W91151-20-R-0002-0005CC WDTC MSS 14 Feb 2020.pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 02:00 PM local time 19 Feb 2020

X

A X B X C

D

EX

X G F 56 - 66

67 - 82 X H 83 tiffany.l.alexander.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 90

(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 conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

TIFFANY ALEXANDER 254-287-7467

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

1 - 14 15 - 27

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

28 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

30 - 32

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 33 - 35 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 36 - 38 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

39 - 54

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

MICC - FORT HOOD

36000 DARNALL LOOP, ROOM 1300B

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5025

FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

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

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.

0011058343-0001

5. DATE ISSUED

26 Nov 2019

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

W9115120R0002

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY

Questions/Comments received from Solicitation Responses

1. In the referenced solicitation at the instructions for the Small Business Participation Proposal the government stated the Minimum TCV goals for this procurement are:

– Small Business (SB): 29.5%;

– Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 9.1%;

– Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 2.7%;

– HUBZone Small Business: 0.4%;

– Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): 0.1%;

– Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 0.01%; and

– Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI): 0.0% “The minimum TVC goals for SDVOSB and VOSB are extremely low when compared with the DOD goal set at 3% for SDVOSB and the fact that DOD has been able to reach that goal for multiple years. While ATEC DPG had in FY 2018 only attained approximately 1.94% for SDVOSB. A search of the VA VETBIZ web site for VA verified SDVOSB companies listing NAICS 541380 shows 188 companies and an additional 45 for VOSB companies. At Technical Exhibit (TE) AA Historical Baseline Staffing Model shows many Labor Categories and hours for positions outside the laboratory environment that are administrative, facility management, mechanical, electronic technician, aviation in nature and often performed on many other ATEC contracts by SDVOSB/VOSB subcontractors. A search of VA VETBIZ would give results of thousands of SDVOSB/VOSB companies performing these tasks under related NAICS Codes.”

Question: Request the government rebalance the Minimum TCV goals to set the SDVOSB and VOSB goals at 3%.

Response: Based on 15 years of data, it has been extremely difficult to recruit subcontractors that are SDVOSB due to the remoteness of Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. However, the goals represent a baseline minimum. With this requirement being a best value trade-off, Contractors who are able to exceed these minimum goals will likely receive a more favorable rating. For additional information on the goal ratings, see Table 5, Indicators of Ratings by Small Business Participation Area.

2. This is what I read in the solicitation at page 55 and followed.

Question: Is this wrong or are there other instructions?

“3. The point of contact responsible for supplying additional information and answering all inquiries is the Contracting Officer via the Contract Specialist. Address all questions or concerns the Offeror may have to Ms.

Jacqueline Montague, KO and Ms. Tiffany L. Alexander, CS. All questions regarding this Solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email not later than 1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on 12 December 2019 to the KO and CS identified below: jacqueline.t.montague.civ@mail.mil; and tiffany.l.alexander.civ@mail.mil Questions submitted after the specified date/time will not be accepted by the Government. Responses to the questions will be incorporated into the solicitation amendment. The solicitation amendment will be posted to the Beta.SAM website, Caution-https://beta.sam.gov/ for viewing by all potential Offerors. Industry questions and answers may or may not have a bearing on the substantive content of the solicitation or the contract requirements, and it should NOT be assumed that the date set for receipt of proposals will be extended.”

Response: The Instruction to Offerors, as referenced in paragraph A.3., was updated in solicitation Amendment 0001; removing the statement, “Questions submitted after the specified date/time will not be accepted by the Government.”

3. Page limit includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc. Page limit does not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal.

Vol III, Past Performance, TAB C requires that a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) be provided. This document contains numerous excerpts from actual PWS paragraphs (associated tasks) and could be very lengthy for all references cited. In past identical submissions to the MICC on this PWS cross reference matrix requirement, the document by itself has exceed over 100 pages and was excluded from the page count.

Question: Will the Government consider excluding this PWS cross reference matrix from the page count?

Response: Per Solicitation, page 56, para. C.2 (b), page limit does not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal.

Cross reference indices are not included in the page limit.

4. Government states that the offeror shall provide relevant corporate experience from a minimum of 2 and no more than 5 Contracts, Task Orders, or Subcontracts to substantiate its depth and breadth of experience in the specialized testing areas listed in Section M, Factor 1.

Question: Does this imply that each Team member meeting the qualifications of a major or critical subcontractor can submit up to 5 Past Performance citations for Vol III? Is the offeror only allowed a total of 5 contracts, Task Orders or Subcontracts to respond to all 4 specialized testing areas in TAB F2.2 Experience?

