Conformed_Copy_Amendment_0009-Solicitation_W91151-19-R-0003,_14_March_2019.pdf

W91151-19-R-0003

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 10:00 AM local time 22 Mar 2019

X

A X B X C

D

EX

X G F 150 - 159

160 - 171 H 172 natasha.l.elder.civ@mail.mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1 178

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS

SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

W91151 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and 1 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and

SAFE ARL

conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

NATASHA L. ELDER 254-287-5115

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

1 - 52 53 - 67

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

68 - 116 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

118 - 119

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 120 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) X M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL:TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

121 - 147

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING

MISSION CONTRACTING OFFICE (MCO)

36000 DARNALL LOOP, ROOM 1300B

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5095 254-287-0038

254-288-3617FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

148 - 149

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.

0011033501

5. DATE ISSUED

21 Dec 2018

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SET 5

287. Amendment 0007; Q&As #86–286; Amendment 0008; Due date not extended There are significant changes to the RFP requirements (e.g., PWS renumbering, deletions, additions; instructions in RFP attachments; Cost requirements; submission format, etc.) that require a considerable amount of time to find and analyze, and dictate a complete reworking and restructuring of our entire proposal.

Q1: Would the Government kindly extend the due date by at least 2 weeks?

Response: Amendment 0007 with all remaining responses submitted on 8 March 2019 gives Offerors two weeks to submit proposals.

288. Answer to Question #265: “Response: Q1 and Q2- IAW Section L.C.2 of the solicitation, Offerors are allowed to use a different format for Attachment 9 and shall address all areas outlined in the attachment. Q3- Attachment 9 has been updated to clarify the instructions.”

The revised Attachment 9 was not included in the Amendment 0007 package. Q1: Does the Government intend to release the revised Attachment 9 document to the bidders?

Response: Attachment 9 has been included with Amendment 0009.

289. L.C.2.c: “The proposals shall be organized into four (4) volumes. Each volume shall be submitted in one of the following formats: Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel version 2007 or newer. …” The requirement is not clear.

Q1: Is the Government expecting a single file for each volume to be submitted?

Response: The Government is not expecting a single file for each volume. The Government has given Offerors the various formats to submit all documents required in each Volume.

Q2: If so, does this mean we need to add tabs in the Excel spreadsheet to respond to the additional RFP Cost requirements instead of submitting a companion Word document?

Response: Not Applicable

Q3: Since TIPs are no longer required, does this remove the PowerPoint file requirement referenced in Q&A #23 and require the TAR responses to now be included in the Word file?

Response: Yes, As stated, the technical methodology will be provided in Volume II for TAR 1,2, and 3 and the cost will be provided in Attachment 5 for TARs 1 and 2 only.

290. Amendment 0007, Q&As #169, 204, 216—multiple conflicting answers.

In closely examining Q&As #169, 204, 216, there appears to be multiple conflicting instructions in the responses.

Q1: Please clarify which of the below answers is correct. We believe all three questions (169, 204, 216) refer to TE- V Base Operations paragraph 2.8 b. [6] The Contractor shall provide vehicles to move visitors and test personnel in and around test sites on a scheduled basis.

Q&A #169: Are these to be contractor provided vehicles, or GFP that the contractor manages? Is the contractor to provide drivers? If so, is there workload data to estimate the vehicles and drivers necessary to meet this requirement?

Previous Government Response: Tactical Vehicles are provided as GFP and as items on the Inventory Management List. Yes, drivers are required. No historical workload data is available.

Q&A #204: The paragraph requires provision of vehicles but does not require drivers. Are drivers a part of the requirement? If so, please provide the demand data to calculate appropriate BOE and add the appropriate LCAT to Attachment 7. (TAR 1 para. 3.8.b[6]) Previous Government Response: No.

Q&A #216: How many vehicles and what types of vehicles are supported at Fort Hood?

How many vehicles and what types of vehicles are supported at Fort Bliss? Is the contractor required to driver visitors and test personnel to the test site? If so, how many times per year is transporting personnel required? (TAR 1, para 3.8b) Previous Government Response: TE S and TE AA, and AB has been updated to show the quantity and type of vehicles located at each installation. Contractor will not drive visitors.

Response: The contractor shall provide vehicles only for Government personnel to move visitors and test personnel in and around test sites on a scheduled basis. TE V Base Operations paragraph 2.8 b. [6] has been updated.

291. Q&A #23, PowerPoint requirement Q&A #23 stated that TIPs were required in PowerPoint in response to the provided TARs. The latest response to questions indicates that no TIPs are required. Our proposal was based on previous Government guidance and the requirement has changed again to use different software to submit the proposal. Presenting TIPs in PowerPoint is significantly different than presenting a technical methodology in Word. As a small business, this is a substantial undertaking.

Q1: Does this apply to Test Scenario TAR 3?

Response: Yes, technical methodology shall be provided in Volume II

Q2: Will the Government consider an extension of at least 2 weeks to allow restructuring of our proposal response to meet the new formatting and content requirements?

