9_-_Final_Responses_to_Industry_Q As _12_Aug_2016.pdf

Government’s Response to Industry Questions

Question Number Reference Industry Question Government Response

1. Page 69 of 81, Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions

The table on page 69 indicates a 125 page limit for Volume II, and notes exclusions from this total on page 70. As we discuss in a separate question, the total information included in this page limit cannot be provided at the required level of detail within 125 pages. We request that two additional items be excluded from the 125 page limit, or additional page count be granted per the estimates given below:

1. Manpower Matrices (page 76) for each of the 14 functional categories, which we estimate at 50+ pages to meet the following stated requirements: “The Offeror shall provide manpower matrices showing the proposed team complement for Base Support Functions. The team complement shall include the labor category, PWS tasks supported by task name and PWS citation, number of personnel proposed for each labor category, the number of hours associated with each labor category, employment status (FT/PT), and the required skill level. … The manpower matrices shall be organized by functional task area, and then listed alphabetically by labor

Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions will remain at 125 pages, however, the Manpower Matrices within Mission Capability Volume II Tab F2-d.iv was added to the Page Limit Exclusions, Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions, section f. Labor categories listed under the basis of estimates shall be included in the 125 page limit.

See Amendment 0006.

category. The manpower matrices shall also include a summary of the total man hours proposed for each functional task area.”

2. Basis of Estimate (page 75) to provide the specific manpower data (matrices) by labor category and the explanations for each of the 14 functional categories, which we estimate at 80-100 pages to meet the following stated requirements: “The Offeror shall discuss their basis of estimate for accomplishing Base Support Functions and demonstrate their understanding of the staffing requirements by analyzing the PWS and formulating their team complement based on the manning requirements identified in the PWS (24/7 support, number of workstations, etc.) in conjunction with staffing requirements identified in Vignette #1 and Vignette #2. The basis of estimate shall discuss the methodology used to determine the staffing proposed for each function of the PWS (the type, number of personnel proposed, and the level-of-effort proposed for each labor category), and demonstrate an understanding of the line between the staffing proposed and the requirements of the PWS to include, but not limited to, a discussion of the PWS requirements in relation to the resources proposed for each assigned task and the associated PWS references. The methodology must also identify why the personnel proposed are best qualified to accomplish the task based on the identified knowledge, skills, security clearances, education, and experience requirements. The offeror, based upon its proposed organization, workload analysis, innovations, and any other factors, shall submit a staffing plan that includes all staffing required to perform all contract work; offeror shall disclose teaming arrangements, and identify subcontractors, including proposed roles in performance of the contract, as well as a breakdown of their roles as a percentage of total work, for each period of performance. All cross utilization, if applicable, of personnel shall be clearly explained and depicted. The Offeror shall identify the qualifications (i.e., certifications, education, knowledge, skills and/or experience) of proposed personnel functional categories. The offeror shall ensure its staffing plan clearly depicts the total number of full time equivalents (FTE) for each proposed labor category, including for any subcontracted effort. If utilizing other than 1920 productive hours per FTE, the offeror shall provide its calculation of productive hours. All cross utilization of the labor force shall be clearly explained. Rationale for the proposed staffing plan in the worksheet shall be explained in sufficient detail so as to clearly indicate that the proposed staffing plan can meet the minimum requirements of the PWS's labor category and scope of effort.

The table on page 69 indicates a 125 page limit for Volume II, which includes Evaluation Factors #1 -Management Approach and Evaluation Factor #2 - Technical Approach. These two factors encompass many requirements, with instructions to provide detailed responses. We request an increase in the page limit for Volume II, and the exclusion of the Manpower Matrices and Basis of Estimate that is described in a separate question.

In addition to the exclusion we request an increase in the page limit for Volume II from 125 to 250 pages, and/or a reduction of the specific requirements and/or level of detail required for a fully compliant and responsive proposal.

Below are some, but not all, of the RFP requirements that justify this requested increase, with emphasis that shows the key drivers for this request.