Response: The offeror is allowed to submit a total of 5 Contracts, Task Orders, or Subcontracts.

5. The RFP states that the contractor will support a 60-day Phase-in Period. The PWS paragraph 1.8.1 states that “the Contractor shall conduct phase-in procedures beginning 90 calendar days prior to the full performance date specified in the contract.”

Question: Please clarify the number of days for the transition period.

Response: With Amendment 0003, the PWS (TE A), was revised to reflect a 60-day phase-in period.

6. The Final RFP states that (6) The staffing information and total hours in TE AA (Historical Baseline Staffing Model-ODC History) by labor category shall be used as a baseline for developing proposed labor costs. Offerors will be allowed to deviate from the baseline staffing in TE AA but must include rationale and reasoning in order for it to be evaluated.

The final RFP further states that “The staffing by labor category and contract period is provided at TE AA. Offerors will be allowed to deviate from the baseline staffing in TE AA but must include rationale and reasoning in order for it to be evaluated. Since this data is to be provided in the Cost Volume”

Question: Would the Government consider modifying the Volume II Mission Capability response to include a detailed explanation of proposed Basis of Estimate (BOE) deviations in staffing baseline labor hours proposed so that the Vol II Technical Evaluators will fully see and understand the full implication of BOE staffing reductions proposed and explained in Volume IV Cost?

Response: It is up to each offeror to develop its proposal in accordance with its policies and procedures, and disclosure statement, and be consistent across all Volumes submitted and proposed. Some information contained in Volume II may need to be carried over to Volume IV to develop prices and vice versa. When preparing Volume II for Technical, offerors should include a detailed BOE of any proposed deviations from TE AA. This same detailed BOE should be included in Volume IV for Cost and offerors should ensure that all hours and/or deviations proposed match in both Volume II and Volume IV in accordance with the solicitation instructions.

Question: To level the playing field, would the Government consider using the language of the draft RFP that stated that “The staffing by labor category and contract period is provided at Exhibit A. Offerors shall not deviate from Exhibit A except as instructed on the Exhibit to account for lead workers and straight overtime.” This approach will prevent the incumbent from having an unfair, competitive advantage of having current and future test information since the RFP contains no workload predictions, long-term test schedules, or historical trend data that is typically used to predict out-year staffing.

Response: The Government has provided the same historical data to all interested parties. This data shows the actual average historical amount of work (hours, labor mix) per year that has been required in the past to accomplish the mission. It is up to each offeror to understand the contract requirements and the PWS and submit a viable offer which will satisfy the government needs. This approach provides each offeror the flexibility to utilize its own economic efficiencies and the ability to provide its unique solution. The government is being consistent and fair in its approach by providing the same historical information to all interested parties including the incumbent. Each offeror must utilize its own techniques, assumptions, forecast modeling, and expertise to forecast the out-years based on the performance work statement. Again, offerors may deviate from the hours on TE AA, as long as detailed explanations are provided for which allow the government team to conduct a proper evaluation in accordance with the solicitation.

Question: Please validate that the proposal labor baseline in Tech Exhibit AA is to be used for each year for the entire contract term to ensure a meaningful evaluation of technical and cost realism.

Response: TE AA provides the average yearly historical staffing mix and hours that have been required in the past to fulfill the mission. Since TE AA is an average, it covers several past years. TE AA is the baseline for the contract as a whole (all years). Offerors shall provide explanations if they choose to deviate from the hours/staffing mix on

TE AA.

7. Section L requires the offerors to address cost management under the contract IAW PWS 1.7.3. This PWS paragraph reference refers to a section of the PWS that is not included in the revised PWS issued with the final RFP.

Question: Please clarify the PWS reference for Sec L for TAB F1:c Cost Management Response: With Amendment 0001, the PWS (TE A) reference was updated to reflect paragraph 1.4.4.

8. The Government has included Attachment 3 Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form with the RFP documents. Sec L Volume III makes no reference to any required submission or specific recipients of completed forms.

Question: Are these questionnaires forms to be submitted for completion by Government contract references and do you have a specific response date due and recipients for the forms?

Response: With Amendment 0005, Tab G of the RFP was revised to include the specific response date and recipients.

9. Section L.2.b. asks that we submit a “cover letter” to include the two individuals that we have designated as responsible for receiving and responding to Government ENs through ASSIST2Industry.

Section L Volume I-General TAB A page 56 asks that we submit a Transmittal Summary Letter to include the same information (two POCs authorized to respond to Government inquiries through ASSIST2Industry).

