Government_Responses_12_Feb_2018.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91151-18-R-0005
About this file
Government Responses to Industry Questions
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 118 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Page | Section | Industry Comments | Government Response | |
| 1 | Reference PWS Section C.5.3.3.1.2.2 Program Manager Minimum Qualifications and C.5.3.3.1.3 Deputy Manager Minimum Qualifications, page 77 of 157. | In the revised PWS, the Government has updated the minimum qualifications for both the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager to include “A valid Bachelor’s degree in engineering/and or business from an ABET accredited college or university; advanced degrees preferable.” | KO - Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) spelled out in solicitation page 78 | ||
| 2 | ABET typically accredits engineering and technology programs. Will the Government please clarify if the requirement for a valid Bachelor’s degree from an ABET accredited college applies ONLY to key personnel candidates who have an engineering degree, not those who have a business degree? The minimum qualifications for both positions allows for a Bachelor’s degree in either engineering or business. Please clarify that the valid Bachelor’s degree from an ABET accredited college DOES NOT apply to candidates with a business degree. | KO - Does a PM with a business degree really need ABET accredidation? I don't think so. More to come. | |||
| 3 | 136 | Section L, C. Proposal Preparation Instructions; c | The Government states, "Documents shall be easily readable (Arial, 12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing)." Pitch/Point fonts are in relation to Courier-font styles, which are historical to Word Perfect, where as current industry practices are based in Word Processing. | ||
| Will the Government please remove the '12-pitch type' portion of the statement to avoid conflicting font-size questions? | Statement revised to read, "Documents shall be easily readable Arial, 12-point font size shall be used." | ||||
| 4 | Section L | Will the Government please confirm that the Oral Presentation Slides are excluded from the margin and font requirements, in order to provide the Government presentation slides that are clear while viewing the Oral Demonstrations? | Government added language to the, "What Counts As A Page? Paragraph" to read, "Margin, font and page count restrictions do not apply to oral presentation slides." | ||
| 5 | CBA | Article Twenty Six, pp. 26-27 | Will the Government provide offerors with a table that identifies the number of bargaining unit employees by company seniority for each level of annual vacation accrual? This information will assist all bidders in developing a realistic fringe pool for the applicable WSMR workforce. | ||
| 6 | CBA | Article Twenty Eight, p. 30 | Will the Government provide offerors with the average amount of sick and personal leave used per CBA employee for the prior year; i.e., how many of the 80 hours accured by each employee is actually paid out? | ||
| 7 | CBA | Article Thirty Two, pp. 35-36 | Will the Government please provide offerors with a table that identifies the number of bargaining unit employees subject to each Explosive Risk Category and Height Category, and the average number of hours that these employees work subject to those risks? | ||
| 8 | CBA | Article Thirty Two, pp. 36-37 | Are the costs of personal protective equipment and any necessary safety certifications/recertifications chargeable to the various ODC CLINs in the contract? | ||
| 9 | CBA | Article Thirty Six, p. 42 | Will the Government provide offererors with the approximate number of CBA employees receiving Tuition Assistance annually and the average annual amount reimbursed? | ||
| 10 | CBA | Appendix A, p. 48 | Will the Government please provide offerors with the approximate number or percentage of CBA employees that elect not to participate in the Company Health Insurance Plan? | ||
| 11 | 147 | Section L, 2.6.4.8 Cost Rates and/or Factors | The RFP requests that "All indirect rates and factors shall be supported by calculations. The components of the calculations must be broken down into the indivdidual elements that comprise them." |
Is the pool and base for each indirect rate sufficient to meet this requirement? Or is the Government seeking the complete build up including the estimated dollar value for every line item in both the pool and the base for each year of the contract? IAW Section L, 2.6.4.8 The details of each individual cost pool and base shall be provided. In addition, any services that are provided to the contract through G&A shall be listed and explained (the base of allocation shall be explained).
The offeror is to provide the details of each individual cost pool and base.
12 151 Section M, EF1, SF1, Program Management In Section M, Evaluation Criteria 3, Evaluation Factor 1 (Mission Capability), Subfactor 1 (Program Management), the Government states, "In order for an Offeror to receive a higher than acceptable rating the offerors proposal must demonstrate an exceptional program management approach, superior key personnel qualifications and experience and/or thorough approach to and understanding management structure in this dynamic test support environment."
