Industry PWS Questions_JPEO Responses.pdf

Question

No.

Comments Gov't Response

1 EB SCI-ENG 1 1 and 1.3.1

This paragraph states that this task order will provide acquisition, business, security, and logistics services.

Paragraph 1.3.1 states that the task order will provide acquisition, business, and administrative services.

Suggest reviewing and editing for consistency. PWS revised accordingly.

2 EB SCI-ENG 2 1.1 and 1.3.1

Sections 1.1 and 1.3.1 state that the contemplated services will be provided to the JPEO-CBRND Medical

Office. Is this office different from Joint Project Lead

CBRND Enabling Biotechnologies?

Enabling Biotechnologies PWS updated to reflect proper title

3 EB SCI-ENG 3 1.4

Section 1.4 refers to JPEO-CBRN Enabling Office.

Should this be Joint Project Lead CBRND Enabling

Biotechnologies?

Enabling Biotechnologies PWS updated to reflect proper office

4 EB SCI-ENG 8 1.6.2

Section 1.6.2 refers to "Defense Industrial Security

Clearance Office." DISCO no longer exists. The reference should be made to the Defense

Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA).

Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

5 EB SCI-ENG 8

1.6.2.1 and

1.6.2.13

Sections 1.6.2.1and 1.6.2.13 refer to DoD 5220.22-M which is obsolete. It has been replaced by 32 CFR

Part 117. Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

6 EB SCI-ENG 10 1.6.2.8

The first sentence of Section 1.6.2.8 is not complete.

Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

7 EB SCI-ENG 15 1.13

Section 1.12 refers to travel and SPOT requiring a

Line of Accounting (LOA). In SPOT, LOA refers to

Letter of Authorization. Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

8 EB SCI-ENG 39, 40, 43

5.2.2.3, 5.2.2.4, 5.2.2.5

Sections 5.2.2.3, 5.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.5 do not include the level for the Bioengineers. We respectfully request that the Government provide the levels in order to facility labor category mapping, Levels updated/added as applicable.

9 EB SCI-ENG 34 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.3

Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.3 do not include the number of FTEs required. We respectfully request that the Government provide the number of FTEs required for these positions. Attachment 1 and PWS updated accordingly

10 EB SCI-ENG 13, 62 1.6.6.3

Paragraph 1.6.6.3 requires that the successful offeror develop an OPSEC Standing Operating Procedure /

Plan within 90 days of award. Is the OPSEC

SOP/Plan a deliverable that should be listed in

Technical Exhibit B?

Formal OPSEC Plan not required; PWS updated accordingly

11 EB SCI-ENG 14 1.1

Every position is listed as a Key Personnel billet. Is that intentional?

Key personnel sections/references updated accordingly

12 EB SCI-ENG 32 - 46 5.2

For those positions with more than one FTE, are all

FTE considered Key Personnel?

Key personnel sections/references updated accordingly

13 EB SCI-ENG 32 - 46 5.2

Will sections L & M require that offerors provide resumes for all Key Personnel billets?

Key personnel sections/references updated accordingly; no resumes are requested

14 EB SCI-ENG N/A N/A

Previous technical volumes have been “blind” which hinders an Offerors's ability to fully state their qualifications, CBRN experience, JPEO-CBRN experience, and ability/capability to benefit the

Government. Therefore, will the Government please confirm that the technical volumes under OASIS+ will not be blind? The evaluation will not be blind.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 48 5.2.7.1

Attachment 1 does not include the Government estimated workload for the Information Assurance

Analysis Support requirement in Section 5.2.7.1.

Suggest the Government add the estimated workload to Attachment 1. Attachment 1 and PWS updated accordingly

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 36 5.2

Neither Attachment 1 nor Section 5 for the JPM CBRN

P TO B PWS nor Section 5 for JPM CBRN P TO A

(ACQ) include a Network Engineer. If the Government contemplates a requirement for a Network Engineer, we suggest it be added to the Engineering, Test, and

Logistics Task Order for JPM CBRN P.

JPM CBRN SOF/Protection PWS updated accordingly

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 2 1.4

Paragraph 1.4 states that the objectives for the task order include performance based support and seamless transition of support services for JPM CBRN

P / JPM CBRN SOF / USAF. As defined in the draft scope of work, support services for the United States

Air Force program office do not appear to be within the contemplated scope of this task order. Request clarification.