Question: Are we to submit two separate letters, a “cover letter” and a “transmittal summary letter” with duplicate information? Or one letter containing all requested information?

Response: With Amendment 0005, the reference to cover letter is removed and the transmittal summary letter is the only required letter.

10. The PWS states the Contractor shall control, manage, disperse and track aircraft fuels and AVGAS and F24 in support of these operations.

Question: Will the government please provide:

The gallons of fuel by type issued each month Type and number of aircraft fueled each month Type and quantity of vehicles provided for aircraft fueling and defueling

Response: With Amendment 0003, PWS (TE A) paragraph 5.2.1 was adjusted to incorporate this language.

The airfield maintains a fuel farm with two 40,000 gallon JP8 storage fuel tanks. On a monthly bases, the airfield may service as little as 10 military/DoD contracted aircrafts and/or axillary ground equipment (example start carts or test vehicles) for test programs. During the peak training and testing season, as many as 30 to 50 aircrafts or support systems could be serviced. The airfield has two commercial R11-6000 refuel trucks, each with a tank capacity of 6,000 gallon, to service these aircrafts or systems. The airfield also manages an 11,000 gallon AVGAS "Low Lead 100 fuel" fuel storage tank for UAS support. On a monthly bases the airfield may service 300 - 400 gallons of fuel for UAS support. The fuel is transferred from the bulk storage tank to smaller five (5) gallon containers.

11. The PWS shows only 10 holidays observed. However, the Area Wage Determination attached to the RFP as Technical Exhibit F mandates 11 holidays to include Good Friday: “HOLIDAYS: A minimum of eleven paid holidays per year: New Year's Day Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday Washington's Birthday Good Friday

Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans' Day Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

A contractor may substitute for any of the named holidays another day off with pay in accordance with a plan communicated to the employees involved.) (See 29 CFR 4.174)”

Question: Is this holiday observed on the Thursday before since hours of operation are Monday-Thursday? Please clarify the disparity between the PWS and AWD (Technical Exhibit F) for the number of paid holidays to be used by the offerors for cost calculations.

Response: With Amendment 0003, the PWS (TE A) paragraph 1.6.3., was revised to incorporate the following language:

Per the Utah State Wage Determination, Utah has 11 paid holidays, the 10 federal observed holidays and one added holiday to be used at the Contractors discretion. The 11 paid holiday can be used on any day Monday through Thursday and in conjunction with federal holidays. The Contractor can determine how the holiday is to be used by their employee, example would be to allow the employee to take their birthday (the week prior or after) as their 11 paid holiday.

However, with Amendment 0005, the PWS (TE A) paragraph 1.6.1., was revised to delete that language, as 10 Federal Holidays will be observed.

12. Technical Exhibit C: PWS Referenced Forms document was not updated to match the final PWS issued with the RFP. The following table includes comments to help clarify these references.

Referenced Document

PWS

Paragraph

Comments

DD 254, Contract Security Classification Specification

1.6.8

OK

US Army Dugway Proving Ground Installation Clearance Record

1.6.28 1.6.27

DD Form 1746, Housing Application 1.6.35 1.6.34 Contractor Sponsorship Form for Base Housing

1.6.35 1.6.34

OF 7, Property Pass 3.6.2 No para. Now 3.7.2

DD2875, System Authorization Access Request (SAAR)

3.6.5.3 No para. Now

3.7.5.2

New TMSS Account Instruction Document 3.6.5.3 No para. Now 3.7.5.2

DA Form 3161, Request for Issue or Turn-In 5.1.14.1, 5.2.3.3

No para 5.1.14.1.

Now 5.1.16.1 And 5.2.2.3

WDTC NEPA Request 5.4.10.3 OK

DP CMSA Form 3, UXO Orientation 5.4.10.6

5.1.10.7 Is

5.4.10.6 an added requirement?

Response: With Amendment 0003, the PWS (TE A), PWS Referenced Documents (TE B), and PWS Referenced Forms (TE C) were updated to revise language and paragraph languages.

13. PWS paragraph 3.7.3 states "The Government will not provide non-specialized support vehicles in support of this contract. If the Contractor leases general support vehicles for the contract, the Contractor shall submit a list detailing the quantity of vehicles being leased to the KO for approval prior to charging the contract. Technical Exhibit E outlines the vehicle types and quantities."

The RFP also further states that the Contractor will not price ODCs.

Question: Please confirm that the Contractor is not required to price the cost of any additional needed vehicles. Are vehicle requests to be submitted and approved by the KO after contract award?

