Contractor_Questions_-_Government_Response.pdf

Contractor Questions – Government Response

Contractor Question #1 ‐ What was the contract / task order number for the last TSO requirement?

Who was or is the incumbent?

Government Response #1

Previous contract# W911S7‐18‐C‐0005 (FIBERTEK INC.)

Contractor Question #2 ‐ Is this a new requirement—meaning were all the contracted employees released—or is this an existing contract where the First Right of Refusal take precedence?

Government Response #2

There is no current contract for this requirement, FAR Clause 52.222‐17 has been removed.

Contractor Question #3 ‐ What is the work load data / number of contracted employees required by positions: such as the number of Senior Military Analysts, Web Designers, etc..?

Government Response #3

Offerors should propose their own individual levels of effort based on their understanding of the requirement.

Contractor Question #4 ‐ We recommend the government extend the submission timeline versus the 2 x week timeline remember that the contracting office wants hard copies of the proposals.

Government Response #4

The Government has extended the proposal due date to 19 Aug 2019 3:00 p.m. CST.

Contractor Question #5 ‐ Can you tell me if these services are currently being performed by a contractor? If so, could you please provide the incumbent name as well as the contract number?

Government Response #5

Previous contract# W911S7‐18‐C‐0005 (FIBERTEK INC.)

Contractor Question #6 ‐ Block 10 of the SF 1449 indicates that the RFP is a 100% Small Business Set

Aside under NAICS Code 541330 with a Size Standard of $15M. The NAICS code contains several

Exceptions that further define the type of work to be accomplished under the resulting contract. The

Performance Work Statement clearly indicates that the work is in support of Terrain Shaping Obstacles

(TSO) Capabilities supporting the Army, and that the “TSO Branch leads selected MSCoE, TRADO , and

Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) efforts to identify and analyze current and emerging combat capabilities.” Therefore, it would appear that Exception 2 (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons, which carries a SB size standard of $38.5M) to NAICS Code 541330 would be appropriate. Will the Government please re‐issue the SF 1449 citing the correct Exemption and updating the SB Size Standard? Alternatively, would the Government please confirm in writing the correct Exemption and SB Size Standard?

Government Response #6

After consideration and consulting with the Small Business Administration (SBA). The Size standard will not change and shall remain at $15M.

Reference: Solicitation, Page 45, L.1 Proposal Submittal Inquiries

Contractor Question #7: The solicitation states the following, “address all questions or concerns you may have to the Contract Specialists, Chad Buckley and Ashley Neuman.” Will the Government please provide Ashley Neuman’s point of contact email so we may be in compliance?

Government Response #7

Solicitation, Page 45, L.1 Proposal Submittal Inquiries has been updated to remove Ashley Neuman.

Reference: Solicitation Page 45, L.1 Proposal Submittal Inquiries

Contractor Question #8: Given the quick turn‐around time for delivery and the large amount of content requested, will the Government please consider accepting emailed proposal responses?

Government Response #8

The Government has extended the proposal due date to 19 Aug 2019 3:00 p.m. CST

Reference: Reference: Solicitation Page 45, L.1 Proposal Submittal Inquiries

Contractor Question #9: Given the large amount of content requested, will the Government please consider granting an extension for a new delivery date of August 19th?

Government Response #9

The Government has extended the proposal due date to 19 Aug 2019 3:00 p.m. CST

Reference: Solicitation, Page 49‐50.

L.3.b. “Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 25% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.” – and L.3.3.b.ii. “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” ” Discussion: L.3.b requires past performance. L.3.3.b.ii states that those offerors without a record of relevant past performance or with insufficient past performance will be categorized “unknown” and “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”. This appears to make the requirement for past performance irrelevant since an offeror with relevant past experience and an offeror without any relevant past experience will both be rated “acceptable”. This is also not consistent with FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv) since the rating of “acceptable” for unknown past performance is a favorable rating or evaluation: “(iv)In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on

Contractor Question #10: Will the Government please change the last sentence in L.3.3.b.ii to read, “In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “neutral.”?