Response: Amendment 0007 with all remaining responses submitted on 8 March 2019 gives Offerors two weeks to submit proposals.

Q&A #23: Is it expected that responses to the TARs provided in the RFP will be answered in Power Point format? If yes will the page limit be increased? If yes, will the PowerPoint format referenced in Data Item 003 be provided?

Previous Government Response: PowerPoint slides are requested for TIP submission of the TARs. A format will not be provided and this information has been updated in TE E DID A003. Offerors will choose their format. The page limit will remain at 75 pages for Mission Capability Factor 1.

Response: No, based on the current changes in the PWS and TARs a TIP is no longer required. The technical methodology will be provided in Volume II, and the costing will be included in Attachment 5. TAR 3 does not require costing, just a baseline staffing to be submitted with the technicial methodology..

292. Amendment 0007, Q&As #31, 86, 98, 99—multiple conflicting answers.

Responses to Q&As 31, 86, 98, and 99 seem to be in conflict.

Q&A #31. Response and evaluation requirements to Subfactor 1 – Understanding of the Requirement/Mission (TAR 1, 2, & Scenario TAR 3) is unclear. "The contractor's TIP response shall describe the technical approach and methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the below sub‐paragraphs.” The current evaluation criteria addresses only management of the task and personnel utilization. (Ref: Draft Solicitation, Section L, page 125, Para C.B(1)(a), Draft Solicitation, Section M, Para D.2, Subfactor 1, Para (a), and TE V Base TAR 3.3) Shall offerors include descriptions of the technical approach and methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the sub‐paragraphs within the proposal response? If so, how will the technical approach and methodology be evaluated? How will the labor and reimbursables be evaluated? There is no mention evaluation of associated labor and/or reimbursables in the Section L or M requirements for Subfactor 1. Please clarify?

Previous Government Response: Yes, Offerors shall include descriptions of their technical methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the subparagraphs within the proposal response. The three (3) TARs will be evaluated on the technical methodology given for each TAR as it relates to conducting and maintaining base and test support operations.

Q&A #86: Solicitation requires "separate proposals" for each TAR. Request confirmation that Subfactor 1 constitutes this separate proposal requirement and that Subfactor 2 may be addressed as one consolidated response and not separated out by TAR…the information in Tab 2 applies across TARs?

Previous Government Response 2: Subfactor 1 – The Government is requesting a separate methodology for each TAR and not separate proposals. Subfactor 2 shall not be separated out by each TAR. The response shall be in accordance with the requirements in the PWS.

Q&A #98: TAR 1 provides limited information regarding the base operations described. Is it the Government’s intent that offeror addresses all base support tasks in the IDIQ PWS or only the tasks specifically identified in TAR 1?

Previous Government Response: The offeror shall address only the tasks specifically addressed in TAR 1.

Q&A #99: TAR 2 provides limited information regarding the base operations described. Is it the Government’s intent that offeror addresses all base support tasks in the IDIQ PWS or only the tasks specifically identified in TAR 2?

Previous Government Response: The offeror shall address only the tasks specifically addressed in TAR 2.

Q1:Does the Government want a response to the items included in TAR 1 and 2 or as Q&A #86 states: “Subfactor 2 shall not be separated out by each TAR.”

Response: : Q1. Yes, the Contractor shall provide a response for TAR 1 and TAR 2 for Subfactor 1 (1) (a).

Subfactor 2 depicts a response to the PWS.

Q2: Does the Government want the responses to be separate headings in the Word document so the response for each TAR is grouped together?

Response: Q2. Follow the procedures for formatting in accordance with Section L and M for each Volume.

Q3: How does the Government want the response to Scenario TAR 3 submitted?

Response: Q3. The TAR methodology shall be included in Volume II along with the baseline staffing.

Questions 293-296, Reference: Attachment #6 - - 3.2. Specific Technical Requirement. The contractor shall describe its technical methodology in Volume II of the solicitation and provide a staffing approach in Attachment 5 with associated labor hours and categories for the below paragraphs 3.3.-3.5. The contractor shall not submit a cost estimate. Linda, revisit Attachment 6 to change the verbiage. Then the questions can be answered below.

293. Does the government not want cost data in Attachment 5 for the sample test support as stated in paragraph 3.2?

Response: Cost shall not be submitted for the Scenario TAR 3.

294. If the government does not want cost data for the sample test TAR, please provide specific guidance for exactly what the Test Support cost in Attachment 5 should be based on.

Response: The test support cost shall be for Staffing that include skillsets and labor hours.

295. If no cost data is to be provided for the sample test support, does the Government want labor hours and categories (no rates) for the sample test support in Attachment 5?

Response: Yes

296. Since the sample TAR ends in June of the Base Year, what is expected to be costed in Years 2-5 for Test Support?

Response: The Sample TAR is just that for evaluation of its technical methodology, which include labor hours and categories. For years 1-5 Offerors shall include all costs based on the provided historical data and the PWS.