Response: Technical Exhibit E is a projected list of non-specialized support vehicles that the contractor may need to support the contract. The contractor will include the cost for vehicles (Lease or purchase) using TE E as a guideline for estimating purposes. Specialized vehicles such as cranes, fuel trucks, forklifts etc., in support of the contract are government provided. Per PWS para. 3.7.3 Once the contract is awarded, the final list of vehicles, purchased or leased, will be provided to KO for approval.

14. Government Furnished Space.

Question: Please confirm that the Government will provide office and storage space for the offeror’s Program Management Office (PMO) and support personnel.

Question: Will the Government provide the square footage of available office and storage spaces for the PMO functions?

Response: With Amendment 0003, the PWS (TE A) was updated to reflect the following language in paragraph 3.2:

The Government shall provide at least 5,000 square feet of office/staging/storage space during the contract period.

The 5,000 square feet is adequate for present mission needs. As additional space becomes necessary, the Government will reimburse the Contractor for Contractor acquired property on a cost reimbursable basis. Currently the Contractor is occupying three (3) leased offices space trailers (two of which total approximately 5,280) for contract support and reimbursed under the contract. Chamber and laboratory facilities to support the WDTC mission will be provided by the government. Laboratory shared offices or cubicles may be available to Contractors in support of the contract when space is available. The Contractor shall maintain these facilities and the surrounding area in compliance with all applicable local fire and safety regulations. The facilities must be kept in a safe and orderly condition. Task shall include general housekeeping and daily trash removal. In the event government space becomes unavailable, the Contractor shall be required to furnish office space through lease of temporary facilities.

15. The RFP further states that the Contractor will not price ODCs per CLIN 0002 and all Option Years ODCS.

However, in Attachment 1 Cost Proposal Format, the Government is requesting a detailed BOE and narrative to identify all Other Direct Cost (ODCs).

Question: Please clarify what the Contractor is to provide for ODCs in the submitted proposal?

Response: With Amendment 0001, CLIN 0002 for ODCs and all associated Option years, was revised to be priced.

However, with Amendment 0005, CLIN 0002 for ODCs and all associated Option years was revised to not be priced.

16. Will the Government please allow 8-point Arial font in the headers and footers?

Response: Documents shall be easily readable Arial, 10-point font, to include in headers and footers.

17. The Cost Management References PWS 1.7.3 but there is no such paragraph.

Question: Will the Government please clarify which section is being referenced?

Response: With Amendment 0001, the reference was corrected to reflect paragraph 1.4.4.

18. Quality control procedures and continuous process improvement methods are listed as evaluation factors but not included in Section L.

Question: Will the Government please clarify their requirements for these evaluation factors?

Response: With Amendment 0005, quality control procedures and continuous process improvement is removed from Section M.

19. Organizational Structure lists problem solving and cost effective workload management as evaluation factors, however, these requirements are not listed in Section L for Subfactor 1.

Question: Will the Government please clarify these evaluation factors?

Response: With Amendment 0005, Subfactor 1 (ii) Organizational Structure has been revised to remove problem solving and cost effective workload management as evaluation factors.

20. The evaluation factor references 1.7.3, however, no such paragraph is given in the PWS. Will the

Question: Government please clarify which paragraph is referenced?

Response: With Amendment 0003, the reference was corrected to reflect paragraph 1.4.4.

21. Volume III TAB G references Attachment 7 Past Performance Sheet, however, Attachment 7 Past Performance Sheet is not listed in Section J, nor is it provided in the solicitation documents.

Question: Will you please provide Attachment 7 Past Performance Sheet?

Response: With Amendment 0001, the past performance evaluation questionnaire was revised to reflect Attachment 3, Past Performance Sheet. With Amendment 0005, Attachment 3 was revised to Past Performance Questionnaire.

22. Section J list includes “Attachment 3 Past Performance Sheet” and the RFP includes a .pdf file Attachment 3 Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form. Attachment 3 is not covered in the Section L Instructions nor in Section M Evaluation Factors.

Question: Will the Government please provide clarification on compliance with past performance-related Attachments 3 and 7?

Response: With Amendment 0001, the attachment number was corrected to reflect Attachment 3, Past Performance Sheet. With Amendment 0005, Attachment 3 was revised to Past Performance Questionnaire.

23. The subcontractor teaming partner consent form references “W91151-18-R-0005 for the Mission Support Services at White Sands Missile Range, NM.”

Question: Will the Government please confirm we can update this to reflect the current solicitation?

Response: With Amendment 0001, Attachment 0002, Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent form was changed from:

W91151-18-R-0005 for the Mission Support Services at White Sands Missile Range, NM.”