General:

• Offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology they will use for accomplishing the PWS tasks. (Page 72)

TAB F1: Evaluation Factor #1 - Management Approach

• Broad topic set:

a. Organization Structure

b. Management Plan b.1 Chain of Command and Coordinating Lines of Communication b.2 Communications Approach b.3 How Maintain, Sustain, and

Retain a Fully Functional Staff b.4 Accountability, Maintenance and Necessary Protection of

GFP.

b.5 Security Program b.6 Staff Training Program

• “The Offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology they will use for accomplishing the PWS tasks.” (Page 72)

• “The Offeror shall describe, in detail, the controls, methods, and procedures the Offeror will utilize to ensure accountability, maintenance and necessary protection of Government Furnished Property (GFP)”. (Page 73)

• The Offeror shall describe and discuss, in detail, the proposed policies and procedures to be followed in establishing and maintaining an effective Security Program. (Page 73)

TAB F2: Evaluation Factor #2 - Technical Approach

• Broad set of topics

- Contract Transition Plan

- Key Personnel Qualifications

- Methodology for Accomplishing

Base Support Functions (14 functions), including:

Manpower matrices Basis of estimate Technical approach for how

Base Support Functions will be accomplished and their ability to simultaneously manage multiple JRTC training rotations by addressing how the Offeror's personnel will be organized and staffed along with specifically describing how work will be performed (including use of any automated systems or work-loading procedures), proposed work processes schedule (at a minimum includes a timeline of events), approaches, process interfaces, innovations, assumptions of support, cross-utilization of personnel, training, and performance plans.

Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes (2 vignettes) - For each sample vignette, the Offeror shall specifically identify and explain their process to achieve full performance capability;

identify and explain how they will staff the requirement to include identifying necessary skill sets to complete each task; address how work will be scheduled (including use of any automated systems or work-loading procedures); and/or assumptions of government support. The offeror shall also submit a risk assessment and a risk mitigation strategy for each sample vignette that will evaluate the risk associated with performance without impacting the simulation of risk associated with the replication of actual combat. Scheduling details shall include methods to determine regular hours, overtime hours, and holiday hours.

2. Page 80 of 81 Volume V- Evaluation Factor V Tab B-

Cost

The Government indicates that Transition Cost will be considered as part of the overall evaluation. This heavily and outright favors the incumbent and could leave the Government open to future protest. Will the Government please consider revising this section, such that transition cost is excluded from being an evaluation factor?

Phase-In/Phase-Out are required. The Government will not revise the evaluation criteria as these are costs associated with the requirement.

3. 12 of 81 Item NO 3004

OPTION

No escalation is identified between COST ITEM NO 2004 and COST ITEM NO 3004. Will the Government please advise as to whether or not this is just an oversite

See Amendment 0006, CLIN 3004 amount should read $290,182.02.

4. Final RFP, TE E, Page 1 Historical Data

RFP TE_E provides historical workload data at an aggregate level. Will the Government please provide a more refined breakout of resources by functional area for OY5, OY6, and OY7? This level of historical data will enable all bidders, not just the incumbent, to propose levels of effort for the individual functional areas that offer full mission support and cost efficiencies that are informed by historical resource levels and trends.

The Government does not have more refined breakout of resources by functional area for OY5, OY6, and OY7.

5. DRFP Section 1 Page 34 Section I 52.222-42

Battlefield Effect Tech, Firemarker Dispatcher and the Role Players (General, Skilled and Cultural Role Players) are identified in the Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires as Wage Grade employees. Since there are pre-existing incumbents in these positions, and these are not new requirements, a Department of Labor Service Contract Act Conformance document must be on file. These labor categories do not appear in WD 2005- 2229, Revision 13. Will the Government please provide the conformance documentation for these labor categories, as they are considered necessary for pricing purposes?

Please note that the Draft RFP is not applicable as the official solicitation was posted on 01 Apr 2016 to FBO.gov. Please use information from the official solicitation. The Government has used the most current Wage Determination from the DOL website. In addition, the Government has completed an e-98 requesting labor categories to be added to wage determination. If a new wage determination is provided, it will be added via amendment.