297. Would the Government please confirm the correct Ship To address for CLINs 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, 4002, 4005?

Response: All CLINs have been updated to have the same delivery address.

298. There is a direct conflict between Q&A #94 and Amendment 0007. Q&A #94 states the Summary *will* count toward page count. Section L.C.2.e does not mention the Summary at all. Will the Government please confirm the Summary is not page counted?

Response: Section L, paragraph C.2.e and C.2.f have been corrected to show the Summary Section will count towards the page count in Volume II.

299. Q&A #34 and Q&A #37 responses state the term “Section B” would be used, and Amendment 0002 reflected this change. In Amendment 0007, the term was changed back to “Schedule B” in Section L, but “Section B” is still listed as the title for the second section in the solicitation.

Q1: Are these the same document or two separate documents?

Response: This is the same document.

Q2: If these are the same document, would the Government please clarify which term is to be used to reference this part of the RFP?

Response: The solicitation has been corrected to state “Section B”.

Q2: If these are two separate documents, does the Government intent to release Schedule B to the bidders so they can respond to it?

Response: Not applicable

300. Attachment 4 identifies an Environmental Compliance Manager. Conformed PWS Amendment 0008 paragraph 1.6.57 “The Contractor shall appoint in writing an Environmental Compliance Officer (ECO) to establish an environmental program IAW AR 200-1 and OTC Memorandum 200-1.”

Q1: Is this one position or two separate positions?

Response: Environmental Compliance Officer is correct in the PWS. Environmental Compliance Manager in Attachment 4 is a baseline staffing position. The Offeror Q2: What is the proper title of this position to use in the response for the technical and cost volumes?

Response: The Offeror can propose its own methodology and labor categories to the Baseline Staffing listed in Attachment 4.

301. Volume II, Factor I, Mission Capability (Technical) Task Authorization Request (TAR XXXX)-Airborne Special Operations Test Directorate (ABNSOTD) Base Services/Transitional Phase-In-Technical Exhibit Q paragraph 2.4.a contains the acronym “HUC.” HUC is not defined in TE-Q and it is not defined in the Conformed RFP PWS Part 2, Definitions & Acronyms.

Q1: Is HUC the acronym for “Human Use Committee”?

Q2: If “Human Use Committee” is correct, which HUC is being referenced—ATEC, OTC, ABNSOTD, or some other?

Response: TE Q has been updated to remove the verbiage for HUC.

Summary of Changes

Section L, paragraphs C.3.B, C.3.D.5, and D.4.d have been updated.

Section M, paragraphs D.2 and D.4 have been updated.

Technical Exhibit Q – paragraph 2.4 a has been updated.

Attachment 6- paragraph 3.2 has been updated.

Technical Exhibit V- paragraph 2.8b[6] has been updated.

Attachment 9 was erroneously omitted in Amendment 0007 and has been included with this amendment.

All access codes will be sent by 4:00pm Central Time on 18 March 2019.

All PPQs are due by the closing date (22 March 2019) of the solicitation.

SF 30

1. PWS Changes From: 6.0. Applicable Publications (Current Editions).

The following publications are applicable with special test requirements, as specified by a specific technical requirement, and are designated to verify acceptable levels of operations. The contract may add documents to this list for specific technical requirements. The below army and Fort Hood publications can be found on weblink https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/AR.aspx and http://www.hood.army.mil/dhr/asd/publications008.htm. A link for all OTC Memorandums will be provided at a later date.

To: 6.0. Applicable Publications (Current Editions).

The following publications are applicable with special test requirements, as specified by a specific technical requirement, and are designated to verify acceptable levels of operations. The contract may add documents to this list for specific technical requirements. The below army and Fort Hood publications can be found on weblink https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/AR.aspx and https://www.hood.army.mil/dhr/asd/publications008.htm. The below ATEC and OTC Memorandums can be found on https://www.otc.army.mil/memo.html. Google Chrome web browser works best for weblinks.

From: 3.1. Facilities and Forward Test Center (FTC). The KO will provide facilities as Government Furnished Property (GFP) as listed in TE X. The GFP is located at Fort Hood, TX, Fort Bliss, TX, and Fort Bragg, NC. The requiring activity has determined that providing GFP is in the best interest of the Government and IAW FAR Part

45.101. This determination is based upon the extensive on-site maintenance, storage, and operation of facilities provided as GFP.

To: 3.1. Facilities and Forward Test Center (FTC). The KO will provide facilities as Government Furnished Property (GFP) as listed in TE X. The GFP is located at Fort Hood, TX, Fort Bliss, TX, and Fort Bragg, NC. The requiring activity has determined that providing GFP is in the best interest of the Government and IAW FAR Part

45.101. This determination is based upon the extensive on-site maintenance, storage, and operation of facilities provided as GFP. The Requiring Activity will provide office space for the Contractor to work and it will be considered Incidental Property.