To Request for Proposal W91151-20-R-0002, for the West Desert Test Center, Mission Support Service at Dugway Proving Ground, UT.

24. Under TAB D, the RFP states “A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment 6, Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form.” Section J does not list an Attachment 6.

Question: Will you identify what is Attachment 6?

Response: With Amendment 0001, Attachment 6 Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form was changed to Attachment 2 Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form.

25. Under TAB H, Small Business Participation Past Performance, the RFP 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.” For large businesses, this general requirement may include hundreds of active and inactive contracts not relevant to the solicitation.

Question: To ensure a higher level of relevancy for evaluation, will the Government consider limiting this requirement to SF 294 ISR for contracts cited for Volume III TAB G and SF 295 SSR for federal agencies (e.g., DoD) directly relevant to the TAB G contracts cited?

Response: With Amendment 0001, the following language was updated:

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.

To For large businesses, include SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information on relevant Government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three years.

26. RFP Section L.C.2(e) indicates what types of content are included and excluded from page limitations. On page 60 of the RFP under Section L, Volume III, TAB H, there is a requirement for Large Businesses to provide SF 294 and SF 295 information.

Question: What specific information is required and, if copies of eSRS reports are required, are copies of these reports excluded from page count?

Response: The eSRS reports will not count against the limitation. To clarify this, with Amendment 0005, Section L, Volume III, Tab H has been revised from "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 three years."

To "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 three years.

SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) submissions will not count against the page limitation for this volume."

27. Under TAB H, Small Business Participation Past Performance, the draft RFP states, “Any information concerning long-term relationships with small business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships should also be provided.”

Question: What specific information is required?

Response: As referenced in TAB H, “All Offerors shall provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with small business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships should also be provided”.

28. Security Clearances and Labor Categories Question: Is it the intent of the Government that employees in every labor category on this contract will need to have a security clearance?

Response: As stated in paragraph 1.6.8.5, all labor categories require a Secret security clearance except for those labor categories identified in paragraph 1.6.8.4 which require Top Secret clearance.

29. Proposal Format

Question: Will the Government please confirm that the headers and footers are excluded from the requirement to have 1” top and bottom margins?

Response: The 1” top and bottom margins include headers and footers.

30. TAB H: SB Participation Past Performance

Question: Could the Government please clarify what is meant by the statement, “All Offerors shall provide descriptive information for all small business categories.”

Response: With Amendment 0005, TAB H was revised to remove the following sentence: All Offerors shall provide descriptive information for all small business categories.

31. The RFP states the SF 33 must contain an original or digital signature in block 26.

Question: Will the Government please confirm that this signature must go in block 17?

Response: With Amendment 0005, the original or digital signature must go in block 17.

32. Volume IV 1e provides socioeconomic goals including 0.0% for HBCU/MI. Volume IV 3b states HBCU/MIs shall be included in the SDB category.

Question: Will the Government confirm, to receive an Outstanding rating on Small Business Participation, that exceeding the SDB socioeconomic categories in Volume IV 3b Table equates to exceeding the minimum TCV goals for SDB and HBCU/MI because they are combined in the table?

Response: With Amendment 0005, the following sentence is removed: “**Anticipated subcontract awards to HBCU/MIs shall be included in the SDB category”.

33. Under TAB C, the requirement is for a “Summary Page,” singular.

Question: Is this content limited to one page only or is it acceptable to use two or several pages to cover the information?

Response: With Amendment 0005, “Summary Page” was revised to “Summary Pages” to allow the Offeror to use as many pages necessary to provide what is required in Tab C.

34. Program Manager. The PWS states “the Program Manager must have at a minimum, Baccalaureate degree, preferably a Master’s degree in business management, science or engineering from an accredited university and at least 15-years of management experience with DOD contracts, preferably chemical defense programs or equivalent.”

Question (1): Will the Government consider changing this requirement to: “the Program Manager must have at a minimum, Baccalaureate degree in science or engineering from an accredited university and at least 15-years of management experience with DOD contracts, preferably chemical and biological defense programs or equivalent, or preferably a Master’s degree in business management, science, or engineering and at least 10 years of management experience with DOD contracts, preferably chemical and biological defense programs or equivalent”?

Rationale: A PM with a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering will better under-stand the work in this effort and 15 years of management experience is reasonable, however, a PM with an MBA or MS in science/engineering with 10 years of experience accounts for the higher degree.