Government Response #10

The last sentence in L.3.3.b.ii shall remain the same.

Reference: Solicitation, Page50‐51, L.3.3.b.iv ‐ Past Performance Questionnaire

Contractor Question #11: In the event an Offeror provides a very relevant past performance performed as a major subcontractor, who shall complete the Past Performance Questionnaire, the Government Customer or the Prime contractor?

Government Response #11

It is at the Offerors discretion on who they send Past Performance Questionnaire to.

Reference: Solicitation, Page50, L.3.3.b.iii.Organization Structure Change History

Contractor Question #12: Will the Government please clarify that the requirement to complete an Organization Change Structure Change History is indeed for the Prime only? Additionally, will the Government please confirm that if the Prime is not putting forth past performance references then the Organization Structure Change History section is still deemed acceptable because “unknown past performance will be rated acceptable,” as stated in the solicitation.

Government Response #12

(IAW Section L pg.# 49 para b. Volume II – past performance) ‐ Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 25% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.

(IAW Section M pg.# 64 para b sub para f) ‐ Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Reference: Solicitation Page 51, c. Volume III – Cost Proposal: Tab A item (a) states: “The offeror shall also provide a price element breakdown for each CLIN included at Schedule B of the SF1449. The price element breakdown for each CLIN must include the following cost elements and the sum must equate to the CLIN’s unit price: (1) Materials and Supplies; (2) Labor (Direct and Indirect); (3) General & Administrative (G&A); (4) Overhead; and (5) Profit. Separate Price breakdowns must be prepared for each contract period (base period and all option periods). The prices shall be consistent with the written portion of the technical proposal.”

Contractor Question #13: Are subcontractors required to submit a sealed package of proprietary information supporting the above requested data?

Government Response #13

The Governments requirement is a proposal submitted by the prime Contractor IAW Volume III Price Proposal.

Reference: Solicitation Page 51, c. Volume III – Cost Proposal: Tab A item (a) states: “The offeror shall also provide a price element breakdown for each CLIN included at Schedule B of the SF1449. The price element breakdown for each CLIN must include the following cost elements and the sum must equate to the CLIN’s unit price: (1) Materials and Supplies; (2) Labor (Direct and Indirect); (3) General & Administrative (G&A); (4) Overhead; and (5) Profit. Separate Price breakdowns must be prepared for each contract period (base period and all option periods). The prices shall be consistent with the written portion of the technical proposal.”

Contractor Question #14: Given this is a small business set aside with a $15M size standard and firm fixed price (FFP), and a majority of small businesses of this size do not have approved DCAA indirect rates describe above. Will the government please remove this requirement as it appears an unnecessary burden for small businesses to compete? If not, please clarify what supporting information is deemed acceptable if a small business offeror does not have DCAA approved indirects?

Government Response #14

Government does not need DCAA approved indirect rate. Government just needs a breakout.

Reference: Solicitation Page 51, c. Volume III – Cost Proposal: Tab A item (a) states: “The offeror shall also provide a price element breakdown for each CLIN included at Schedule B of the SF1449. The price element breakdown for each CLIN must include the following cost elements and the sum must equate to the CLIN’s unit price: (1) Materials and Supplies; (2) Labor (Direct and Indirect); (3) General & Administrative (G&A); (4) Overhead; and (5) Profit. Separate Price breakdowns must be prepared for each contract period (base period and all option periods). The prices shall be consistent with the written portion of the technical proposal.”

Contractor Question #15: Given this is a firm fixed price (FFP) contract, and offerors are proposing their price based on meeting the CDRLs listed, the government will evaluate the total firm fixed price proposed by CLIN to determine fair and reasonable pricing and not the individual cost elements or level of effort used to determine an offerors total FFP. Will the government please remove this requirement and have offerors submit a total FFP by CLIN with unit pricing only in accordance with section B?