6. Page 75 of 81, TAB F2:

Evaluation

The RFP states: “Rationale for the proposed staffing plan in the worksheet shall be explained in sufficient detail so as to clearly indicate that the proposed staffing plan can meet the minimum requirements of the PWS's labor category and scope of effort.”

Will the Government please clarify the worksheet being referenced in this statement?

See Amendment 0006 Worksheet has been removed.

7. Page 76 of 81, Tab F.2; a, Section L: methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes for Training Rotations

This section of the RFP includes several statements for which we request clarification to ensure a compliant response:

1. “Each response shall include sufficient information to describe the Offeror’s processes, procedures,

1. The requirements are not different. Offerors shall provide sufficient information for the Base Support Functions and the Vignettes.

2. Full performance capability = complete performance of the Vignettes.

controls, etc. that will be established to accomplish each vignette.”

Will the Government please clarify how the requirements of this statement differ from similar requirements on page 75 of 81 (bottom) for Base Support Functions that state: “…describing how work will be performed (including use of any automated systems or work-loading procedures), proposed work processes schedule (at a minimum includes a timeline of events), approaches, process interfaces, innovations, assumptions of support, cross-utilization of personnel, training, and performance plans.”?

2. “For each sample vignette, the Offeror shall specifically identify and explain their process to achieve full performance capability;”

Will the Government please explain what is meant by “full performance capability.”?

3. “… identify and explain how they will staff the requirement to include identifying necessary skill sets to complete each task”.

3. Staffing requirement is for both Vignettes. The Government re-worded the beginning of Methodology for Vignettes in order to differentiate between the two Vignettes.

Offerors shall provide the labor mix, schedule, and technical solution. The Government is not requesting a description of offeror’s internal process for scheduling.

Will the Government please clarify whether this requirement addresses the staffing process for the vignette, the specific staffing required for the vignette, or both “ … address how work will be scheduled (including use of any automated systems or work-loading procedures);” Will the Government please clarify whether this requirement addresses the proposed scheduling process and tools, a specific proposed schedule, or both?

8. Page 87 of 81; Tab F.2; a, Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.

Within Evaluation Factor #2, b.

Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes for Training Rotations, will the Government please clarify what is meant by “support element” in the following statement: “A clear understanding of support elements and methodology to support identified elements will be considered as critical in the evaluations.”?

How does “support element” relate to the functional task areas in the PWS and are support elements limited to role play support or support for all functions?

“Support element” was removed and replaced with “support staff/role players” to be consistent with the Vignettes, see amendment 0006

Support staff/role players relate to the functional task area of role play.

Support staff/role players are limited to role play.

The term support element was removed.

9. Page 76 of 81; Manpower for Vignette

Do the manpower estimates for each vignette include or not include manpower that performs base support (to avoid double counting for pricing)?

See PWS C.2.1.8. for definition of Base Support.

In See Amendment 0006, TE A.1 Standard Rotation and TE A.2 - MRE Vignettes have been revised in order to differentiate between the two vignettes. See updated TE A-1, Vignette I. Base support, letter a under Requirements.

10. Page 76 of 81, Cross Utilizations

RFP states “All cross utilization of the labor force shall be clearly explained and depicted in a separate narrative.”

For context, final RFP Section B no longer breaks out resources by core versus rotational support, as was done in the draft RFP.

Will the Government please clarify the meaning of cross-utilization in the statement above, or delete this requirement?

Cross Utilization means to make use of in an additional or different way.

11. TE_A, pages 1 – 3, Technical Exhibit A – Sample Training Vignettes

1. Instructions for Vignettes states “These requirements shall be costed separately based on the following: …” This instruction is not included in the Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Will the Government please clarify this statement and/or modify the instructions accordingly?

2. Items d. (page 1) and m. (page 3) include instruction to provide estimated travel. For context, RFP Section B indicates specific amounts to be used for travel costs in Items number 0005, 0006, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004. Please confirm that the travel estimates indicated in TE_A are required, how these estimates relate to the dollar figures indicated in RFP Section B.