Response (1): With Amendment 0003, the PWS (TE A), paragraph 1.6.19.4 was revised to reflect the following:

"The Program Manager must have at a minimum, Master’s degree, MBA or MS in science/engineering from an accredited university and at least 10-years of management experience to include 5-years of direct DOD contracts program management experience in chemical/biological defense programs or equivalent."

Question (2): If the Government will not agree to a Masters plus 10 years of experience, will the Government accept a Master’s degree in business management, science, or engineering and at least 15 years of management experience with 10 years on DOD contracts, preferably chemical and biological defense programs or equivalent?

Response (2): See response 1 of question 34.

35. The Government contemplates award of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Term contract resulting from this solicitation.

Question: Will the government explain the meaning of the use of the word “term” of the anticipated contract?

Response: The word “term” indicates the Offeror may invoice the fixed-fee throughout the contract.

36. The Government states “the Offeror shall include documentation regarding relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The Offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than three (3) years from the date of solicitation issuance for the submitted data.”

Question: In this statement above, does the Government mean to only exclude contracts that ended prior to 3 years from the date of solicitation? If not, please clarify.

Response: With Amendment 0001, the reference to five (5) years was revised to state three (3) years.

37. Recent ATEC acquisitions have proven that some offerors use staffing deviations as grounds for protest. Enough evaluation subjectivity exists in the determination of reasonableness and realism for these offerors to cast doubt on the fairness of source selection decisions and submit protests that can extend procurements for months – even years.

Similarly, the Government risks awarding to an offeror who has employed a novel staffing reduction technique to artificially reduce their total evaluated price, only to realize significant cost overruns (and funding shortfalls) in the actual execution of the mission.

Question: Would the Government please consider requiring all offerors to propose the historical baseline staffing provided in TE AA?

Recommended language is as follows: The staffing information and total hours in TE AA (Historical Baseline Staffing Model-ODC History) by labor category shall be used as a baseline for developing proposed labor costs.

Offerors shall not deviate from the baseline staffing in TE AA.

Response: The Government has provided the same historical data to all interested parties. This data shows the actual average historical amount of work (hours, labor mix) per year that has been required in the past to accomplish the mission. It is up to each offeror to understand the contract requirements and the PWS and submit a viable offer which will satisfy the government needs. This approach provides each offeror the flexibility to utilize its own economic efficiencies and the ability to provide its unique solution. The government is being consistent and fair in its approach by providing the same historical information to all interested parties including the incumbent. Each offeror must utilize its own techniques, assumptions, forecast modeling, and expertise to forecast the out-years based on the performance work statement. Again, offerors may deviate from the hours on TE AA, as long as detailed explanations are provided for which will allow the government team to conduct a proper evaluation in accordance with the solicitation.

38. The Government has emphasized employee retention, reduction of operational risks, and cost realism in the

RFP.

Question: In order to eliminate cost gaming by overly aggressive bidders, will the Government identify which positions should be bid as full-time, part-time, or hourly with the associated fringe benefits of each? If offerors bid these positions as part-time employees with minimal benefits, the ability to retain these personnel will be compromised and risk increased.

Response: Each offeror must utilize its own techniques, assumptions, forecast modeling, and expertise to develop its own proposal and its own unique solution.

39. The Government has stated that Offerors will be allowed to deviate from the baseline staffing in TE AA.

Question: However, in order to protect the incumbent workforce, mitigate risk, and minimize disruptions of range operations due to loss of personnel with critical skills, will the Government confirm that any rationale and reasoning for the deviations must be substantiated with references to contracts of similar size and scope where this rationale and reasoning for deviation was successful?

Response: If Offerors deviate from the hours on TE AA, they may include, but will not be limited to, references to contracts of similar size and scope, as part of rationale and reasoning for the government to evaluate.

40. Attachment 3 Past Performance Sheet, page 4, Part III states “Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter”.

Question: Will the Government please provide the referenced cover letter?

Response: With Amendment 0005, the requirement for cover letter is removed.

41. The OCI language indicates any contractor doing SETA type support for Government program offices is ineligible for award without a mitigation plan if doing operational testing on their supported system.

Question: Will the Government please clarify that it is allowable for a con-tractor to be doing developmental testing while also performing program office SETA work and that no operational testing will be conducted under this contract at WDTC?

This appears to contradict ATEC’s integrated T&E approach between developmental and operational testing.

Response: DPG conducts independent development testing (DT) and training to support various DOD customers and government program offices. Since DPG does not develop, market or collaborate with vendors or developers for any products or items that by be used by the DOD, DPG is considered an independent, non-biased, test evaluator.