Within this evaluation factor there is an emphasis on "program management approach", however, Section L, TAB F1 specifically identifies Oral Presentations, Key Personnel Qualifications, Organizational Structure, Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement.
| Will the Government please clarify how an offeror's "program management approach", which is not clearly identified in Section L, will be evaluated per Section M? | Program Management which is composed of four elements (Quality Control/ Continious Process Inprovement, Organizational Structure, Key Personnel Qualifications & General Instructions in the form of an Oral Presentation) Will be evaluated per Section M. | ||||
| 13 | 115 | Section H, Special Requirements | For the 371 CFTEs in Year 1 and the 494 CFTEs in Years 2-5, will the Government please provide offerors with the current breakout of CFTEs between the following three categories: Professional Exempt, Wage Determination, and CBA employees? | The Government has provided the CBA which includes Job Titiles and Pay Rates. The Government has also provided Exhibits T and U which provides Offerors Labor Categories by Hours and CLINS | |
| 14 | CBA | Appendix A, p. 47 | Will the Government verify that the costs identified by category under the BCBSNM plan are the out of pocket costs to the employee (i.e., the participant cost) for each pay period? | ||
| 15 | 137 | Section L, Volume I General, TAB B | The Government states that the SF33 must contain an original signature in block 26 of the form, however, this is an electronic submittal. Will the Government please remove this statement from the instructions? | The Government has updated language to read, "or digital." | |
| 16 | 139 | Section L, Volume II Mission Capabilities, Tab FI General Instructions Oral Presentations | Will the Government please allow offerors to submit their Program Management oral presentation slides on a separate CD-ROM, to provide ease in evaluations to the Government? | The Government changed the language directing offerors to submit a separate CD/DVD for Oral Presentations. | |
| 17 | 140 | Section L, Volume II Mission Capabilities, Tab F2 General Instructions Oral Presentations | Will the Government please allow offerors to submit their Cost Management oral presentation slides on a separate CD-ROM, to provide ease in evaluations to the Government? | The Government changed the language directing offerors to submit a separate CD/DVD for Oral Presentations. | |
| 18 | 147 | Section L, Volume V Cost, 2.6.4.5 | The Government states, "For any labor category the Government indicates as being key, the Offeror is required to provide its compensation plan and supporting rationale that the Offeror purports will properly influence positive employee retention." |
| Please clarify that offerors are to submit only one total compensation plan for non-union workforce employees. | The Government will require only one compensation plan that support Offerors ability to recruit and retain a highly skilled workforce. | ||||
| 19 | 139 | Section L, Volume II - Mission Capability General Instructions, | |||
| TAB F1, TAB F2 General Instructions-Oral Presentations and Cost Management Oral Presentations | The Government states in Program Management TAB F1, "…and each offeror may be represented by no more than three (3) people." In Cost Management TAB F2 the Government states, "…and each offeror may be represented by no more than two (2) people." | ||||
| Please confirm that the offerors may bring more than 5 people whom are presenting both the Program Management and the Cost Demonstration, but no more than 10 people to the Oral Presentations, who will not present, but are allowed in the audience to assist the presenters. | The Government has added a sentence to read, "No more than 5 people total are allowed to attend the presentation." | ||||
| 20 | 149 | Section M, Volume III - Past Performance, Evaluation Factor 2, paragraph a.ii. | The DRFP states, "The Government has defined relevance as experience in training senior leaders, scenario development, managing multi-faceted logistical services, and providing and managing role players." This statement does not appear to reflect the technical nature of the PWS or evaluation criteria for other factors and subfactors. Will this relevancy statement be revised in the final RFP? | The Government will remove statement from the RFP. | |
| 21 | 155 | Section M, Volume IV - Small Business Participation Proposal | Will the Government please clarify the criteria for receiving an exceptional rating on the SB Participation Plan now that the Small Business Participation Proposal Factor Rating Matrix has been revised in the latest DRFP? | The Government has added evaluated criteria in Section M. | |
| 22 | 34 | PWS C.1.3.6.2 Property Management. | PWS C.1.3.6.2 states: “The Property Control Plan shall be submitted thirty (30) days after full contract performance …”. Will the Government please clarify if this means 30 days after the MSS Assumption Date of 1 February 2019 (this date was provided in the answer to question #55 released 1/9/2018)? | The Government intent is to require the awardee to provide a Property Control Plan 30 days after the full perfomance award date of 1 February 2019 | |
| 23 | 151 | Section M, Relative Importance of Factors. | This section states: “The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor is equal to the Small Business Participation Factor.” Please clarify the relative order of importance of these factors. | The Government has edited sentence to read,"The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor, which is equal to the Small Business Participation Factor." | |
| 24 | 153 | Section M, Factor 1 Rating Scheme. | Methodology #1 is specified as the rating approach for Management and Technical solutions. Where is Methodology #1 defined? DoD Source Selection Procedures? If so, which revision? | The Government has revised sentence removing all references to a methodology. | |