Air Force removed from JPM CBRN

SOF/Protection PWS. Air Force requirements are covered by JPEO-CBRND HQ's PWS

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 2 1.4

Section 1.4 discusses transitioning of acquisition and business support in addition to engineer, test, and logistics. Are acquisition and business support included in the scope of the contemplated task order? PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 9 1.6.2

Section 1.6.2 refers to "Defense Industrial Security

Clearance Office." DISCO no longer exists. Reference should be made to Defense Counterintelligence and

Security Agency (DCSA). Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 9 1.6.2.1, 1.6.2.13

Sections 1.6.2.1and 1.6.2.13 refer to DoD 5220.22-M which is obsolete. It has been replaced by 32 CFR

Part 117. Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 11 1.6.2.8

The first sentence of Section 1.6.2.8 is not complete.

Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 16 1.12

Section 1.12 refers to travel and SPOT requiring a

Line of Accounting (LOA). In SPOT, LOA refers to

Letter of Authorization. Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 22 1.22

Section 1.24.6.1 includes information on PII training which is not listed in Section 1.22.1 training list.

Suggest editing. PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 22 1.23.2

The paragraph numbering within 1.23/1.24 is incorrect. Suggest the Government include 1.23.2

Anti-Terrorism (AT) Level I Training and all subsequent training sections under 1.22. PWS revised accordingly.

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B 36 - 93 5.2

Suggest that the Government clearly state the number of FTEs in labor category listed in 5.2. Attachment 1 and PWS updated accordingly

JPM CBRN P ENG TEST LOG TO

B N/A N/A

Previous technical volumes have been “blind” which hinders an Offerors's ability to fully state their qualifications, CBRN experience, JPEO-CBRN experience, and ability/capability to benefit the

Government. Therefore, will the Government please confirm that the technical volumes under OASIS+ will not be blind? The evaluation will not be blind.

Is it your intent to release this on OASIS+ Small

Business?

It depoends on the TO. Please refer follwing solicitation post in SAM.gov.

GENERAL QUESTION What type of contract does the Government intend to award (T&M, CPFF, FFP, etc.)? We understand the current task orders are based on FFP Level of Effort

(LOE) with a significant administrative burden on both the contractor and the Government. Can the

Government consider a true FFP effort or, instead of

FFP LOE, a T&M? If the Government is concerned with FFP, CPFF is also appropriate for these efforts as the contractor only bills cost.

The labor CLINs will be FFP and the travel CLINs will be Cost Reimbursable.

GENERAL QUESTION In the current TOs, the Government used 2080 hours to develop total cost. Most DCAA approved accounting systems remove holidays, vacations, and other leave since the hours associated with these costs are part of the fringe pool. Can the Government use more traditional hours on this next competition, such as 1912? It will be 2080 hours.

GENERAL FEEDBACK Because these Task Orders are being competed on a new contract vehicle and the number of potential offerors is unknown (hundreds?), recommend the

Government either establishing a phased approach for this competition (Phase I = Past Performance to identify viable offerors with relevant experience and

Phase II = Technical and Price). Alternatively, recommend identifying discriminators in the Section M criteria to streamline the evaluation approach.

Please see the draft TOR on SAM.gov for the

Government's intended evaluation approach.

GENERAL FEEDBACK Again, because these Task Orders are being competed on a new contract vehicle, this allows for vendors with no experience or presence in the CBRN

Enterprise to compete. Recommend not requiring a blind evaluation for these competitive bids to enable offerors to adequately tell their unique story and justify the relevance of their experience to this work.

The evaluation will not be blind.

ALL PWSs released on 29 July 2024 With the exception of the HQ and INT documents, these PWSs - as written - pose a serious risk to the

Enterprise of a workforce reset. The Labor Categories and Levels were removed, as well as most measures to clearly identify general years of experience required for any given functional area. This leaves opportunity for offerors to price for less experienced support, thereby significantly reducing opportunity to capture the incumbent workforce. Recommend - at minimum -that all requiring offices follow the HQ and INT methodology to reassign Labor Category names and

Levels. Minimum years of experience added to all Level III

- V positions in section 5 the PWS. Attachment 1 and PWS updated accordingly.

ALL PWSs released on 29 July 2024 Does the Government plan to provide the number of years of experience required for each level? For example, Level I: 0-2 Yrs; Level II: 3-6 Yrs; Level III: 7-

9 Yrs; Level IV: 10-14 Yes; Level V: 15+Yrs Minimum years of experience added to all Level III

- V positions in section 5 the PWS.