If a direct dollar test program is sent to DPG that may appear to be a conflict of interest with one of DPG support contractors, it will be identified and addressed when the Contract Work Order is created and submitted to the COR.

The required Conflict of Interest documentation will be generated, reviewed, processed and approved by the KO prior to release of that particular test program contract work order. All direct dollar customer CWO's that are created include a Conflict of Interest section and is reviewed each time a CWO is generated and submitted to the COR office.

42. The provided sample consent letter (Attachment 2, Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form) takes up an entire page per subcontractor/teaming partner.

Question: Would the Government consider excluding TAB D: Consent Letters and TAB E: Client

Authorization Letters from the overall page count for Volume III Past Performance?

Response: With Amendment 0005, para C.2(e), Consent letters, client authorization letters are excluded from the page count.

43. CLINS 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006 and 4006

Question: Would the Government provide guidance on the purpose and pricing requirements for CLINS 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006?

Response: With Amendment 0005, CLINS 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006, have been revised to no longer require pricing.

44. The change to CLINS 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 removed the language “Offerors are not to propose a cost when submitting proposals”. The solicitation lacks workload data and workload projections making it impossible for bidders, other than the incumbent, to develop a realistic estimate.

Question: Recommend the Government provide a plug number that all bidders must use for ODCs or reinstate the language directing offerors not to price this CLIN.

Response: With Amendment 0005, CLINS 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 have been revised to no longer require pricing.

45. The change to CLINS 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004 are for the purchase on CAP Equipment, Special Tooling, and Test Equipment. The solicitation lacks workload data and workload projections making it impossible for bidders, other than the incumbent, to develop a realistic estimate.

Question: Recommend the Government provide a plug number that all bidders must use to propose cost for Material CLINS.

Response: With Amendment 0005, CLINS 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004 have been revised to no longer require pricing.

46. The guidance for Subcontractor proposals in Attachment 1 Cost Proposal Format, Subcontractor Teaming Tab states, “Subcontracts/Interorganizational Transfers – A cost proposal as detailed as the Offeror’s cost proposal including support documentation will be required to be submitted by all proposed subcontractors and for all interorganizational transfers.”

Question: Are subcontractors required to complete the Attachment 1 Cost Proposal Format workbook? This level of detail is not information a subcontractor will usually share with a Prime contractor. Should subcontractors submit an un-sanitized version of the workbook to the Government?

Response: At their discretion, Subcontractors may directly submit their Cost Proposal Format to the Contracting Officer (KO) or Contract Specialist (CS) directly. However, it is the Prime Contractor’s responsibility to ensure the data has been submitted to the KO and CS prior to the solicitation closing date.

47. PWS 3.7.3 states the government will not provide non-specialized support vehicles in support of the contract.

The Government directs offerors to Technical Exhibit E that outlines vehicle types and quantities currently used on the contract. It also instructs offerors that leased vehicles (quantity and cost) used under the contract must be pre-approved by the KO before cost will be considered billable.

Question: Is it the Government’s intention that offerors are to price the replacement of the existing vehicles? Are these vehicles currently GFP?

Response: There are no replacement vehicles or GFP vehicles so the intent of this paragraph is for the contractor to provide their own non-specialized vehicles in support of the contract either through lease or purchase of vehicles.

The disposition of any existing vehicle will be coordinated by the government at the end of the current contract. TE E is a baseline list of the number and types of vehicle projected to support this contract.

48. The PWS reflects only the overhead portion and current basic WDTC support work and does not include the number, magnitude, and scope associated with supporting customer test/training specific CWOs.

Question: Does the Government intend for offerors to only price the overhead work reflected in PWS, or to should offerors price the scope associated with the typical test volume as reflected in the technical exhibit labor mix provided Technical Exhibit AA?

Response: The PWS actively depicts the scope of work. TE AA is only a historical baseline, which captures work completed in the past. Offerors shall price their proposal as it relates to their approach in satisfying the Governments needs as described in the PWS.

49. The PWS reflects only the overhead portion of the current work and does not include the scope associated with supporting customer tests. The technical exhibit labor matrix reflects staffing associate with both the overhead work reflected in the PWS and the scope of effort supporting customer testing that is not reflected in the PWS.

Section L states ““Offerors can deviate from the technical exhibit’s labor mix and hours to provide creative and innovative solutions and determine the best way it may accomplish the PWS requirements provided it provides sound rationale and a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS.”

Question: Because the PWS and the technical exhibit labor matrix do not reflect the same scope of effort, how will the Government ensure fair evaluation of the soundness of the rationale for deviation and alignment to the PWS?