| 25 | 138 | Section L, Volume I – General, TAB E: Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | The requirements for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan have been moved from Volume V in the prior draft RFP to Volume I, TAB E. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan instructions are also listed in Volume IV, Evaluation Factor #4 – Small Business Participation Proposal, Page 144, and contains the same text as the previously released draft RFP. We do not believe it is the Government’s intent for this requirement to reside in multiple volumes. Will the Government please clarify in which volume the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be placed, Volume I or Volume IV? | The Government has removed Volume 1, Tab E, Small Business Subcontracting Plan | |
| 26 | 138 | Section L, Volume I – General, TAB E: Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | The instructions for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volumes I and IV differ. In Volume I, the instructions omit the following requirements that were provided in the prior draft Section L: Deviation 2016-O0009, DFARS 252.219-7003, and DFARS 252.219-7004. Please clarify the requirements for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | The Government has removed Volume 1, Tab E, Small Business Subcontracting Plan | |
| 27 | 138 | Section L, Volume I – General, TAB E: Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | The instructions for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume I do not include the following requirement, “In addition to providing the Small Business Subcontracting Plan with the Offeror’s proposal submission, a copy of the plan shall be provided to the Offeror’s ACO as soon as possible after the issuance of this solicitation but not later that the set date for receipt of proposals. The proposal shall specify name, address, phone number, and email address of the ACO to which the plan was submitted.” Did the Government intend to remove this requirement from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan submission? | The Government has removed Volume 1, Tab E, Small Business Subcontracting Plan | |
| 28 | 141-142 | Section L, Volume III: Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance, Tab G: Specific Relevant Contracts Format (Attachment 2, Past Performance Sheet) | The previous draft RFP referenced Attachment 3; the Government provided Attachment 3a and Attachment 3b. Does Attachment 2 replace either Attachment 3a or Attachment 3b, both Attachments 3a and 3b, or is Attachment 2 an entirely different document? | Yes, Attachment 2 replaces 3a; Attachment 3 replaces 3b | |
| 29 | 35 | PWS, Sections C.1.4 Quality Control Program and C.1.4.1 Quality Control Management. | Section C.1.4 indicates that the Quality Control Plan is to be submitted as part of the Management Plan, which according to Section C.5.1, is due within seven (7) calendar days of award. Section C.1.4.1 indicates the Quality Control Plan is due prior to, or on the last day of, the phase-in transition period. Please clarify the due date for the Quality Control Plan. Also request this clarification be included, if necessary, in Technical Exhibit 5: Reports, Plans, and Documents. | C.1.4 Quality Control Program paragrpah changed removing the requirement for the QCP to be submitted as part of the Management Plan. TE-5 (which was renamed to TE-N) reflected the correct submission date. | |
| 30 | Reference: Technical Exhibit 5: Reports, Plans, and Documents | The naming conventions and timing/suspense dates indicated in the technical exhibit for several Plans differ from what is indicated in the PWS. Please see table below for specific information. Request clarification for the naming convention and due date (timing/suspense) of these Plans. |
Technical Exhibit 5 PWS Property Management Plan – due with proposal C.1.3.6.2 – due 30 days after full contract performance; called the Property Control Plan vs. Property Management Plan Management Plan – due with proposal C.5.1 – due within 7 calendar days of award Safety and Accident Prevention Plan – due with proposal C.5.1.1 – incorporated in the Management Plan (incorrect if C.5.1 above is incorrect) Job Description Database – within 30 days after contract award C.5.3.3.5 – no due date provided; only states that within 30 calendar days after contract full performance, the Government will provide a list of designated Government personnel to whom the Contractor may grant access to the Contractor database
| The Government will make changes to Exhibits/PWS to reflect consistency amongst document. | |||
| 31 | 140 | Section L, TAB F1, Evaluation Subfactor 1 – Program Management, d. Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement | Offerors are required to discuss their approach to comply with the Quality Management System (QMS) requirements at WSMR. No WSMR Quality documents have been provided as part of the previously released draft RFPs/Technical Exhibits. Respectfully request the Government provide the QMS documents referenced in TAB F1 to which all offerors must provide their approach for compliance. |
| 32 | 140 | Section L, TAB F1, Evaluation Subfactor 1 – Program Management, d. Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement | Offerors are required to discuss their approach to continuing cost/performance/technology optimization program as defined in Section 1.4 – Quality Control Program. Section 1.4 does not state any specific optimization programs currently in place that the successful offeror will be required to continue. Request clarification as to what these programs are or if the optimization program reference is referring to the surveys of industry for best practices (C.1.4.3) and the contractor’s semiannual self-assessment (C.1.4.3 and C.1.4.4). |
| 33 | Reference: Question 22 on the Final Pre-Industry Day W91151-17-R-0097 Industry Questions released 11/3/2017 and Section M, Evaluation Factor 2 – Past Performance a.ii. | The Relevancy Assessment states, "The Government has defined relevance as experience in training senior leaders, scenario development, managing multi-faceted logistical services, and providing and managing role players." These do not seem to match the WSMR scope of work. Will the Government confirm these elements are central to the past performance relevancy assessment? |
The Government response stated: “The Government will provide revisions to Sections L and M in future iterations of the draft RFP FBO posting.”