ALL PWSs released on 29 July 2024 With the exception of the EB documents, there is not sufficient information within these updated PWSs for offerors to identify and propose the Level of Effort

(LOE) (i.e., number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)) required. The PWSs do not describe the volume of work assigned to each functional area (e.g., frequency of meetings/reviews, frequency and page length of documents/briefings/other deliverables, etc.) so the vendor can determine the LOE required. Can the government include information regarding the planned workload or provide the LOE required similarly to how it is listed for EB?

Attachment 1 and PWS updated accordingly.

ALL PWSs released on 29 July 2024 Will there be a mechanism (pricing worksheet, staffing plan, organizational chart) required as part of the proposal submission for offerors to identify the number of FTEs being proposed in each functional area (or, if changed, each Labor Category/Level)? Because the

Government is adjusting the PWS format from the previous OPETS/JE-OPETS methodology and removing FTE counts, there will need to be some way for offerors to show the number of FTEs being proposed. This will enable the Government to more effectively analyze price reasonableness.

Each TOR will include a pricing worksheet.

ALL PWSs released on 29 July 2024 The years of experience provided in some PWSs do not equate to the historical level of experience that is resident across the JPEO Enterprise. There is serious risk in only assigning minimum years of experience -or not assigning years of experience at all - because offerors will price accordingly. For example, in the

Protection Eng | Test | Log PWS, virtually none of the

'Prerequisite' or 'Skill Set/Education/Experience' paragraphs - with the exception of the Engineering area - have any years of experience requirements relevant to the tasks being assigned except Microsoft

Office and SharePoint. The historical staffing for this

Task Order, though, includes primarily Level III and IV positions. This is another example of the potential risk the Government faces for a workforce reset - if requirements are not more clearly defined, offerors will price tpo low to retain the current, qualified workforce.

Minimum years of experience added to all Level III

- V positions in section 5 the PWS.

It appears as if all FTEs required by JPL EB are being identified as Key Personnel. If resumes are required for Key Personnel, this will significantly reduce competition for these 2 Task Orders and present an unfair advantage for the incumbent vendor. Some of these positions are written with such specific requirements that only the incumbent staff will qualify, thereby providing no opportunity for offerors other than the incumbent vendor to present a viable staffing option. Recommend considering these impacts prior to release of the final RFP.

Key personnel sections/references updated accordingly

Please keep key person requirements (for proposal purposes) to an absolute minimum. The Sensors

Business + Eng PWS for example lists 8 key persons for a TO that only has 14 FTEs total, a KP requirement approaching 60% of total staff.

If you wish to have large numbers of KPs for execution purposes, that’s fine, but PLEASE keep the requirement for KP resumes in TO proposals low, otherwise it presents a very high bar for small businesses with limited recruiting resources and of course will dampen competition.

Key personnel sections/references updated accordingly

Would the Government please confirm which task orders are going to be large business versus small business set asides and also which domain under

OASIS Plus they will be released? This information is critical for industry to be able to develop teaming strategies.

Please see the draft TOR on SAM.gov for the

Government evaluation approach.

Would the Government please release draft RFPs of

Section L and Section M ahead of final release? This information is critical for industry to be able to develop their proposal strategy.

Please see the draft TOR on SAM.gov for the

Government evaluation approach.

HQs_USAF_OASIS_Plus_PWS_D

RAFT_20240724.docx &

Final+Draft+JPM+CBRN+P+TO+A

+PWS+24+Jul+24.docx

1.10

(both

TOs)

Would the Government please provide the experience and qualifiquations resquired for the Key Personnel:

Contract Manager and Alternate Contract Manager?

This information is critical for industry to have time to identify whether they must recruit additional personnel to meet Key Personnel requirements.

The PWS contains personnel qualification requirements.

JPL EB - both PWSs released on 29 July

HQs_USAF_OASIS_Plus_PWS_DRAFT_20

240724.docx &

Final+Draft+JPM+CBRN+P+TO+A+PWS+24

+Jul+24.docx

HQs_USAF_OASIS_Plus_PWS_DRAFT_20

240724.docx &

Final+Draft+JPM+CBRN+P+TO+A+PWS+24

+Jul+24.docx

Would the government please provide the contract type (ie FFP, Cost, T&M, etc.)?

The labor CLINs will FFP and the travel CLINs will be Cost Reimbursable.

HQs_USAF_OASIS_Plus_PWS_DRAFT_20

240724.docx &

Final+Draft+JPM+CBRN+P+TO+A+PWS+24

+Jul+24.docx