3rd Industry Day Slides.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

Mission and Installation

Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Mr. Timothy Tweed

Director, MICC Center-FB

Timothy.Tweed@us.army.mil

March 10, 2011

Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) Presentation to Industry

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Administrative Details

• Agenda

Welcome, Introductions & Overview

Request for Proposals (RFP) Updates & Questions

Question and Answer Session

• Cell Phones (Please set to vibrate or silent)

• Restrooms

• Please feel free to ask questions during the presentation

• Copies of the slides will be provided at www.fbo.gov http://www.fbo.gov/

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Introductions

• Fort Benning MCoE

• MICC-Fort Benning

• MICC Center-Fort Bragg

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Purpose of Meeting with Industry

• To brief Industry on the specifics of the Draft RFP.

• To present the themes that were identified through questions presented by Industry in response to the proposed Draft RFP.

• To continue supporting a collaborative environment to exchange ideas.

• To provide any additional answers to questions from

Industry.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

MCoE Scope

The MCoE requires contractor knowledge, expertise, and services to support the Department of the Army

(DA) and Department of Defense (DoD) initiatives for the Maneuver Force in the following seven (7) Task

Areas:

Task Area 1: General Technical and Analytical Support

Task Area 2: Training Development Support

Task Area 3: Doctrine Development Support

Task Area 4: Capability Development Support

Task Area 5: Training Instruction Support

Task Area 6: Simulations and Analysis Support

Task Area 7: Support Services

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

MCoE Disclaimer

• What appears in the Final RFP is what matters. Not what is presented in the Draft or discussed today.

• The Draft RFP reflects about an 95% solution.

• The answers we provide today reflect things as we know them today and things may slightly change as the acquisition continues to go through the final review process.

• This conference is not intended to address every question presented by Industry in response to the Draft RFP but to address the main trends that were identified.

• The questions that were selected best represent the main issue as it relates to the trends that were identified.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section A

• Solicitation W91247-11-R-0002

• Tentative Issue Date – 17 March 2011 Dependent upon HQ MICC approval process

• Tentative Proposal Due Date – 21 April 2011 (2:00 p.m.

EDT)

• Reference SF 33, Block 12 proposals must be valid for

180 days.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section B

• Base Ordering Period and four (4) one-year optional ordering periods.

• Multiple Award ID/IQ Program Ceiling of $458M.

• Minimum Guarantee $5,000.00 (base ordering period only).

• CLINs reflect task order contract type:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Services

Time & Materials (T&M) Services

Labor Hour (LH) Services

Other Direct Costs (ODC’s) –Not to Exceed $2.25M per year

Contract Manpower Reporting (CMR)

For administrative purposes only, all CLINs, except CLINs for CMR have been prefilled.

The CLINs have been numbered in a way to avoid a possible conflict with the new accounting system.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section C, D, E

• Section C –

Performance Work Statement (PWS) has been updated due to the

TRADOC Executive Contract Approval Board (ECAB) approval process.

Each Task Order (TO) will have its own PWS that must be in scope of the task areas of the basic ID/IQ PWS.

• Section D-

As specified in each individual TO.

• Section E –

Each individual TO will include specific Inspection and Acceptance information. Inspection and Acceptance will be accomplished by the

Task Order Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) as identified in each TO.

Authority for almost all inspection and acceptance activities flow from the identified clauses. Very important part of contract administration.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section F

• Ordering Periods:

Basic Ordering Period: 1 August 2011 through 31 July 2012

Option 1: 1 August 2012 through 31 July 2013

Option 2: 1 August 2013 through 31 July 2014

Option 3: 1 August 2014 through 31 July 2015

Option 4: 1 August 2015 through 31 July 2016

• Each individual TO will specify the place of performance, include a specific period of performance, and may include options.

• Majority of on-site performance is expected to occur on Fort Benning, Georgia.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section G

• MICC-Benning will be responsible for all contract administration functions.

• Ordering offices will be responsible for all preaward and administration activities associated with individual Task Orders.