No change has been made to the most recent Draft RFP (1/19/2018) that answers the posed question. Is the Government still planning to revise the definition of relevance? If not, we respectfully request the Government provide more clarification of each of the current relevancy areas. The Government has revised language to read, "To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size and complexity. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.
| 34 | Section L-III Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table 2 - Volumes. | In the most recent answers to questions released by the Government (1/9/2018), the answer to question #53 stated: “The Government mandated no limitations on the number of citations, only the number of pages per reference provided.” However, in Section L-III in the most recent draft RFP (1/19/2018), these instructions were not included. Will the Government please clarify? | The Government has added language in Section L -II. | |
| 35 | 115 | Section H, paragraph (c) and Question # 14 from the 1/9/2018 Government answers to questions. | During an Industry Day presentation and in the Government’s response to question #14, it was understood that all offerors will bid the same number or labor hours based on an established staffing level that will be provided by the Government. Section H, paragraph (c) seems to allow offerors to bid less than the number of labor hours provided by the Government-provided staffing levels with the use of uncompensated overtime (UCOT). We believe the use of UCOT is difficult to monitor during contract execution and can be a cost gaming technique used by offerors during the source selection process. We recommend eliminating the offerors’ ability to propose UCOT. If the Government intends to allow offerors to bid UCOT, we recommend an admonishment to offerors that bidding UCOT may result in an unfavorable Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (Technical Expertise) rating, specifically the offeror’s ability to sufficiently recruit and retain a workforce possessing the critical skills needed for the successful performance of the requirements of PWS. | The Government does not forsee any uncompensated overtime. |
| 36 | 115 | Section H and Exhibit T_ Labor_Categories_and_Hours_UPDATE. | It appears there are some inconsistencies regarding the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs)/contractor full-time equivalents (CFTEs) and productive hours between the two documents referenced. In Section H, the Productive Hours per FTE is listed as 1864. In Exhibit T, if you divide the number of Productive Hours by the number of FTEs, the productive hours calculate to 1880 per FTE. Further, the number of CFTEs in Section H for Option Year 1 is 371 and the number of CFTEs for Option Years 2-5 is 494. In Exhibit T, the number of yearly FTEs is 490. We request the Government please rectify these discrepancies in the final version of the RFP. | The Government will update Exhibits to read FTEs at 1864. |
| 37 | 115 | Section H and Question #55 from the 1/9/2018 Government answers to questions. | In Section H, 371 CFTEs have been allocated for Year 1 with 494 CFTEs allocated for each of the Option Years 2-5. Is the 123 CFTE difference due to an abbreviated Year 1 (i.e. 1 February 2019 – 31 October 2019 accounting for the 90-day transition of 1 November 2018 – 31 January 2019) or is Year 1 a full 12-month period and the 123 CFTE difference is due to anticipated hiring actions for Option Year 2? | The difference is that Year 1 will consist of a three (3) month Phase in Period and nine (9) months of full performance. |
| 38 | 138 | (Tab E) and 142 (Volume IV Evaluation Factor #4 Small Business Participation Proposal, paragraph (e)) of Section L. | It appears there is an inconsistency regarding the small business goals between the two referenced sections of the most recent DRFP release. Page 138 was updated with new small business goals while page 142 small business goal content remains from previous DRFPs. These inconsistencies include: SDB is 5% and includes HBCU/MI in Tab E and the SDB is 3% and does not include HBCU/MI in Volume IV; HUBZone SB is 0.5% in Tab E and is 3% in Volume IV; and the HBCU/MI is included in the SDB goal of 5% in Tab E and is 0.5% in Volume IV. Will the Government please clarify the SB Goals? | HBCU will be updated to 0.5%. |
| 39 | Exhibit T and Question # 47 from the 1/9/2018 Government answers to questions. | As a part of the Level of Effort document(s) (referenced in Question # 47) that will be provided by the Government for all offers to use for Cost Proposal development, will the Government please provide corresponding job descriptions and levels of experience and education for each labor category listed in Exhibit T? | The Government will provide Exhibits V and W that includes Job Descriptions. | |