Will the Government please provide estimated travel for the vignettes if the

TE A has been revised to TE A-1, Standard Rotation and A-2, MRE. Instructions have been included in both TE A-1 and TE A-2. Travel has been removed from TE A-1 and A-2.

requirement to provide estimated travel is retained in TE_A?

12. 6 of 81. ITEM NO 1003

OPTION

This ITEM NO is identified as “CPFF”.

Will the Government please clarify if this item should be “COST”?

See Amendment 0006, CLIN 1003 should read

COST.

13. Page 67 of 81 The preparation of hard copy proposals forces offerors to add additional days of lead time in order to ensure time for printing and proper delivery. Would the Government please consider electronic delivery of proposals via email as opposed to hard copy deliveries?

Amendment 0001, Section L Instructions, Conditions and Notices To Bidders, state hard copies are required.

14. Organizational Structure

a. Page 72, Section L, Tab F1a

b. Page 83, M.3 Factor, #1a

a. Section L .Tab F1.b.i and Section M.3.b.i effectively require a narrative discussing the Organizational Structure in the first section of the Management Plan, following the org chart. This narrative includes a description of the chain of command, authorities, roles and responsibilities, and controls.

b. Section M evaluates “associated narratives” for the organizational chart but, the instructions in Section L do not require this narrative for the organizational chart.

Will the Government please clarify whether a narrative is required within the Organizational Structure section?

If it is, will the Government please define what needs to be addressed and add the requirement to Section L Tab F1 a?

See Amendment 0006, a Narrative is required within the Organizational structure section. Section L has been revised.

If a narrative is not required, will the Government please remove the evaluation of “associated narratives” from Section M.3.Factor 1.a?

15. Organizational Structure

a. Page 72, Section L Tab F1a and

b. Page 83, Section M.3 Factor

Section M evaluates “the overall manning by work hours for each functional area” but this is not required by Section L. The Draft RFP Section L included the requirement to “include the labor category and proposed overall manning by work hours for each functional task area”, but this was removed from the final RFP. Also the manning is provided and evaluated in Tab F2, and it is difficult to fit all this detail in the line and block diagram.

Recommend remove the evaluation of “the overall manning by work hours” from Section M.3.a.

See Amendment 0006 Section L has been revised.

16. Organizational Structure

Page 73, Section L, Tab F1a. and

Page 83, Section M.3 Factor

Section M evaluates “the team composition” but this is not required by Section L.

Will the Government please remove the evaluation of the “team composition” from Section M.3.a?

Team composition was removed from Section M.

17. Management Plan (Roles)

Page 73, Section L, Tab F1b.i and

#1 b i

Section L requires the management role and scope of control for each “management team member (and major sub, consultant, etc.).” However, Section M evaluates the management role and scope of control for each “level of management.” Providing this information for each “level of

See Amendment 0006 Section L has been revised to read “level of management”.

management” seems like a more appropriate requirement.

Will the Government please change Section L to read “level of management” to match Section M?

18. Management Plan (Authority)

Page 73, Section L Tab F1 b.i and

#1 b.i

Section L requires the authority vested in each level of management to include “subcontractor relationship/control.”

However, Section M evaluates the authority vested in each level of management to include “the Prime and team members.” Providing the authority for “subcontractor relationship/control” seems like a more appropriate requirement.

Will the Government please confirm that Section L is correct and change Section M to match Section L?

See Amendment 0006 Sections L and M have been revised.

19. Management Plan Authority

Page 73, Section L, Tab F1 b.i and

Page 83 Section M.3 Factor #1 b.i

Section L asks for how the contractor’s assigned authorities facilitate “effective and timely decision making.” However, Section M evaluates how our assigned authorities facilitate the contractor’s “ability to effectively manage the full contract effort.” These are very different, and the Section L wording seems like a more appropriate requirement to show how the vested authorities support responsiveness and adaptability.