2. Section L, paragraph A.1

From: A. Proposal Submittal and Inquiries.

1. Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF33 to the following address:

The Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center Safe Access File Exchange (AMRDEC) https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/ Proposals shall be sent through AMRDEC SAFE to the Contract Specialist (CS) and Contracting Officer (KO) listed below, respectively: Natasha.l.elder.civ@mail.mil and Belinda.woods.civ@mail.mil

To: A. Proposal Submittal and Inquiries.

1. Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF33 to the following email address: usarmy.hood.acc-micc.mbx.micc-hood-asd@mail.mil, Attention to Natasha Elder and Belinda Woods.

3. The due date for receipt of proposals has been extended from 22 January 2019 to 7 February 2019.

4. The Period of Performance dates for all CLINs has been changed.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

An amendment is forthcoming to give instructions on submission of proposals.

Questions/Comments received from Solicitation with responses.

1. PWS paragraph 1.6.29.1 as currently written:

“The LM shall possess a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree plus ten (10) years of experience in logistics operations management. Knowledgeable of and ability to work a variety of automated systems, processes and procedures and database formats to include Global Combat Support Systems ‐ Army (GCSS‐Army).

The Security Manager shall possess a Bachelor’s degree and a minimum of five (5) years of related work experience. Must possess practical knowledge of and experience with JPAS, e‐QIP. Must have experience with personnel security, and security management. This position must hold a Top Secret security clearance.

The Fort Bragg Site Manager shall possess a Bachelor’s degree with 5 years of test and evaluation experience.

Must have the ability to multi‐task, prioritize responsibilities, and effectively manage personnel and resources.”

In paragraph 1.6.29.1, how many years of experience are acceptable in lieu of a Bachelor’s degree for the Logistics Manager, Security Manager, and Site Manager?

Response: Five (5) years’ experience can be substituted for the Site Manager and the qualifications for Logistics Manager and Security Manager remain the same.

2. Section L, Paragraph C, the page limitations of the Missional Capability (Technical) Volume decreased from the previous draft page imitation from 100 pages to 50 pages, and the Past Performance Volume has been increased to 50 pages. As stated in Section M, Paragraph D on Page 133, given that the Mission Capability factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance, would the Government consider revising the page limitation back to 100 pages for the Mission Capability Volume? Given the technical complexity of the contract, it would be exceptionally difficult to convey technical competency within the 50 page limitation.

Response: The page count for Mission Capability (Technical) has changed to 75 pages.

3. The solicitation package is silent on the font and font size for graphics and tables. Recommend for the clarity and ease of reading no font smaller than Arial 8‐point font for graphics and tables.

Response: The fonts for appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, and drawings will be Arial 10‐point.

4. Maximum pages for past performance is 50 pages plus 5 pages for each major subcontractor. Is it the government's expectation for the small business offeror to provide 50 pages of past performance?

Recommend the past performance volume be limited to 50 total pages, and that the government allow major subcontractors 10 pages each within the overall 50 page volume.

Response: No, the Government’s expectation is for any interested source not to exceed 50 pages plus five (5) additional pages for each major Subcontractor.

5. Solicitation requires "Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel version 2007 or earlier"(bold added). Microsoft stopped all support for Office 2007 products in November 2017. While modern versions of Office like Office365 and Office 2016 will "Save As" Office 97‐2003 formats, the older Office file specification do not support the functionality of modern Office versions and even space lines and fonts using different algorithms. While the newer versions certainly open the older file formats, the file will likely look and paginate differently if opened by Office 2010 versus Office 2016 versus Office 36. Will the government consider the use of modern version of Office and Adobe products for this submission? While modern versions of Office like Office365 and Office 2016 will "Save As" Office 97‐2003 formats, the older Office file specification do not support the functionality of modern Office versions and even space lines and fonts using different algorithms. While the newer versions certainly open the older file formats, the file will likely look and paginate differently if opened by Office 2010 versus Office 2016 versus Office 36. Will the government consider the use of modern version of Office and Adobe products for this submission?

Response: The following formats are allowed: Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, Power Point, and/or Excel version 2007 or newer.

6. Request confirmation that this para only applies to TAR 1 and TAR 2? (Section L, C.3.B(1)(a))

Response: This paragraph applies only to TAR 1 and TAR 2.

7. This paragraph (L.C.3.B (2) (c)) references 1.6.57.1 within the context of transition but 1.6.58.1 appears to be the correct reference?

Response: The correct PWS Section is 1.6.58.1

8. Factor 1 identifies two subfactors. Will each subfactor be given a separate adjectival rating?

Response: Each subfactor will be given an adjectival rating

9. Are each of the two subfactors under Factor 1 equally weighted?

Response: Each subfactor is equally weighted

10. Request that the government provide guidance regarding what location to use for pricing of each LCAT.

(Attachment 7)

Response: In the attachment yellow is highlighted for Fort Bragg, Fort Bliss is highlighted blue, and the remaining labor categories that are white are Fort Hood.