| 40 | We highly recommend that you "normalize" fringe benefit costs for cost proposal purposes and preclude all bidders from varying in the amount of fringe benefit costs proposed for ALL contract periods. We are assuming that you are already planning to take that approach with respect to direct labor costs and requiring all bidders to price out the 490 FTE per TE-6, exactly as listed, without any variation for ALL contract periods. Lastly, in the event that you do not normalize fringe benefit costs, we highly recommend that you closely define what types of costs may NOT be assumed by bidders to be a part of the normalized ODCs. The reason why we suggest this is that it has come to our attention that on a recent DoD (Air Force) contract procurement of enormous size, the Government allowed a bidder to claim that it need not propose the cost of health insurance since health insurance costs were assumed by this bidder to be included in the normalized ODCs. This bidder (who is a company planning to submit a bid for WSMR MSS) contended that all of its payments to vendors (such as payments to a health insurance provider) were ODCs. Amazingly, the Government accepted this without issuing an EN and clarifying that normalized ODCs do NOT cover the cost of health insurance premiums, nor did the Government make a most probable cost adjustment to the bidder's proposed price. We are confident that FH MICC would not "fall" for this type of pricing trickery or gamesmanship. But, since it already occurred on another major DoD procurement, and since the particular bidder at issue is planning to submit a proposal for WSMR MSS, we are making this suggestion for the good of ALL bidders, and to possibly be of help to you in making the WSMR MSS award decision "protest-proof". | This issue has been addressed by the cost price group at MICC and will be reflected in the final solicitation instructions. | ||
| 41 | 138 & 142 | Paragaph L-III.C.2 Proposal Content TAB E and | Reference Small Business Goals: TAB E states that Small Business Goals are "based on total proposed effort subcontracted" . Volume IV: Evaluation Factor #4 - Small Business Pariticipation Proposal states small business goals for each category are based on total contract value. Please clarify and also note that the current MSS contract and historical goals are also based on "total value subcontracted." | The Government has removed Tab E, Small Business Subcontracting Plans |
| 42 | 136 | Section L Paragraph C, # 2 | Question: Draft RFP Section L.C.2 does not direct line spacing. Will the Government please confirm line spacing, i.e., single, 1.5, double, are at the offeror's discretion? | |
| 43 | 136 | Section L Paragraph C, # 2 | Question: Draft RFP Section L.C.2.g states "Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume." However, Section L "Proposal Content Volume I - General" does not contain direction for including a Table of Contents. Will the Government please provide direction for where/how to include a Table of Contents in Volume I? | The Government guidance for table of contents can be mirrored from tabs given in each volume. |
| 44 | 136 | Section L Proposal Preparation Instructions 2. Proposal Format (b) Exceptions, | Page 136 states “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.” |
Question Request - These instructions need clarification in that it is not clear as to what material must be specifically addressed in the proposal. For example, does the proposal have to address each and every paragraph of the PWS down to the lowest indenture? Or, should the bidders present an approach to performing functional areas covering multiple task requirements? The PWS contains over 80 pages of tasks and the proposal limit is set at 126 pages, this appears contrary to the requirement to address every one of the PWS paragraphs. Could the Government clarify to what level and how the Government desires the bidders to respond to the PWS requirements?
| All material in Section L must be specifically addressed. | ||||
| 45 | 138-140 | Section L Proposal | “Draft RFP Section L Proposal Content Volume 2 states Mission Capability is Evaluation Factor 1. Volume 3 states Past Performance is Evaluation Factor 3. However, Section L does not list an Evaluation Factor 2. Section M also identifies Evaluation Factors as: 1 - Mission Capability; 2 - Past Performance; 3 - Small Business Participation; and 4 - Cost.” | |
| Question: Will the Government please correct the factor numbering for clarity? | The Government has corrected factor numbers. | |||
| 46 | 139 | Section L and M Volume II – Mission Capability (Factor 1), | Page 139 states "Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, training, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” “standard training will be employed,” etc., may raise questions regarding an Offeror’s technical ability to perform the services contained herein and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from further consideration for contract award." |
Question: The sentences referenced describe what the bidder should not do in referring to the PWS in their proposal. Request that the Government address specifically how the bidders should talk/write to the PWS requirements? At what level of indenture of the PWS should the proposal address - the 3 number paragraph level, 4th level, or 5th level? Does the Government expect the bidder to discuss the 'how to' for each and every task in the PWS or only an approach of how we will perform the work within a functional area or category?