Will the Government please confirm that Section L is correct and change Section M to match Section L?

Section L has been revised to read “full contract effort” and Section M has been revised to read “effective and timely decision making”.

20. Management Plan (Roles and Authority)

#1 b.i

Section M evaluates “the reasonableness of the work assigned.” However, there is no requirement in Section L to describe “the work assigned.”

Will the Government please change Section M, deleting evaluation of the work assigned?

See Amendment 0006 Section L has been revised to read “work assigned”.

21. Pages 73, Section L Tab F1

Section M.3 Factor #1 b.i

Section M evaluates “the approach to planning, organizing, and controlling each function depicted in the organizational structure to ensure it facilitates organizational productivity and demonstrates the flexibility to adjust to changing scenarios and leader development requirements.” This requirement does not appear in Section L.

We note that the Draft RFP included this requirement: “The Offeror shall address the management techniques and/or procedures to be utilized to accomplish the basic functions of planning, organizing, and controlling each function depicted in the organizational structure, to include the proposed interface between functional areas for program management and administration.”

Will the Government please remove the evaluation of “the approach to planning, organizing, and controlling each function … requirements.” from Section M.3.a, since it was removed from Section L?

See Amendment 0006. Section L has been revised to include instructions for “the approach to planning, organizing, and controlling each function depicted in the organizational structure to ensure it facilitates organizational productivity and demonstrates the flexibility to adjust to changing scenarios and leader development requirements.”

In addition, Section L has been revised to include The offeror shall explain the overall proposed interface functional areas for program management and administration. The following in Section M “will be evaluated on the effectiveness of the proposed solution.” will remain in Section M.

For the same reasons provided in the previous question, will the Government please remove the evaluation of “the effectiveness of our proposed solution for overall proposed interface functional areas for program management and administration”, since this requirement was removed from Section L in the Final

RFP?

22. Management Plan (Security Program) b.v and

Page 84, Section M.3 Factor #1 b.v

Section L requires “policies and procedures” and Section M evaluates “policies and procedures” but also evaluates the “approach for developing and implementing a Security Program” which is not required by Section L.

Will the Government please clarify whether an approach is required and if it is, add the requirement for an “approach for developing and implementing a Security Program” to Section L?

See Amendment 0006, Section L has been revised to include “Offeror’s approach to developing and implementing the Security Program.

23. Page 73, Section L Tab F1

Page 84 Section M.3 Factor

Section L references “establishing and maintaining” an effective Security Program while Section M evaluates “developing and implementing” an effective Security Program.

Will the Government please clarify or modify these items to use consistent terminology to allow a response that clearly addresses the correct requirement?

See Amendment 0001, Section L Tab F1 b. v., page 14 of 32 in states, “The Offeror shall describe and discuss, in detail, the proposed policies and procedures to be followed in establishing and maintaining an effective Security Program” Section M Factor 1 b v states “The offeror’s policies and procedures for establishing and maintaining a Security Program will be evaluated…” No change will be made.

24. Page 73 Section L Tab F1

Section L requires a “security plan” within the Security Program description, and Section M evaluates “the soundness

See Amendment 0001, the scope and intent of the Security Plan is described on page 14 of 32 in (Section L Tab F1 b. v.). An outline of the plan is not sufficient, See Amendment 0006, please follow

Page 84 Section M.3 Factor and comprehensiveness of the security plan.”

Will the Government please clarify the scope and intent of the required security plan, which would typically be long and detailed, similar to a Quality Control Plan? Is it sufficient to provide an outline of the plan (in addition to the overall security program description)? If a detailed plan is required, will the Government please consider removing the requirement for the plan or removing the actual Security Plan from the page count, as was done for the Quality Control Plan?

instructions in Section L, Tab F1 b.v. The Security Plan will be added to the page limit exclusions.

25. Quality Control Plan

Page 70, Section L.1.f and

Page 74, Section L Tab F1 c

Section L.1.f, Page Limit Exclusions, states “Page Limit does not include the following: … Tab E, Quality Control Plan included within Mission Capability Volume II, Tab F1 d, …”

Will the Government please correct the reference to Tab F1-d to reflect Tab F1-c.?