11. Request the government confirm that the reference in these paragraphs to Basis of Estimate (BOE) is referring to a BOE that fully explains the relative cost elements and their impact on rates/price rather than a technical workup that justifies/underpins the amount of labor required. (L.C.3.D(3)(b)&(c))

Response: The BOE consists of both the cost and technical elements of the offerors' proposals. In regards to the BOE for cost elements, this refers to the foundation for proposed labor rates, prices, labor hours, indirect rates, and anything else that the offeror has proposed beyond these categories. The offeror should provide sources used in the development of non‐exempt labor categories such as Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) including the associated BLS codes applied, local salary surveys or other related data. Proposed exempt labor rates and escalation should similarly be supported. The buildup from base labor rate to loaded labor rate should be clear. For indirect rates, the BOE should clearly demonstrate how any indirect rates were determined or calculated, with the foundation for base and pools clearly articulated. Correspondingly, the cost elements, in their buildup and in total, should be consistent with the labor categories and hours proposed in the technical volume. Consistency between the cost proposal volume and the technical proposal volume will be examined.

12. Request clarity on "The Basis of Estimate (BOE) shall clearly demonstrate a crosswalk to the technical proposal." What is expected to clearly demonstrate the crosswalk ‐ is the explicit linkage of LCATs in BOE to positions/work in technical proposal adequate to demonstrate the crosswalk? (L.C.3.D(3)(b))

Response: There should be a clear correspondence between the offerors' technical approach and their cost proposal. Linkage of LCATs in the cost proposal to positions/work in the technical proposal is adequate, along with proposed staffing mix, i.e. labor categories and hours, corresponding to what is included in the technical proposal and offerors' approach, and anything else in the offerors' cost proposal having a clear correspondence to what is included in the offerors' technical proposal and their approach.

13. There appears to be mismatch between PWS and Attachment 7 for: (1) Security Manager in PWS 1.6.29.1 and

Security Manager/Quality Control in Attachment 7 and (2) Logistics Manager in PWS 1.6.29.1 and Logistics Department Manager in Attachment 7.

Response: PWS Section 1.6.29.1 has been updated to Security Manager and Attachment 7 has been updated to Logistics Manager.

14. Request clarification on "The government will evaluate the five year base period." Is the Phase‐in period part of the five year base period? If yes, should the hours in the Base Year be reduced to account for the Phase‐in period? (Section M D.4.a)

Response: The solicitation posted on 21 Dec 2018 now states 60 month base period. The phase‐in is part of the 60 month base period. CLIN 0001 has been updated to 11 months and CLIN 0005 is 1 month.

15. Request that resumes and letters of commitment not be part of page count for Volume II. (L.C.3.B (2) (b))

Response: The page count for resumes and letters of commitment are not counted towards the page count. The page limit for resumes and letters of commitment have been increased to a total of five pages.

16. Attachment #9. The guidance and structure on page 1 do not match the structure of the provided template.

Request the government reconcile the attachment and provide guidance for compliance. Also, as is it, the template is not in Ariel 12 font. Is it the government's intent for the offeror to adjust the template to Ariel font? It is acceptable to present the information in a table format? (L.C.3.(5))

Response: Attachment 9 has been updated

17. Attachment #9. The structure on page 1 is missing the relevancy discussion. Recommend adding #8

Relevancy, and adjusting the numbering for the remaining topics: #9 Narrative explanation, #10 Negative Performance Documentation, and #11 Completion Date/Delivery Schedule. (L.C.3.(5))

Response: Attachment 9 has been updated.

18. Unless otherwise stated in the solicitation, most bidders will assume all labor to be Government site labor in order to reduce cost burdens (an there is no off‐site overhead in the Attachment 5 price model). If any positions should or must be worked from contractor sites, request those be so identified so that accurate and reasonable cost estimates can be developed. (Attachment 7)

Response: Base Operations in accordance with PWS paragraph 5.1 will be conducted from a Government furnished facility located at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss.

19. Were any of the currently used tools developed at Government expense by incumbent contractors, and if so,

(a) is the adequate documentation available, and (b) will existing documentation be made available in a bidders library? (PWS 1.1 3rd bullet)

Response: There are no special tools that were developed by the Government expense by the incumbent Contractors. Test support tools were removed from PWS 1.1 3rd bullet.

20. Does the Government have an electronic repository the contractor should maintain or is it desired that the contractor develop an electronic repository to meet the Government’s requirements? (PWS 5.7.1) Response: The Government does not have an electronic repository. The contractor shall create a repository on‐ line database and the Government will provide the network location for this repository.