| Sections L and M of the soliciation will be your guide to creating a proposal for submittal. Please ensure that you read both sections to create your proposal. | |||
| 47 | 139 | Section L Proposal Content Volume 2 Tab F.1.B | Question: Do the three 3 key personnel require consent letters? |
| 48 | 139 and 151 | Section L; Section M Proposal Content Volume 2, Tab F1a; Evaluation Factors, Factor 1.a Subfactor 1, | Question: The evaluation criteria in Section M under Factor 1 on pages 151-152 cites two elements for an oral presentation: subfactor a.i, the Organization Structure; and subfactor b.i, the Project Cost Management System. |
However, the guidance in Section L on page 139 for Tab F1.a says “Each offeror is requested to present the Program Management Subfactor, under Volume II, Factor 1, Mission Capability, of its proposal in an oral presentation.” This seems to imply that the oral presentation should address each element under Program Management: Key Personnel Qualifications, Organizational Structure, and Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement.
Tab F2 on page 140 provides the same guidance as Section M: “present the Project Cost Management System in an oral presentation.”
1) Will the Government please clarify the elements to be addressed in oral presentations?
2) Should the oral presentation address only the Organization Structure and the Project Cost Management System?
3) Or should it address Key Personnel Qualifications, Organizational Structure, and Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement under the Program Management subfactor; and the Project Cost Management System under the Cost Management subfactor?
| 49 | 139-140 | Section L Proposal Content Volume 2, Tab F.1.b, | Question: The draft RFP references Attachment #1, Resume Format; however, neither the 19 January 2018 nor the 28 October 2017 portfolio of documents includes the attachment. Will the Government please provide Attachment #1 along with all other attachments for offeror review and comment prior to release of the Final RFP on 7 February 2018? | The Government will add additional attachments at a later date. |
| 50 | 138 and 142 | Section L Proposal Content Volume 1, Tab E; Volume 4e | Question: Draft RFP Section L Proposal Content Volume 1 Tab E: Small Business Subcontracting Plan lists Small Disadvantages Business (SDB) to include Historically Black colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) with a 5% goal and Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) with a 3% goal; however, Volume 4.e lists SDB (HBCU/MI) as 3% and HUBZone as .5%. These percentages were shifted from the previous draft in October, 2017. Will the Government please clarify the exact socioeconomic goal percentages for all socioeconomic classifications to allow offerors to design bids appropriately? | The Government will change all percentages for HBCU to reflect 0.5% and HUBZone as 3% |
| 51 | 142 | Section L, Vol IV, Paragraph e, | Question: The goals are not consistent with those stated in Volume I, Tab E. The Small Business goal should be a percentage total proposed subcontracted effort, not total contract value. The subteir goals for SDB, WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB should be a percentage of subcontract value as well. In the Small Business Participation Plan the percentages are expressed in terms of total contract value, but the percentages are not the goals. Setting the goals in the SBPP as a percentage of total contract would result in far exceeding the goals prescribed in Volume I, Tab E. | The Small Business goal percentage shall be total contract value |
| 52 | 146 | Section L, Vol V para 2.5, | Question: This paragraph requires subcontractors with 20% or more of total labor cost to provide professional employee compensation data; however in Volume III, Tab G there is a requirement for past performance information from a sub with 20% of proposed effort based on total proposed price. Is the intent for both of these requirements based on where the sub is a major sub? If so, is a major subcontractor determined by 20% of total labor cost or total proposed cost? | |
| Major subcontractor is detemined by 20% of the total proposed cost. Statements revised. | ||||
| 53 | 140 | Section L, Proposal Content Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Orals | Question: The Government states it will provide all Audio Visual capability for the presentation but does not mention network capability. Will the Government provide network capability at the presentation? | |
| 54 | 140 | Section L, Proposal Content Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Orals, | Question: The Government states that we will need to provide access to any url we use during the presentation. Based on Government and corporate security requirements we need to certify that the computers accessing our system are secure. Will the Government provide details on how it will validate security protocols for accessing offeror cost management systems? | |
| 55 | 140 | Section L, Proposal Content Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Orals | Question: The Government states that we will need to provide access to any url we use during the presentation. Based on Government and corporate security requirements, we will need to have the names and roles of the people accessing our system. We will need to provide unique ID and passwords for each individual. Prior to the presentation will the Government provide the names and roles of the people who will be accessing our system for the 30 days after the presentation? | |