Government Response #15

Government need the breakout to show correlation between the Technical and Price proposal at the CLIN level.

Background: The solicitation and the SOW do not provide an estimated staffing requirement.

Contractor Question #16: Can the Government provide an estimate or historical reference to the level of effort (i.e. FTE) needed to successfully conduct this requirement?

Government Response #16

Offerors should propose their own individual levels of effort based on their understanding of the requirement.

Background: The SOW lacks details on the personnel qualification requirements.

Contractor Question #17: Will the Government please provide the desired personnel qualifications for contractors performing these tasks?

Government Response #17

There are no qualifications required by the PWS.

Contractor Question #18: Will the Government provide expected/desired Labor Categories for contractors on this requirement?

Government Response #18

Employee Class Monetary Wage Fringe Benefits

Analysts GS‐12 ‐ $35.74/Hr. 43.6%

Contractor Question #19: Will the Government provide the GS equivalency of the contractor positions required?

Government Response #19

Employee Class Monetary Wage Fringe Benefits

Analysts GS‐12 ‐ $35.74/Hr. 43.6%

Background: Questions are due on 30 July for this effort with the proposal due on 6 August.

Contractor Question #20: Will the Government consider extending the proposal due date based on the pending release of the Q&A and the subsequent changes or updates to the requirements?

Government Question #20

The Government has extended the proposal due date to 19 Aug 2019 3:00 p.m. CST.

Reference: PWS Paragraphs “3 – Deliverables” consists of sub‐paragraphs 3.1 – 3‐14. Technical Exhibits.

PWS Part 7 Technical Exhibits/Attachments: Para 7.1 Technical Exhibit 1‐ Performance Requirements Summary and Technical and Para 7.6 Technical Exhibit 6 – Surveillance Checklists

Contractor Question #21: The PWS 3.1‐ 3.14 paragraph titles and descriptions in the two Technical Exhibits do not match the same numbered PWS paragraphs in the base paragraph of the PWS 3‐ Deliverables. Should the Offeror assume that the PWS 3 – Deliverables paragraph numbering, titles, and content are correct and that is what the Offeror should respond to in the proposal?

Government Response #21

Technical Exhibits have been updated to accurately reflect what is written in the base document’s Para 3‐3.14

Reference: PWS PG 5, PARA 3.1 & PG 10, 3.15 Deliverables Schedule

Contractor Question #22: This paragraph states the following, “For deliverables identified in paragraphs 3.7‐3.10. The “Lead” Contractor shall provide electronically to COR a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) for the deliverable within 10 working days of the bi‐weekly work plan.” It does not seem practical for the contractor to prepare a POA&M for Monthly Status Reports (PWS PARA 3.10).

Furthermore, PWS PARA 3.1 POA&M requirements are different than those listed in 3.15 Deliverables Schedule. Will the government please clarify the paragraphs that require a POA&M?

Government Response #22

All paragraphs have updated for continuity.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 57, Past Performance Questionnaire.

Contractor Question #23: Herein the questionnaire’s Technical Performance section, there are questions about computer hardware and software (i.e. question T5 and T6, respectively). “T5. Ability to implement current standard practices for computer hardware design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control, and T6. Ability to implement current standard practices for computer software design, operation, maintenance, upgrades and configuration control,” we believe that neither question is relevant to the solicitation scope and, therefore, will the government please clarify the relevancy for those questions or will the government disregard answers other than “NOT APPLICABLE” to those questions?

Government Response #23

In the technical performance section on pg.57. T5 and T6 are not applicable for this requirement.

Reference: Solicitation Page 49‐50, 3.b.iii, Specific Relevant Contracts Format and Attachment 2

Contractor Question #24: Will the Government please clarify if the Offeror shall describe their demonstrated experience with all 19 PWS task areas within Attachment 2? If so, we believe a 3‐page limitation is not adequate and would like to suggest that the government increase the page limit to 5‐ page/reference.

Government Response #24

The Government has increased the page limit to 5 pages.