21. Does the Government really want to dictate who the acting Deputy is in the PMs absence?

Response: Yes

22. There is a possible difference between TIP requirements. Which one is correct: 5 Days vs. 7 days? See details below:

RFP 4.10.12.6. TASK IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (TIP). The contractor shall respond to the TAR with a TIP no later than 7 working days after receipt. The contractor shall respond in less time if required by mission timeframes or other requirements. The TIP shall include the contractor's technical approach and all technical resources to accomplish the requirement. The TIP shall also include detailed estimates of all resources required to accomplish the required work. The contractor shall identify if resources (man hours, equipment, time) are available within the existing resources or need to be acquired. Costs for tests crossing fiscal years will be segregated.

4.10.12.7. ORAL PRESENTATIONS.

When required, the contractor shall conduct Oral TIP Presentations within 5 working days after electronic submission to the Contracting Officer and COR of the TIP. Oral TIP read-a-head packages shall be submitted in accordance with the TAR instructions. The Oral TIP shall include the information identified in paragraph 3 above.

Data Item 003 states:

Provide read-ahead package via email within 10 working days of receipt of Task Authorization Request (TAR) or point change per DID A003 and notify Government via email. Government will establish the date of the oral TIP briefing as required.

10.2 The TIP shall be submitted to the Government (COR) as one document consisting of a cover letter, technical approach) (e.g., Power Point Slides – see attached format) and costing attachments, identified by the TAR number and title. The contractor shall also identify the POC or TSC Lead responsible for accomplishing the task, with telephone number.

Response: TIP response is due 7 days after TAR has been submitted, TE B1 CDRL Page 1 was updated to reflect 7 days. The 5 days is for an oral TIP after the TIP has been submitted.

23. Is it expected that responses to the TARs provided in the RFP will be answered in Power Point format? If yes will the page limit be increased? If yes, will the Power Point format referenced in Data item 003 be provided?

Response: Power Point slides are requested for TIP submission of the TARs. A format will not be provided and this information has been updated in TE E DID A003. Offerors will choose their format. The page limit will remain at 75 pages for Mission Capability Factor 1.

24. There is no Section D in the solicitation. Q: Was the omission of Section D intentional or an oversight?

Response: Section D Packaging and marking has no clauses or additional information and is not applicable.

25. L.C.2(c) “Documents shall be easily readable using Arial, 12-point font size.” Arial font is hard to read in paragraph form. Q: Would the Government kindly consider adding the option of using 12 point Times New Roman font?

Response: Arial, 12 point will remain for submission of documents.

26. Solicitation number in electronic file name. The file name for the solicitation is labeled

“Draft_solicitation,_W91151-18-R-0107,_20_Nov_2018.pdf”. All other references to the solicitation number within the document itself are “W91151-19-R-0003.” Q: Is “W91151-19-R-0003” the correct reference for this bid?

Response: The solicitation number is W91151-19-R-0003.

27. L.C.3.C(5) Volume III: Past Performance Submission Requirements, and the last bullet of the list: Past

Performance – See attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire. The solicitation requirement states: “The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:” and the last bullet of the list is the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). In the instructions for the PPQ bullet, the Government states: “These questionnaires shall be returned directly to Natasha L. Elder by email…” Q1: How does the Government want the PPQs provided in the submitted proposal so we may fulfil the stated requirement that the Volume must contain the PPQs? Q2: May we submit a list of the people we sent the PPQs to and their contact information instead?

Response: All PPQs shall be emailed as requested in the solicitation. Yes, a list of names of the POC that will be submitting the PPQ may be submitted in addition to the PPQs being emailed as requested in the solicitation, Volume II.

28. We have a question about the key personnel requirements noted in the subject draft solicitation, specifically:

1.6.29.1. The PM shall possess a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree plus ten (10) years’ experience with military systems and five (5) years’ experience in operational testing. This position must hold a Top Secret security clearance. The 5 years’ experience in Operational Testing clearly makes the incumbent personal just about the only qualified person for the PM position. Since the PM will not be directly involved in OT work as a manager and because the specificity for 5 years OT experience makes it very difficult to recruit for the position, we request that you relook the position requirements. Also, note that the Army has schools to qualify personnel in Operational Testing: Test and Evaluation Basic Course (TEBC): The Test and Evaluation Basic Course (TEBC) consists of two parts, an on‐line training (OLT) and a Resident Seminar (RS). Both are essential components of ATEC's initial training program. Personnel in Test and Evaluation positions must complete the OLT within the first 2 months of assignment and must also complete a Resident Seminar (RS) within 6 months. Personnel in positions that are not part of an ATEC System Team are not required to take the TEBC RS. TEBC on‐line Training (OLT): The TEBC OLT provides a mandatory in‐depth orientation for all newly assigned personnel.

Previously distributed as Computer Based Training on a compact disc, the course has been updated and moved to a web based platform. The OLT is a prerequisite to the RS. You may also audit the course or access as a reference. To take the OLT please contact your local training coordinator or Email the ATEC HQ Training Coordinator if you are not an ATEC employee. TEBC Resident Seminar: The TEBC RS is a detailed (35 hours) seminar that provides "how‐to" instruction by subject matter experts to ATEC testers, evaluators, analysts and other personnel as designated by their chain‐of‐command. After completing the OLT, forward a request to attend the TEBC RS using an OPM SF 182. Please contact your local training coordinator for Enrollment. It seems reasonable to state for the PM that he/she will be required to complete this training as an alternate to 5 years’ experience.