| 56 | 140 | Section L, Proposal Content Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Orals | Question: The Government states that for the oral presentation it will only evaluate the presentation and not the materials provided for the presentation. The Government requires access to the URL's presented for at least 30 days after the presentation. 1) How will the Government evaluate access to those URL's? 2) What is the process they will use to evaluate those URL's? 3) Will that evaluation extend outside the cost element and also be used to evaluate other areas of the proposal that concern cost management and our cost management system? |
| 57 | 140 | Section L, Proposal Content Factor 1 Tab F3 Subfactor 3 | Question: Technical Expertise. The Offeror shall demonstrate, in detail, their plan for recruiting and retaining a workforce possessing the critical skills needed for the successful performance of the requirements of PWS Section, The title of the section and the requirement don’t clearly match. We suggest changing title to staffing or giving direction on how to include technical expertise in this section? | |
| 58 | 142 | Section L, Proposal Content Volume 3, Tab H, | Question: Draft RFP Section L Proposal Content Volume 3 Tab H: Small Business Participation Past Performance requires submission of SF 294 and SF 295 for the last 5 years. As a large business with billions in annual contract revenue, this requirement could be voluminous. Will the Government please consider limiting the submission of SF 294/295 to the business entity proposing this contract? | The Government has updated from 5 to the last 3 years. SF 295 is not applicable. |
| 59 | 151 | Section M, III Evaluation Criteria, 2. Relative Importance of Factors | Draft RFP Section M Evaluation Criteria, Relative Importance of Factors states "The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor is equal to the Small Business Participation Factor." |
Question: The new language appears to be incomplete. As written, this section could be interpreted two ways, that the Mission Capability Factor is significantly more important than Past Performance but equal to Small Business Participation, or that the Mission Capability is significantly more important than the Past Performance and Small Business Participation, which are equal. Will the Government please clarify the relative importance of the factors?
| The Government has edited sentence to read,"The Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor, which is equal to the Small Business Participate Factor." | |||
| 60 | 154 | Section M, III Evaluation Criteria, Factor 2.a.ii | Draft RFP Section M Evaluation Criteria, Past Performance, Relevancy Assessment states, "The Government has defined relevance as experience in training senior leaders, scenario development, managing multi-faceted logistical services, and providing and managing role players." |
| Question: However, we recommend using technical and logistics factors for relevancy, rather than training language. Will the Government please consider revising the evaluation criteria for Past Performance Relevancy away from training and align it with the elements of the SOW? | The Government has removed sentence. | ||||
| 61 | SOW | Question: The SOW seems to give disparate treatment to Mission Support Codes (MSC) Project Support Codes (PSC) and Work Authorization Codes (WAO) in technical exhibits (20 and 21) and the SOW. The Government replaced TE-20 with Exhibit R, but did not release Exhibit R for review. Specifically, C.1.7.3.1 references TE-21 as PSC Workflow but the words in that attachment are Mission Support Code (MSC) workflow and Section M still refers to MSCs. Will the Government please provide clarity on MSCs, PSC, and WAO's? | The Government will revise solicitation to reflect Mission Support Codes. | ||
| 62 | 72 | C.5.2, Hours of Operations | Question: Core hours defined twice with different hours (0700-1630 and 0700-1530). Is the second reference the core hours for Friday only, or is the 1530 a typo? | ||
| 63 | 73 | C.5.2.3, Government Activities | Question: It is stated that, Contractor participation in activities outside of their normal duty requirement are permitted if the individual is on a paid or non-paid leave status and the contractor does not receive reimbursement of these costs. If the individual is taking paid leave that is a cost that is reimbursed, since the cost volume prices 2080 hours which includes paid leave. This appears to be a contradiction which says the Contractor cannot receive reimbursement for paid leave. The costs for paid leave are in the fringe, so the hours are not directly billed for attending the event, but the paid leave is being reimbursed. | ||
| 64 | The Draft RFP reads “The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection”, this is contrary towhat has become the norm in Army contracting to make small business participation an source selection evaluation factor. Without small business participation being an evaluation factor large businesses will only pay lip service to the intent of the public laws and FAR and will not actually subcontract to small businesses. Please change. | Not only is “Small Business Participation” a factor (see Factor #4) it will also be evaluated as part of past performance. While Subcontracting Plans will not be evaluated as part of the source selection they will be assessed for compliance with the recommended MICC Office of Small Business Program Goals. An acceptable Subcontracting Plan is a requirement for contract award and the acceptable subcontracting plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract. | |||