• The Contractor shall provide quarterly reports to the MICC-Benning KO at the end of each quarter.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section G

• Option Exercise: The MICC-Benning KO shall review each Contractor’s success at meeting their proposed subcontracting goals, and/or metrics’ attainment each year as part of the option exercise process. The MICC-

Benning KO reserves the right not to exercise optional ordering periods

2 through 4 based on a contractor's failure to meet or to demonstrate an attempt to meet the subcontracting goals and/or metrics of the contract.

However, the MICC-Benning KO is granted a certain amount of discretion in determining whether or not to exercise the option based on the Contractor’s efforts to meet their proposed subcontracting requirements.

• All task orders will be accepted/paid using WAWF.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Authority to Place Task Orders: MICC subordinate offices are designated ordering offices to issue TOs under the MCoE Multiple Award ID/IQ suites.

Additional DoD offices may be granted ordering authority to issue TOs if necessary to execute mission requirements to support the MCoE program.

• Fee: There is no fee for the use of the contract by any activity or agency delegated authority to solicit, award and administer task orders under this contract.

• Contract Types: The primary types of order that is authorized for use under this

ID/IQ are FFP with reimbursable line items for ODCs, although there may be specific requirements where T&M, and/or LH is more advantageous to the

Government.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Fair Opportunity: Any Request for Task Order Response (RTOR) issued under

Suite 1 will be competed among the members of Suite 1only. Likewise, any

Request for Task Order Response (RTOR) under Suite 2 will be competed among the members of Suite 2 only. In the instance that Contractor’s response(s) for RTOR under Suite 1, is deemed unacceptable, the action may be cancelled under Suite 1 and re-solicited under Suite 2. If the RTOR is re-issued under Suite 2, all Suite 1 firms who submitted an offer in response to the cancelled RTOR under Suite 1 will be provided fair opportunity for consideration for the RTOR re-competed under Suite 2.

• Minimum Order: If the Government requires supplies and services covered by this contract in an amount less than $5,000, the Government is not obligated to purchase, nor is the Contractor obligated to furnish those supplies or services under the contract.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Use of Suites: All TOs covering a single primary Task Area out of Task Area 2 and/or Task Area 5, or a combination thereof, will be solicited and awarded under Suite 1, Restricted Suite. Any TO including Task Areas 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 will be competed under Suite 2, Unrestricted Full and Open Competition, regardless of whether the TO also includes tasks under Task Area 2, Task Area

5, or a combination thereof.

• Request for Task Order Response (RTOR): RTORs or similar requests will be used by the Government when requesting responses to TO requirements.

Oral requests may be issued when the requirements are urgent. The RTOR will include submission requirements, evaluation criteria, and other information specific to the requirement. The Contractor shall submit a Task Order

Response (TOR) in response to RTORs. The TOR shall include as a minimum the Contractor’s approach to satisfying the Government requirements, OCI/OCI mitigation plan, and price.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Addition of Clauses at the Task Order Level: Additional clauses may be added at the TO level as long as they do not conflict with clauses included in the basic contract.

• TO Pricing: Labor shall be priced in accordance with the negotiated fully burdened labor rates set forth in the Price Matrix (Section J, Attachment 1).

The CAP rates are inclusive of prime labor, subcontract labor, overhead and other burden, and profit.

• Other Direct Costs (ODCs): ODCs are costs not previously identified as a direct material cost, direct labor cost, or indirect cost that can be identified specifically with a final cost objective.

• Travel: The Contractor shall perform travel as identified in individual task orders and may require the approval of the Task Order Contracting Officer

(TOCO) and/or COR.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Changes in Team Members/Subcontractors. The Contractor may not add any team members to the Contractor’s team without the MCoE KO’s authorization to do so. When subcontractors are approved, their services shall be provided within the labor categories and at a rate no higher than the labor rates included in Attachment 1 of each Contractor’s MCoE ID/IQ contract. The Contractor shall advise the MCoE KO of team member deletions as they occur.

• Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). The TOCO is responsible for identifying potential OCI issues at the Task Order level that could impact future competitions (if possible). Contractors are responsible for identifying any potential OCI issues to the TOCO. Task Orders performed under this contract could create potential OCI issues.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Reporting Requirements:

Contractor Monthly Status Report – Monthly

Contractor Quality Control Reports – Monthly

TO Performance Assessment Report – Annual

TO Travel Report - Per travel request

• Security Requirements: This contract is not classified. However, it is anticipated that some TOs will require access to or generation of classified material. A general Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form

254) has been included in this contract. The DD 254 will contain the appropriate Security guidance and designate the Cognizant Security Office within the Defense Security Service (DSS). All Contractors are required to complete a DD254 (Attachment 11) as part of their proposal in Volume I-RFP

Documents and General Information, TAB C.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section H

• Quality Control Plan: All Offerors will be required to include a Quality Control

Plan (QCP) with their proposal. The Offerors’ QCP must be detailed, containing a systematic approach to monitor daily operations of key and essential functions for providing quality service to the Government, i.e.

discrepancy identification procedures, corrective action procedures, prevention procedures for occurrence/re-occurrence of discrepancies, trend analysis usage, and customer feedback utilization.

• Quality Assurance: The Government shall evaluate the Contractor’s performance under this contract in accordance with the Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan. This plan is primarily focused on what the Government must do to ensure that the contractor has performed in accordance with the performance standards.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section H/L-Question

• Organizational Conflict of Interest:

Question: Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to submit clause and contract data only for those contracts for which firewalls/mitigation plans have been implemented? If not, and it is the

Government’s intent for contractors to identify all contracts with OCI clauses, would the Government consider modifying the RFP to require only a few examples given that large businesses may potentially have a hundred or more contracts with OCI clauses over a three year period?

Answer: It is the offeror’s obligation to identify any potential OCI to participate in this acquisition. Section H, puts the contractors on notice that future TO’s OCI’s may exist.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section H-Question

• Labor Categories:

Question: Are Contractors permitted to add additional labor categories that they may deem necessary, or may that be negotiated at task order level when requirements are well defined?

Answer: As stated in Section H, in isolated cases, additional labor categories may be added at the TO level with the express written consent of the TOCO. In general, Contractors are expected to use their proposed/accepted labor categories and rates through the life of the contract. Accordingly, offerors should thoroughly vet their categories prior to submission.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section I

• Various changes

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section J

• Technical Exhibit A: Historical Examples

• Attachment 1: Price Matrix

• Attachment 2: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) & Performance

Requirements Summary

• Attachment 3: DA Form 5475 COR/QAE Surveillance Schedule

• Attachment 4: DA Form 5477 Customer Complaint Record

• Attachment 5: DA Form 5479 Contract Discrepancy Report

• Attachment 6: MCoE Acronym List

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section J

• Attachment 7: Sample Task Order 1 – Performance Work Statement

(PWS) Instructor and Training Development Support

• Attachment 8: Sample Task Order 2 – Performance Work Statement

(PWS) Instructors, Training Development, Doctrine Development, Capabilities Development, and General Support Services

• Attachment 9: Sample Task Orders Price Proposal

• Attachment 10: Past Performance Questionnaire

• Attachment 11: DD Form 254

• Attachment 12: Courses Scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011

• Attachment 13: Service Contract Act, Wage Determination WD-05-2137, Revision 10, dated 1 September 2010

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section K

• 252.225-7042 Authorization to Perform

• 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (NAICS 541990/$7M Size

Standard)

• 252.204-7007 Alternate A Annual Representations and Certifications (NOV

2010)

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF 33.

• Electronic submissions via email or fax will NOT be accepted.

• The Contract Specialist is the primary point of contact for this acquisition.

Address all questions or concerns you may have to the Contract Specialist at jennifer.j.zielinsky@us.army.mil

• The selection of Contractors for award purposes will be conducted utilizing source selection procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria under Section M, “Factors to be evaluated.”

