W911S0-17-R-0002-0003_--_Industry_Q A_Follow_Up.pdf

Source Question Government Response

1 Reference Amendment 2, Questions and Answers, Questions 10, 41, and 55,and Solicitation Section L.c.3.

(b) (4.2) on page 54. The answers to these questions seem to contradict one another. The answer to Q41 states, "...the prime contractor shall have an approved purchasing system in accordance with the RFP" while the answer to Q55 states, "The offeror must have an adequate purchasing system in accordance with the RFP."

As discussed in Q10, the Government only assesses purchasing systems when requested by a contracting officer. There is no form, to the best of our knowledge, by which contractors can request such assessment.

Additionally, it is highly unusual for a small business under $15M to have had a contract that required such assessment, and therefore have a letter from a contracting officer verifying purchasing system adequacy.

Must the prime contractor have a letter from an Administrative Contracting Officer stating their purchasing system is adequate in order to be eligible for an award?

The requirements listed under Section L, Volume II Cost for the purchasing system have been revised to state the following:

"Prime Contractors shall provide a narrative describing their purchasing system and method for tracking the expenditure of Government funds."

This revised language supersedes all previous responses regarding the requirements for an adequate purchasing system.

2 Reference Amendment 2, Section F and Amendment 2 Questions and Answers Question 57. The answer to Question 57 states that the updated RFP addresses the question, however, the problem identified in Question 57 has not been resolved. Specifically, the POP for the base year ends before it starts. We believe the base year should end in 2018 rather than 2017, with subsequent years appropriately adjusted.

Will the Government please clarify the POP?

The POP has been corrected in Section F.

Asymmetric Warfare Group Operations Support

SOLICITATION: W911S0-17-R-0002

Industry Questions & Answers, Follow-Up

3 Q - (4.2) Purchasing System. Prime contractors shall also state the status regarding the adequacy of their Purchasing System. The Offeror shall provide the date it was determined adequate and supporting information or back up letter from an Administrative Contracting Officer stating the adequacy for the system.

Request the government confirm that the absence of a government “approved” purchasing system does not exclude nor diminish during evaluation an offer’s proposal response. Many qualified small businesses, even those with previous subcontractors (due to type of contract or use of Consent to Subcontract procedure) do not have “approved” purchasing systems. A requirement for an “approved” purchasing system, especially in light of limited and long lead time for CPSR’s availability, would appear to unfairly restrict competition

A - All Offerors are required to have an adequate accounting and purchasing system, or should request a preaward survey. Instructions have been clarified in paragraph 4.2 of Section L.

As per FAR 44.302, it is the ACO (DCMA) that determines the need for a certified purchasing system and that this determination is usually only made when the contractor is performing contracts in excess of $25 million per year. Vendors are not authorized to request an audit of their purchasing system in anticipation of the need for a certification.

Given that the size standard for the subject solicitation is $15 million, it is unlikely that most of the otherwise qualified potential vendors will already have a certified purchasing system. With this in mind, Silverback7 asks if the Government will consider a revision to this requirement to state that the all offerors must have or be prepared to undergo DCMA certification of their purchasing system.

See response to #1 of this document.

4 Q1 and Q55 asked about the requirement to have an adequate purchasing system. The government’s response to both left unclear what the government requires for evidence of an adequate purchasing system and how it would be evaluated. In both cases the response refers the offeror back to the RFP where the only update is the addition to para 4.2 of the phrase “If contractors do not have an adequate accounting system, they may not be eligible to receive a cost type award.” Request the government clarify the following:

1) The RFP states “The Offeror shall provide the date it was determined adequate and supporting information or back up letter from an Administrative Contracting Officer stating the adequacy for the system.” Request the government clarify what constitutes a determination of adequacy (e.g. does a third party assessment of adequacy meet the requirement) and what is acceptable as “supporting information”?

2) Reference government response regarding submitting a pre-award survey if the offeror does not have and system that has been determined to be adequate. Request the government clarify the process to request/submit a pre-award survey for a purchasing system and confirm that the submission of pre-award survey is acceptable does not exclude or diminish during evaluation an offeror’s proposal response?

See response to #1 of this document.

5 Section L.c.3 (c) (3) Factor 1

Section L.c.3 (c) (3) Factor 1, Bullet 5 on page 57 states, "Offerors will be evaluated on having proper Visas and Business Licenses for the prime and all subs."

What nations' business licenses and visas are required by the prime and subcontractors to be considered having the proper visas and business licenses?

Who in the contractor organization must possess the visa(s)?

An Afghanistan and Iraq Business License is required for prime and all subs. Awardee and subs must be able to obtain licenses and/or visas from other countries prior to deployments. A list of the locations traveled to in FY2017 has been provided as a sample. This list does not restrict the Government in any way and has been provided as a sample only. Deployments can occur to any OCONUS or CONUS area.

6 Attachment 6, Past Performance Questionnaire, second table under paragraph 3

Would the government please provide specific instructions regarding how offerors are to fill this table out, or consider deleting it completely?

This table should be completed by the requesting contractor OR the PWS should be provided to the individual completing the PPQ in order to properly complete. The table should be marked with an X in either the primary, secondary, or no experience box to indicate the level of relevancy of the referenced contract in PPQ to that of the AWG mission.

If the PPQ is altered or incomplete, it could affect the confidence assessment and relevancy rating of Factor 4, Past Performance.

Sample OCONUS Travel FY 2017 Australia Beiruit Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti Caserma Ederle, Itally Lucius D. Clay Kaserne, Weisbaden, Germany Dhaka, Singapore Israel Korea Kuwait Jordan Kyiv (Kiev), Ukraine Lebanon Mogadishu, Somalia New Zealand Venice, Italy Riga, Latvia Seoul, Korea Australia Singapore Tegucigalpa, Honduras Tel Aviv, Israel Hohenfels Bavaria, Germany Yongsan, Korea