Response: The Program Manager qualifications will remain the same.

29. L.C.3.B(2) TAB 2(c) [Volume II: Mission Capability (Technical)] The RFP states: “The transition cost will be listed separately and include the key personnel and staffing with labor categories and hours.” Q: Does the Government want actual cost numbers to be presented in this section in Volume II: Mission Capability (Technical)?

Response: The Phase-in cost will be listed in Volume I in Section B and Volume IV- Cost. Transition cost is not required in Volume II.

30. Background: In regards to the Draft Solicitation, Section L, B. VOLUME II Mission Capability (Pg. 125). The government is requesting the offeror to provide, “separate proposals for Task Authorization Requests 1, 2, and Scenario TAR 3”. Question: Are the three separate proposals included in the stated 50 page volume limit?

Response: The language in this section has been updated and the Task Implementation Plan (TIP) will be part of the 75 page volume limit.

31. Response and evaluation requirements to Subfactor 1 – Understanding of the Requirement/Mission (TAR 1, 2, & Scenario TAR 3) is unclear. "The contractor's TIP response shall describe the technical approach and methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the below sub‐paragraphs.” The current evaluation criteria addresses only management of the task and personnel utilization. (Ref: Draft Solicitation, Section L, page 125, Para C.B(1)(a), Draft Solicitation, Section M, Para D.2, Subfactor 1, Para (a), and TE V Base TAR 3.3) Shall offerors include descriptions of the technical approach and methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the sub‐paragraphs within the proposal response? If so, how will the technical approach and methodology be evaluated? How will the labor and reimbursables be evaluated? There is no mention evaluation of associated labor and/or reimbursables in the Setcion L or M requirements for Subfactor

1. Please clarify?

Response: Yes, Offerors shall include descriptions of their technical methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the subparagraphs within the proposal response. The three (3) TARs will be evaluated on the technical methodology given for each TAR as it relates to conducting and maintaining base and test support operations.

32. States in part, The contractor's TIP response shall describe the technical approach and methodology with associated labor and reimbursable identified in the below sub-paragraphs. The Contractor shall identify costs by each month and segregated by fiscal years. Separately identify all “Core” personnel in the “Base TIP” and give an estimated percentage of how much if any, of their time is spent in support of operational testing. The current evaluation criteria addresses only management of the task and personnel utilization. Shall offerors include descriptions of the technical approach and methodology with associated labor and reimbursables for each of the sub-paragraphs within the proposal response? The Section L requirements do not directly link to the TAR documents. If a separate response to each TAR is required, please state within the solicitation. If a separate response is required, how will the technical approach and methodology be evaluated? How will the labor and reimbursables be evaluated?

Response: The solicitation has been updated for Offerors to provide their technical methodology approach to all three (3) TARs. See response in question #45

33. States in part, “The resumes shall be provided in the following format and include a letter of commitment.” Will the Government please confirm that the letter of commitment is not included as part of the 3 page count limitation for resumes. (Draft Solicitation, Section L, page 125, Para C.B(2)(b))

Response: The resumes have a page count of five (5) pages. The letters of commitment are a part of the 5 page count for resumes.

34. Section L, Page 139, Para D.4(d), This paragraph states, "A completed schedule B shall be included with the cost volume spreadsheet and shall match the amounts proposed in the cost proposal spreadsheets." Schedule B was not provided with the DRFP Will the Government please provide the referenced Schedule B so we can review/comment on it?

Response: The verbiage has been changed to Section B of the RFP.

35. The Contractor shall have the ability to build shipping crates, framing, and signs. Will the Government please clarify whether the contractor must have a facility and personnel or just personnel with the expertise to support this requirement? (C.5.14 Fabrication Services)

Response: The Government will provide facilities for Contractor use and Contractors will provide personnel.

36. Per FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards -- Price Adjustment, the Offeror shall not escalate SCLS labor wages in its proposal. Clause 52.222-43 only appears in the Section L.

Typically this is also located in Section I. We recommend adding this important clause to Section I CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (Section L.C.D.(4)(c), pg 129)

Response: FAR clause 52.222-43 does not apply to this solicitation and this sentence has been deleted.

37. Section B and Schedule B are used throughout the document (i.e. L.C.A, page 125, "Tab 2 Section B")(i.e.

L.C.D(4)(d), page 129, "A completed schedule B shall")(i.e. L.C.D(5)(a), page 129, "...in Schedule B and Attachment 5…". To reduce any confusion, recommend settling upon one term and using consistently throughout with preference being Schedule B. (Multiple Locations)

Response: The solicitation has been updated with the term Section B

38. Tab 2 Section B (Supplies or Services and Costs) - Section B shall be submitted fully completed and error free.

It shall contain the offeror’s costss for the established Contract Line Items (CLINS). Is the Government's intent to require a Schedule/Section B in both the General Volume and the Cost Volume or limit this information to the Cost Volume only?