Noncompliance with the RFP requirements will raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability to perform the services and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

mailto:jennifer.j.zielinsky@us.army.mil

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best mission capability proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with FAR Part

15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. A competitive range will be determined and offerors notified if discussions will be held. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

• If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The KO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes under Suite 1:

RFP Documentation/ General Information, Mission Capability, Past

Performance, and Contract Price.

• The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) separate volumes under Suite 2:

RFP Documentation/ General Information, Mission Capability, Past

Performance, Small Business Participation Plan, and Contract Price.

• Each offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as listed below and all information shall be confined to the appropriate volume to facilitate independent evaluation.

Proposals which do not follow these guidelines or which do not include the requested minimum information may be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

Volume Title Hard Copies

CDs Page Limit

I RFP Documents and General Information

Original 1 N/A

II Mission Capability Original + 5 1 40 Pages-Suite 1 60 Pages-Suite 2

III Past Performance Original + 2 1 N/A

IV Price/Cost Original + 3 1 N/A

V Small Business Participation Plan (Suite 2 Only) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan (only large businesses)

Original + 2 1 N/A

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Selection of Suite: All task orders covering a single primary Task Area out of primary Task Area 2 and/or Task Area 5, or a combination thereof, will be solicited and awarded under Suite 1, 100% Small Business Set-Aside. Any task order including Task Areas 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 will be competed under Suite 2, Unrestricted Full and Open Competition, regardless of whether the task order also includes tasks under Task Area 2, Task Area 5, or a combination thereof.

• Small businesses will have the option of submitting a proposal in response to

Suite 1, Suite 2, or both; however, a separate proposal for each suite is required to be considered for award under the applicable suite. Award of a contract to a small business under Suite 2 will not automatically result in the award of a contract under Suite 1, or vice-versa. Small business firms who submit proposals in response to both Suite 1 and Suite 2, and who are awardees under both Suite 1 and Suite 2, will receive one contract award but will be included in both Suites. As a result, each Suite will result in the award of multiple contracts which will act as the competition pool encompassing the defined functional areas.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Volume I-RFP Documents and General Information: This volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

TAB A - Section A – Standard Form 33, Solicitation Offer and Award with authorized signature. Acknowledgment of Amendments can be made on the face of the SF 33 or signed copies of the amendments can be included in this

Section.

TAB B - Section K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Offerors.

TAB C - DD254

TAB D - Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan - Each offeror shall provide an OCI mitigation plan, if applicable, with their proposal.

TAB E- General Information - Identification of the proposal point of contact

(POC), e-mail address, and phone number; a list of the proposal package contents.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Volume II- Mission Capability: The Mission Capability volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Tab A - Table of Contents

Tab B - List of Table and Drawings

Tab C - Cross Reference Matrix

Tab D - Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the proposal

Tab E - Executive Summary

Tab F - Mission Capability

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Mission Capability – Elements:

Management Approach

Teaming Approach

Staffing & Training Approach

Quality Control

Response to Scenarios

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Volume III-Past Performance:

Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to completely perform any one of the PWS primary tasks and subtasks.

The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance in contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, that they deem is the same or similar in nature, size, magnitude, and complexity to the services being procured under this

Solicitation.

Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted directly to the Contract

Specialist.

If negative past performance information is received, the Contractor will be given an opportunity to provide a rebuttal (if not previously provided); this is not discussions.

The Contractor shall provide at least one (1) but no more than three (3) Past

Performance Questionnaires per task area, which includes information as the prime offeror and from all major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners that are being proposed.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offerors’ past performance.

The burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested remains with the offerors.

All recent relevant past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received.

All offerors to include those with no past performance may provide the equivalent information on company officials and/or personnel proposed for this action.