See Amendment 0006, Tab F1 has been revised.

26. Contract Transition Plan (Phase-Out)

Page 74, Section L Tab F2 d.ii and

Page 85, Section M.3 Factor #2 c.iii

Section M (3) c. iii Phase-out evaluates “potential risks and risk mitigation that could affect the Phase-out plan.”

However, Section L does not include a requirement to provide risks and risk mitigation.

Will the Government please add the risk requirement to RFP Section L Tab F2 d.ii?

See Amendment 0006 Section L Tab F2(a)ii, Phase-out risks have been added.

27. Labor Category Descriptions and Qualifications

Page 74, Section L Tab F2 e and

Page 86, Section M.3 Factor #2 c.iv

In Section L, the Labor Category Descriptions are required under the Technical Approach (Tab F2 e).

However, the instructions under Tab F2.e states “The labor category descriptions shall be inserted at the back of Section F1” which is the Management Approach.

Should the labor category descriptions be inserted at the back of Section F2 instead?

See Amendment 0006, Section L has been revised to read Tab F2.

28. TAB F2: Evaluation Factor #2 - Technical Approach

Page. 75 Section L Tab F2 g

Within the paragraph on basis of estimate directly under item g, the RFP states: “… offeror shall disclose teaming arrangements, and identify subcontractors, including proposed roles in performance of the contract, as well as a breakdown of their roles as a percentage of total work, for each period of performance.”

Will the Government please clarify whether the “percentage of total work” should calculated based on the number of hours for the work, or based on the dollar value of the work?

The Government is seeking the “percentage of work” proposed to be accomplished by each subcontractor as it relates to labor hours proposed for the entire effort covered by the contract.

29. Page 75, Section L, Tab F2g, Evaluation Factor #2 Technical Approach – Key Personnel

Page 86, Section M.3 factor #2cv

Section L requires the roles and responsibilities of key personnel (“provide a list of all proposed labor categories for key personnel with applicable roles and responsibilities deemed necessary to perform all requirements by functional task area of

See Amendment 0006, Sections L & M have been revised.

the PWS”). However, Section M does not describe how the roles and responsibilities will be evaluated. Also Section M evaluates “the authority the individual(s) possess, category of employment (FT/PT), (and) narrative demonstrating how key personnel meet or exceed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the PWS” but none of this information is required by Section L.

The draft RFP required a “narrative demonstrating how key personnel meet or exceed the minimum qualifications” in Section L, but this requirement was removed from the Final RFP.

Will the Government please revise the requirements in Section L and the evaluation criteria in Section M to be consistent for all four items identified (roles and responsibilities, authority, category of employment, and qualifications narrative) and clarify whether key personnel qualifications are in fact required in this proposal response?

30. Technical Approach Instructions and Evaluation Criteria

Pages 75-76, Section L Tab F2 g and

The Section L instructions for Evaluation Factor #2, Technical Approach are difficult to follow given interruptions in the numbering of paragraphs and a misalignment with the flow of the evaluation criteria indicated in Section M. However, Section M is very clear and easy to follow.

See Amendment 0006, Section L instructions for Evaluation Factor #2 have been revised.

Pages 86-87 Section M.3 Factor # 2 a

Will the Government please revise Section L content and flow to parallel Section M for Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions and subordinate items?

In addition, we also submit several questions below specific to Section L and Section M regarding requirements for the “Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support functions” -

31. Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions

Pages 75-76, Section L Tab F2 g and

Pages 86-87, Section M.3 Factor # 2a

METHODOLOGY Q-2: The requirements for the staffing plan do not mention the manpower matrices while the requirements for the technical approach do require the manpower matrices.

Will the Government please confirm that the manpower matrices can be included as part of the staffing plan?

Manpower matrices can be included as part of the staffing plan.

32. Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions

Pages 75-76, Section M.3 Factor # 2a and Pages 86-87

METHODOLOGY Q-3: Section M, Evaluation Factor #2 – Technical Approach starts with c. Contract Transition and the next criteria on page 86 are:

a. Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions and b. Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes for Training Rotations.

See Amendment 0006, Section M has been revised.

These items appear out of sequence, or information may be missing.

Should these items be changed to d. and e., respectively since they follow c?

33. Pages 75-76 Section M.3 Factor # 2 a i and pages 86-87.

METHODOLOGY Q-4: Section M states “Evaluation includes the methodology used to determine the staffing proposed for each function of the PWS (the type, number of personnel proposed, and the level-of-effort proposed for each labor category), and the demonstrated an understanding of the link between the staffing proposed and the requirements of the PWS …” There appear to be missing or extra words in this statement.

Will the Government please clarify?

See Amendment 0006, Section M has been revised to read “Evaluation includes the methodology used to determine the staffing proposed for each function of the PWS (the type, number of personnel proposed, and the level-of-effort proposed for each labor category), and demonstration of an understanding of the link between the staffing proposed and the requirements of the PWS …”

34. Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions

Pg. 75-76 L Tab F2 g

Pg. 86-87 M.3 Factor # 2 a

METHODOLOGY Q-5: Section L states “The methodology must also identify why the personnel proposed are best qualified to accomplish the task based on the identified knowledge, skills, security clearances, education, and experience requirements.” and “identify the qualifications (i.e., certifications, education, knowledge, skills and/or experience) of proposed personnel functional categories.”

It is not clear whether “personnel” refers to named individuals or to positions.

Will the Government please confirm that both of these requirements refer to labor

These requirements refer to labor category qualifications.

category qualifications vs. actual individual named personnel?

35. Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions

Pages 75-76, Section L Tab F2 g and

Pages 86-87 Section M.33 Factor # 2 a

METHODOLOGY Q-8: Section L requires “the technical approach for how Base Support Functions will be accomplished” including detailed information such as how work will be performed, automated systems or work-loading procedures, proposed work processes, a timeline, approaches, process interfaces, innovations, and performance plans.

Section M evaluates the “understanding of contractual requirements and the adequacy of the corresponding plan to fulfill those performance requirements for each core support functional task area.”

The language in Section M refers to “core” and not “Base” functional areas, and also uses language that differs significantly from the instruction in Section L.

Will the Government please confirm that the Government requires a detailed approach for each of the 14 functional areas?

See Amendment 0006, Sections L & M have been revised. A detailed approach is required for each of the 14 functional areas outlined in sections C.5.1 – C.5.14 of the PWS.

36. Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions

METHODOLOGY Q-9: Section M evaluates the “understanding of contractual requirements and the adequacy of the corresponding plan to fulfill those performance requirements

See Amendment 0006, The word “core” was revised to read “base”.

Pages 75-76, Section M.3 Factor # 2 a. and pages 86- 87.

for each core support functional task area.” The term “Core Support Functions” was replaced “Base Support Functions” in the PWS. Will the Government please change “core” to “base” to reflect the change between the draft and final PWS?

37. Pages 75-76, Section L Tab F2 g and

Section M.3 Factor #2 a

METHODOLOGY Q-10: Section L requires demonstration of a “clear understanding of the staffing resource requirements and a corresponding plan to fulfill those resource requirements” but Section M evaluates “understanding of contractual requirements and the adequacy of the corresponding plan to fulfill those performance requirements for each core support functional task area.”

These instructions seem inconsistent in referring to “staffing resource requirements” versus “contractual requirements” versus “performance requirements” for each support function.

Will the Government please clarify and make Section L and Section M consistent in terms of resource requirements vs. contractual requirements vs. performance requirements?

See Amendment 0006, the word “contractual” was revised to read “staffing and performance”.

38. Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes for Training Rotations

Should Tab F2 (a) Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes for Training Rotations be changed to (h) to follow previous requirement (g)

See Amendment 0006, Section have been renumbered.

Pages 75-76, Section L Tab F2 g and

Pages 86-87, Section M.3.