Response: Section B with costs for all CLINs shall be provided in Volume I –General, and Volume IV- Cost.

39. 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing

Data. It is unclear as to whether the Government is requiring offerors to prepare their responses using Table 15- 2, Proposal Adequacy Checklist. It is recommended not to levy this additional burden to the responses and instead add Alternate IV to this clause stipulating: (a) Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required. (b) Provide data described below: Instructions for proposal submission in Section L.

Response: FAR provision 52.215-20 is not in the solicitation and the requirement of this provision has not been mandated by Offerors.

40. 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers- Given that offerors must offer first right of refusal to SCA covered incumbent staff, would the Government provide a seniority listing detailing at a minimum each incumbent employee SCA Entry on Duty Date and 5 digit Department of Labor Wage Determination skill category code such that offerors may more accurately bid the leave requirement?

Response: Pursuant to 52.22-17 Non-displacement of Qualified Workers, the certified list of names of all service employees employed cannot be provided before contract award. The certified list shall contain anniversary dates of employment, and, where applicable, dates of separation of each service employee under the contract and its predecessor contracts with either the current or predecessor Contractors or their subcontractors.

41. SCLS: The Offeror is provided the Area Wage Determination to be used for wage development of SCLS

Employees as Exhibit T in the solicitation. The BLS code used should be provided for each labor category proposed. The Offeror shall use the exact labor category title as stated in the Wage Determination or provide a cross reference table. Offerors are reminded not to apply escalation to the wages for SCLS labor. We believe the intent is to use the 5 digit Department of Labor Wage Determination skill category for the SCA population and not the BLS code; please confirm. (Section L.C.D.(5)(c)(2) second bullet, pg 130)

Response: The Wage Determination 5 digit code is for non-exempt employees and the BLS code is for exempt employees.

42. Please confirm there are no CBA(s) (Collective Bargaining Agreement) governing this contract or provide the current CBA(s) if any are in effect.

Response: There are no CBAs governing the current contract.

43. We strive to reduce the onus on our Government clients who need to complete the same PPQs repeatedly for proposals. Also, contracting representatives are reluctant to (or even discouraged from) completing PPQ forms if formal performance CPARS evaluations have been completed. Will Huntsville please consider allowing offerors to submit completed CPARS evaluations or previously completed/signed PPQs in lieu of new PPQ forms?

Response: The PPQs are required as part of the Past Performance evaluation factor and there will be no change to the solicitation.

44. The PWS section 1.6.29.1 states: "The PM shall possess a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree plus ten (10) years’, as well as the Fort Bragg Site Manager, shall possess a Bachelor’s degree with 5 years of test and evaluation experience." experience with military systems and five (5) years’ experience in operational testing." The requirement for 5 years of experience in Operational Testing makes the current incumbent personnel about the only qualified individuals who would be qualified for these positions. The Army's Test and Evaluation Basic Course (TEBC) provides all the key knowledge parameters that these individuals should ever need and should be considered an adequate alternative for otherwise qualified individuals to obtain. Based upon the high degree of difficulty in locating personnel outside of the OTC community with military equipment Operation Testing experience, and in order to reduce the clear incumbent advantage, will the Government consider otherwise qualified individuals to take an approved Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Course (e.g. the Army's Test and Evaluation Basic Course (TEBC) within 6 months of hiring?

Response: The qualifications for the Program Manager will remain the same.

45. The PWS section 1.6.32 states: "Head protection. The use of Kevlar helmets shall be worn by all personnel operating or riding as a passenger in Army tactical vehicles whenever they are outside the motor maintenance facility." Will Kevlar helmets be provided by the Government, or the contractor?

Response: The Government will provide Kevlar Helmets

46. In order to properly assign the correct number of individuals to each Labor Category (LCAT), offerors require detailed historical workload data, which would include # of transactions, Work Orders opened/closed, etc. Can the Government please provide more detailed Historical Work Load data upon which offerors can base their staffing? (Attachment 2)

Response: Attachment 2 has been deleted;

47. Att7; Test 12 Months FY18-23 tab; the WD Non Exempt category of Access Control has no associated SCA code, labor category (LCAT) definition or description of duties. Request the Government provide the associated SCA code, labor category (LCAT) definition or description of duties for this position (Access Control).

(Attachment 4 and 7)

Response: There is no associated SCA code, labor category (LCAT) definition or description of duties for Access Control.

48. Att7; Test 12 Months FY18‐23 tab; the WD Non Exempt category of DAG/RSC has no associated SCA code, labor category (LCAT) definition or description of duties. Request the Government provide the associated SCA code, labor category (LCAT) definition or description of duties for this position (DAG/RSC). (Attachment 4 and 7)

Response: Attachment 7 has been updated.

49. Cell B12 of the DOL…