Recent experience will be defined as work performed within the last 3 years from the solicitation issuance date, similar in size, scope, and complexity to work identified in the PWS.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Volume IV-Price: The offeror’s price proposal will consist of information in response to the Sample Task Orders (STOs) and to support the pricing matrix as provided. The Contractor shall clearly explain the basis of price for each

STO, as well as the pricing matrix and pricing of non-labor resources. The labor categories and rates proposed in the STOs must be clearly traceable back to the pricing matrix.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Volume IV-Price: This volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

TAB A – Executive Summary: The offeror shall identify any pricing assumptions made and the overhead, G&A, subcontractor overhead, profit rates used to develop the Price Matrix.

TAB B - SF 33, Section B: For Section B, offerors are ONLY required to complete the CLINs for the Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement.

TAB C - Price Matrix: Should a contract be issued to the offeror, the proposed labor rates provided on the Price Matrix shall become the maximum rate allowable (CAP) for that labor category.

Tab D - Sample Task Order Price Proposals.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section L

• Volume V-Small Business Participation Plan (Applicable to

Suite 2 Only): This volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Tab A - Table of Contents

Tab B – Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations)

Tab C – Small Business Participation Plan (Applicable to Suite 2 Only). The Small

Business Participation Plan shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the offeror’s commitment and ability to participate with the small business industry to meet the proposed aggregate goal of 25% of awarded task order dollars.

Tab D – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applicable to large Businesses Only).

Each large business offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR Clause 52.219-9.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Past Performance:

Question: The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance in contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, that they deem is the same or similar in nature, size, magnitude, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation (The contractor shall provide at least three (3) but no more than five (5) contract actions). Question:

Please clarify the total quantity of past performance references the

Government will accept. Will the Government at least three (3) but no more than five (5) past performance surveys for the prime offeror; PLUS at least three (3) but no more than five (5) past performance surveys for each subcontractor?

Answer: The limit has been changed to at least one (1) but no more than three (3) per task area (inclusive of prime and subcontractors).

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Pricing Worksheets:

Question: (a) Should offerors submit one set of fully loaded unit price labor rates in the Price Matrix that covers the Prime and all subcontractors? (b) Or should offerors submit unit price labor rate pricing for the Prime, and separate ceiling unit labor rates for each subcontractor?

Answer: Each offeror shall submit a single pricing matrix inclusive of subcontractor rates. Each matrix shall include a fully loaded CAP rate

(maximum rate that will be charged per labor category for the life of the IDIQ) which shall consider performance through the base year and all optional ordering periods. The CAP rates are inclusive of prime labor, subcontract labor, overhead and other burden, and profit.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Pricing Worksheets:

Question: (a) Does the Government require submission of back-up rationale and calculations showing the rate build-up that clearly identifies the methodology used to arrive at the fully loaded labor rates from both the prime offeror and each proposed subcontractor? (b) or just the prime offeror? (c) if subcontractors are required to submit this information, will the Government accept the company proprietary data to be submitted directly from subcontractors, or in sealed packages within the prime offeror proposal package?

Answer: The prime is required to submit their rationale/methodology for the final price matrix. No information from subcontractor’s is required as the prime is expected to exercise a certain amount of discretion in evaluating the reasonableness of the subcontractor rates before developing their final rate matrix.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Small Business Participation Plan vs. Small Business

Subcontracting Plan:

Question: The Government states “The Small Business Participation Plan shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the

Government to make a thorough evaluation of the offeror’s commitment and ability to participate with the small business Industry to meet the proposed

25% goal (total MCoE IDIQ contract value).” What dollar value is the offeror to assume is the total contract value?

Answer: The Small Business Participation Plan shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the offeror’s commitment and ability to participate with the small business industry to meet the proposed aggregate goal of 25% of awarded task order dollars.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Small Business Participation Plan vs. Small Business

Subcontracting Plan:

Question: Section L indicates goals provided are to be met in terms of “% of total contract value;” however, FAR 52.219-9 states subcontracting goals are to be addressed as percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars.

