Small Business Participation Plan that demonstrates compliance with the commitments set forth in Section H of the solicitation.

41. Question: The RETS contract represents a significant alteration to the

Government’s current contract structure for Kwajalein range and base operations support. As such, it can be difficult for contractors to accurately assess the Government’s intent regarding such a change. In such instances, it is our experience that the use of a formal or informal Statement of Objectives (SOO) can be an effective communication tool for the Government and offerors. Such a document can be used to describe the intent of contract structure changes, communicate anticipated facility or asset upgrades, highlight and clarify potential staffing/technical/mission challenges, and/or explicitly state Government requests for innovations/efficiencies in specific contract execution areas. A notable recent example of a SOO used explicitly for this purpose can be found in the RFP materials for the MDA Integrated Research and Development for Enterprise Solutions (IRES) procurement. This SOO also contained (embedded in the document) a High Level Objectives and Capability Summary, which provided beneficial context to the underlying procurement intent and objectives. We strongly suggest the use of such a document for this RETS procurement as a means to preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

communicate Government insight, concerns, and anticipated benefits of the restructure.

Answer: The USG considered the suggestion; however, does not intend to issue a SOO.

43. Question: DRFP RFP H.33 Organizational Conflict of Interest. Will the Government be consistent with existing service OCI requirements associated with Major Range Test Facility Bases (MRTFB) to include language such that “contractors involved in development of systems are excluded in the participation in test and evaluation programs”?

Answer: Please refer to Sections H.33, L and M of the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps.

44. Question: DRFP Section H.33. When will the Government post its guidance on

OCI?

Answer: Please refer to Sections H.33, L and M of the most current RFP (or draft RFP) that is available via FedBizOpps.

45. Question: DRFP Section H.33 and Section M. Would the government publish criteria upon which it will grade the Section H.33 Organizational Conflict of Interest as a “Go” per Section M.3 Evaluation Factors for Award?

Answer: See the answer to Question 44.