| 65 | The Draft RFP reads “The recommended MICC Office of Small Programs (OSBP) goals for this acquisition are as follows and are based on the total proposed subcontracted effort.” Please change to the “total contract revenue”, as large businesses will not subcontract to small businesses without this language. Small businesses are more competitive and responsive to the Army mission than the mega businesses that are totally profit focused to meet Wall Street Stock Analysts forecasts. | Tab E. Small Business Subcontracting Plan deleted | |||
| 66 | 146 | Section L, 2.6, page 146 | Will the Government further clarify their intent by stating that cost proposals containing any variation from TE-6 for any contract period will be considered non-compliant and add definitive language stating that staffing should remain normalized throughout all outyears to avoid receiving discrepancies in offeror’s price? Ambiguity in language related to staffing has led to lengthy protests in recent, similar acquisitions. | Recommend the language found in section L, 1.3.1 be amended to reflect a stricter standard with language that leaves no question that each offeror is to strictly adhere to the TE6 staffing | |
| 67 | 147 | Section L, 2.6.4.6, page 147 | The Government stated in its answer to post-Industry Day question #47 that it "will consider providing a plug fringe rate". Is the Government still considering this? | The plug rates have been included in the ODC CLINS. | |
| 68 | 142 | Section L, Vol III Tab H, p.142 | Section L states, "For Large Businesses, include SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information for Government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last five years." Will the Government clarify if they want SF 294 and 295s for the contracts represented in the Past Performance volume?" | SF 294 will be used for subcontracting reports for individual contracts. SF 295 has been removed. | |
| 69 | 35 | PWS, C.1.3.8.2, p. 35 | The revised Draft RFP released on 19 January states "several of WSMR’s functional histories remain archived in commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems or internal CMMS software applications." It requires the contractor to develop a strategy for transferring data from the incumbent’s CMMS. Will the Government provide additional details on the current CMMS in place so that offerors can adequately develop a strategy to effectively transfer data during phase-in without impacting the mission? What systems are currently in use and will be made available to the incoming contractor? | ||
| 70 | 88 | PWS, C.5.4.4.1, p. 88 | The revised Draft RFP released on 19 January refers to the use of Maximo in the Ground Targets Operations portion of the PWS. Can the Government provide additional details about the use of Maximo and if it is currently used for tracking all maintenance or only in the Ground Targets Operation area? Is Maximo Government provided for use on the follow on contract or is this a contractor provided tool currently in use? | ||
| 71 | 154 | Section M, Factor 2, page 154 | The Government has defined relevance as "experience in training senior leaders, scenario development, managing multi-faceted logistical services, and providing and managing role players." This appears to be language taken from a different RFP and is not fully applicable to the WSMR MSS. Will the Government provide an updated relevancy definition for past performance? | This language has been removed. | |
| 72 | 154 | Section M, Factor 2, page 154 | The most recent Draft RFP added a 'Very Relevant' Past Performance rating which favors the incumbent. Will the Government verify that the past performance references will be assessed in aggregate to determine an overall relevancy rating against essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexities? | These ratings are provided by DOD Source Selection Procedures. | |
| 73 | 78 | C.5.3.3.2.1 | Safety Manager Minimum Qualifications are provided; however, there is no specific labor category for Safety Manager in Exhibits T and U. There is a labor category for Safety Environmental Manager. Please confirm this is the appropriate labor categroy or provide a crosswalk to the correct labor category. | ||
| 74 | 78 | C.5.3.3.2.2 | Environmental Officer Minimum Qualifications are provided; however, there is no specific labor category for Environmental Officer in Exhibits T and U. There is a labor category for Safety Environmental Manager. Please confirm this is the appropriate labor categroy or provide a crosswalk to the correct labor category. | ||
| 75 | 115 | Section H, paragraph a | Exhibits T and U state 1,880 productive hours and Section H of the Solicitation shows 1,864 productive hours. This calculation also is reflected in the number of FTEs (490 vs. 494). Please clarify which is correct. | The Government intends to update Exhibits T and U. | |
| 76 | 115 | Section H, paragraph a | Year 1 states 690,906 total hours, which appears to be for 9 months. Is the base year 9 months or should it be priced at 12 months or 921,207 hours. | The base year will be nine (9) months with a three (3) month phase in period. | |
| 77 | 138 and 143 | TAB E. and Volume IV | Volume I - TAB E: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan states goals based upon total proposed subcontracted efforts. The Small Business Participation Plan states goals based upon Total Contract Value. Please clarify which goal to use. | Tab E. Small Business Subcontracting Plan deleted | |
| 78 | Exhibit T; Exhibit U; and Exhibit V. | It appears some of the positions listed (e.g., Administrative Assistant) may be subject to the Service Contract Act and are not exempt. Will the Government be providing a Wage Determination for these positions? | |||
| 79 | 136 | Section L-III, Para.C ( c ) | Please clarify if offerors are permitted to use Arial size 11 font in MS Word documents. | No, Offerors will be able to use 12 font only |
File details come from the government source that posted it.