Additionally, Section M requires subcontracting goals in terms of total MCoE

ID/IQ Contract Value, rather than in terms of total planned subcontracting dollars, which is inconsistent with FAR requirements and Section M.1.3.6.8, which states Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. Are we correct in assuming that the Small

Business Subcontracting Plan is to be prepared based on total planned subcontracting dollars, per FAR 52.219-9?

Answer: For the purposes of this acquisition they are in essence the same.

The Government is requiring that 25% of total dollars awarded as the goal.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

Question: Based on the information provided for this task area, valid manpower and cost requirements cannot be determined unless the Government provides the specific POIs and training information that the contractor is expected to review, revise, update, and or develop. Will the government provide the specific POIs the contractor will be assigned for this sample task area so manpower requirements can be determined and estimated?

Question: Will the Government provide data for the sample task orders which enable staffing and pricing analysis prior to release of the final RFP?

Answer: The information provided in the RFP is adequate for offerors to make an informed decision on how to price the sample task orders. Knowledge of the POI is not necessary to price the sample task orders and will not be provided.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Student/Instructor Ratios:

Question: Draft RFP Attachment 11, Sample Task Order 1, paragraph 8.1 specifies that “Contractors shall not exceed 50% of the instructor staff for any course.” Additionally paragraph 8., Scope of Work, does not provide a minimum / maximum student to instructor ratio or minimum and maximum students in attendance per course. Will the government provide this information to support pricing development and to ensure compliance with the

“shall not exceed 50%” terms?

Answer: The POIs for any given course vary in instructor-student ratios from

1:2 (for some practical exercises) to 1:class maximum (i.e. lectures). Since these are SAMPLES, manning levels and pricing are for the Contracator to determine and explain.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Section L-Question

• Workload & Fluctuating Workload:

Question: Page 1, Sample Task#2, 1.5.1 - The contractor shall be required to work a variety of schedules to accommodate the training requirements but primarily variations on the standard eight-hour work day and five-day work-week (0800-1700, Monday-Friday)- What impacts will this have on our SCA labor for the State they will work in?

Answer: Most work-day variations are still within the 8-hour (0800-1700) workday, but may vary the start/stop times (i.e. 0700-1600, 0730-1630, or

0830-1730) to meet mission and unit needs. On occasion, “flex” work weeks to meet training requirements may involve four 10-hour days, or other variation on the standard work week. The bottom line: Contractors work a 40-hour week/80 hour bi-week period.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

General-Question

• Award of Sample Task Orders:

Question: Does the Government intend on awarding Sample Task #2 based on an offeror’s submitted proposal?

Answer: The Sample Task Orders are for evaluation purposes only. The sample tasks are not “real” in sense that they will not be an actual task order issued.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Basis for Contract Award This is a best value negotiated procurement trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3 as supplemented by the DFARS and AFARS.

The awards will be based on the best overall proposals determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with the appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. Trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted.

Contract(s) will be awarded to the offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal(s) conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation) and is judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors to represent the most advantageous offer(s) to the Government. The Government intends to award without discussions;

however, IAW FAR 15.306, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions as necessary. If this occurs, a competitive range will be established.

The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR

15.306(c)(2).

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria consist of factors and elements.

Suite 1: The proposals will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors:

Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

Suite 2: The proposals will be evaluated using four (4) evaluation factors:

Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation Plan, and Price. Please note, acceptance of the offeror’s small business participation proposal does not preclude the requirement in FAR Part

19.702 for submittal and approval of a Subcontracting Plan.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Relative Importance of Factors

Suite 1:Relative Importance of Factor: In evaluating proposals for award, Mission Capability (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance

(Factor 2). In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factor 1 (Mission

Capability) and Factor 2 (Past Performance), when combined, are significantly more important than Price (Factor 3). The Government desires proposals that offer the overall best value in meeting the requirements with acceptable risk at a fair and reasonable price. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Relative Importance of Factors

Suite 2: In evaluating proposals for award, Mission Capability (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 2) and Past Performance

(Factor 2) is more important than Small Business Participation (Factor 4).