Response: The PWS is as stated in the solicitation. However, offerors are reminded that the technical exhibit labor matrix is provided as historical data and is given for informational purposes for the offer to use as it deems necessary in developing their proposal. The Government intends to evaluate all offeror's proposals in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

50. PWS 1.6.19.3 defines two year’s relevant experience as equivalent to one year of college and also states that the Government will determine acceptable substitution of experience for education.

Question: Will the Government confirm that four years’ relevant experience can be substituted for a Master’s degree, which typically requires one to two years of college?

Response: The two year's relevant experience does not apply to the Program Manager position as stated in the PWS, paragraph 1.6.19.3, "In general, two years’ relevant experience equals one year of college with the exception of the Program Manager which must have at a minimum, Master’s degree, MBA or MS in science/engineering from an accredited university and at least 10-years of management experience to include 5-years of direct DOD contracts program management experience in chemical/biological defense programs or equivalent." The PM shall have an advanced degree.

51. The Government states in PWS 1.6.19.3 that it will allow six months for personnel receiving a requirement waiver to become fully qualified.

Question: Will the Government consider allowing additional time for requirements that demand more time, such as obtaining degrees?

Response: The waiver and six months are to become certified to meet a particular DPG certification for a specific job such as being certified to be a MINCAM Safety or Test Operator. It does not apply to allow an individual to meet an education degree. The job descriptions have specific degree or experience requirements that an individual must meet to be considered for that position. To meet certification requirements that can only be obtained through DPG, is when the waiver and six months apply. Stated in PWS, paragraph 1.6.19.3, "When the government allows a waiver for an individual not fully qualified with WDTC specific certifications/requirements for a position, time and training will be provided to allow the individual to become fully qualified within six months."

52. The PWS paragraph 1.6.19.3, second to last sentence states “In general, two years’ relevant experience equals one year of college with the exception of the Program Manager which requires minimum Baccalaureate degree, preferably a Master’s degree and 15 years’ experience.”

As this paragraph now conflicts with the Amendment 3 change to paragraph 1.6.19.4 stating “The Program Manager must have at a minimum, Master’s degree, MBA or MS in science/engineering from an accredited university and at least 10-years of management experience to include 5-years of direct DOD contracts program management experience in chemical/biological defense programs or equivalent.”

Question: Will the Government please delete the prepositional phrase beginning “with the exception” resulting in the sentence shown below?

“In general, two years’ relevant experience equals one year of college.”

Response: PWS, paragraph 1.6.19.3, has been changed to coincide with the requirement in paragraph 1.6.19.4.

Paragraph 1.6.19.3 is changed from:

The government shall determine acceptable substitution of experience for education. In general, two years’ relevant experience equals one year of college with the exception of the Program Manager which requires minimum Baccalaureate degree, preferably a Master’s degree and 15 years’ experience.

To In general, two years’ relevant experience equals one year of college with the exception of the Program Manager which must have at a minimum, Master’s degree, MBA or MS in science/engineering from an accredited university and at least 10-years of management experience to include 5-years of direct DOD contracts program management experience in chemical/biological defense programs or equivalent.

The government will not delete the phrase “with the exception” in paragraph 1.6.19.3. The Program Manager is critical to the success of the WDTC MSS contract and their management oversight drives the, moral, leadership and the capability of the organization. The education and experience requirements for the Program Manager were based on a consensus of the WDTC leadership. The requirements for this position will not be waivered.

53. The Government states, “The pricing for CR CLINs shall be based on the amounts provided by the Government.

Offerors shall use the Government provided amount in Attachment 1, Cost Proposal Format.” However, no amount is provided for the ODC CR CLIN in Attachment 1.

Question: Will the Government provide the amount offerors shall bid for the CR CLINs?

Response: With Amendment 0001, Government provided amounts were removed. With Amendment 0005, the language referenced in the Solicitation, g.(2) as “The pricing for CR CLINs shall be based on the amounts provided by the Government. Offerors shall use the Government provided amount in Attachment 1, Cost Proposal Format” is removed.

54. Amendment 0001 RFP pg. 42 of 77 Section J Attachment 1 Cost-Proposal Format (TAB: Subcontractor- Teaming) Question: Will the Government please confirm subcontractors do not need to submit their own cost model to the Government?

Response: Subcontractors have discretion to submit their Cost Proposal Format to the Contracting Officer (KO) or Contract Specialist (CS) directly or with the Prime Contractor. If the Subcontractor selects to send their cost proposal directly to the Government, it is the Prime Contractor’s responsibility to ensure the data is submitted to the KO and CS prior to the solicitation closing…