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factor 1 (Mission Capability), Factor 2

(Past Performance), and Factor 4 (Small Business Participation), when combined, are significantly more important than Price (Factor 3). The

Government desires proposals that offer the overall best value in meeting the requirements with acceptable risk at a fair and reasonable price. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price factors, the more important price/cost becomes in selecting the best value to the

Government.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Factor 1 - Mission Capability

(a) Management Approach: The ability to organize, so as to successfully manage and accomplish the primary and supplemental tasks identified in the MCoE PWS and the ability to simultaneously manage multiple task orders.

(b) Teaming Approach: The ability to manage, schedule, and integrate (transparency of operations) teaming partners and/or subcontractors into the prime contractor’s organization; and the capability of providing corporate reach back capability to the contractor organization.

(c) Staffing & Training Approach. The ability of the Contractor to reduce the risk in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel necessary to perform the MCoE support services in uniquely skilled and/or hard to find/fill skill sets.

(d) Quality Control. The ability to successfully develop and implement a Quality Control program with effective processes and procedures utilized to identify and correct instances of non-conforming services at both the

Contract and Task Order level.

(e) Response to Scenario. The ability to successfully execute the Sample Task Order for the applicable McoE suite. The Sample Task Order will be evaluated to determine its individual significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and deficiencies followed by a collective evaluation to determine the overall rating for the Task Order execution plan.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance.

Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Factor 3 – Price The total overall evaluated price (TOEP) for award purposes will be the total price of Sample Task Order 1 (Applicable to Suite 1) or Sample Task

Order 2 (Applicable to Suite 2). The TOEP shall include the Base Year, and all Option Years for the applicable Sample Task Order, to include evaluation of the Option to Extend Services. The TOEP for Suite 1 and

Suite 2 will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and (g). It is anticipated that adequate competition will exist for this procurement and that the FAR exception to requiring cost or pricing data at FAR 15.403-1(b) (1) and (c) (1) will apply. The TOEP will not be assigned an adjectival rating or scored. Balance shall be evaluated to ensure balanced pricing across the base and option years. In addition, the rates contained in the pricing worksheets will be evaluated to ensure they are complete. To be complete, all hourly rates identified in the Price

Matrix shall be fully burdened rates, which will be verified by reviewing the cost elements comprising the fully burdened rates.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

RFP Section M

• Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan. (Applicable to Suite 2 Only)

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment demonstrated in their subcontracting plan

(i.e. the dollars/percentages of small business participation as it relates to the total proposed price) and their prior level of commitment utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The small business participation goal for the overall McoE program is 25% of total dollars awarded.

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Acquisition Timeline

The table below provides an estimated timeline proposed in the accomplishment of the MCoE ID/IQ.

Milestones Date

RFP Issued March 17, 2011

Proposals Due April 21, 2011

Source Selection Evaluation Board Early May 2011

Award Late July 2011

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Point of Contacts

• Contracting Officer Ms. Angela Kearney, MICC Center-Fort Bragg, angela.kearney@us.army.mil

• Contract Specialist Ms. Jennifer Payne, MICC Center-Fort Bragg. Jennifer.j.zielinsky@us.army.mil

• Small Business Ms. Deborah Word, MICC Associate Director for Small Business Programs-

Fort Bragg, 910-907-3882 or deborah.word@us.army.mil

• Other Ms. Gloria A. Carr, Chief, Mission Division, MICC Center-Fort Bragg, 910-432-0078, gloria.carr@us.army.mil

Mr. Timothy G. Tweed, Director, MICC Center- Fort Bragg, 910-907-1879, timothy.tweed@us.army.mil.

mailto:angela.kearney@us.army.mil mailto:angela.kearney@us.army.mil mailto:Jennifer.j.zielinsky@us.army.mil mailto:deborah.word@us.army.mil mailto:gloria.carr@us.army.mil mailto:timothy.tweed@us.army.mil mailto:timothy.tweed@us.army.mil

Mission and Installation Contracting Command

Center-Fort Bragg

Questions?