Factor # 2 a

Methodology for Accomplishing Base Support Functions?

39. Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes for Training Rotations.

Technical Exhibit A: Sample Vignettes;

Page 76, Section L Tab F2 a, Page 87

M.3 Factor # 2b, 1 Instruction for

Vignettes, and 4 Vignette I

Technical Exhibit A – Sample Training Vignettes starts out addressing only role players and the “number of role players (excluding supervision) that can be supported (12 hours per day) within the 96,928 hours available after accounting for all other support staff.”

However, later in Exhibit A it states “Request contractor provide a proposal with methodology and cost to accomplish a rotation from cradle to grave based on the following information …”

This description sounds as if a methodology for a complete rotation is required with all applicable rotational support from any and all base functional areas.

Also Section M (3) Evaluation Factor #2

– Technical Approach (b) Methodology for Accomplishing Sample Vignettes states: “Each proposal will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the contractual requirements and a corresponding plan to fulfill those performance requirements in the most effective and efficient manner possible for each rotational

Vignettes have been updated to TE A-1, Standard Rotation and TE A-2, MRE.

The following statement “Request contractor provide a proposal with methodology and cost to accomplish a rotation from cradle to grave based on the following information …” has been removed from the Vignettes.

PWS paragraph C.5.11.1. has been revised to read, “C.5.11.1 General. In addition to all other personnel in this section, the Contractor shall provide up to 969,280 role play labor hours during the contract year. The Government anticipates each of the projected rotations to be executed using approximately 96,928 hours (includes role players and support staff) based on a standard rotational exercise.”

The scope of the response required is to include role players and support staff.

support functional task area” which implies that the vignette should address all rotational functional area.

Will the Government please clarify the scope of the response required? Is the response required to include:

• All functional areas? or

• Only rotational functions directly involved in supporting the exercise? or

• Rotational functions as defined by PWS C.1.3.2.1 Standard Rotational Exercises (Support for these exercises typically includes scenario, video, MILES, joint operations center (JOC) and role players.)? or

Only role play activity (PWS 5.11)?

40. Technical Exhibit

A: Sample Vignettes Page 1, Paragraph 1, I-m, Group 1 & 2 RPs.

Do the requirements on Exhibit A page 1 for the number of general and special role players specified in RFP items l & m apply to both sample vignettes?

Vignettes have been updated. Please see TE A-1 and TE A-2. The Vignettes have different requirements.

41. Technical Exhibit A: Sample Vignettes Page 2, Paragraph 1, a-m, Rotational Schedule and CRP requirements

One part of the requirements on pages 2 and 3 starting in the middle of the paragraph state “In addition to a 42.standard rotation, the Government anticipates an additional LOE of 49,359 to support a special rotation. These requirements are an addition to the standard rotational requirements and

Vignettes have been updated. Please see TE A-1 for Standard Rotation Vignette and TE A-2 for Mission Rehearsal Exercise Vignette.

shall be costed separately based on the following:”

Will the Government please confirm that this statement, and items a.-m. that follow, apply to only Vignette 2/Special Rotation/MRE and not Vignette 1?

42. Technical Exhibit A: Sample Vignettes, Page 2, Paragraph 1, Additional LOE supporting a special rotation.

Will the Government please clarify what is included in the “additional LOE of 49,359” support a special rotation? Is this for only role play hours and support (as was defined for the 96,928 hours) or is it for all additional effort required for the MRE as defining in PWS C.1.3.2.2 where it states “The additions will be identified by the Government on a case by case basis (driven by FORSCOM training guidance and individual RTU training requirements) and may be in the form of additional role players, cultural role players, extended live fire exercises, additional fire markers and MILES support.”?

If the latter, will the Government please provide a historical breakdown for the hours?

Vignettes have been updated. The “additional LOE of 49,359” has been removed. Please see TE A-1 and TE A-2 for updated vignettes. Additional historical data is not available.

43. Technical, Page 2 & 5, Exhibit A: Sample Vignettes, Paragraphs a-h and P.5 a-h, Rotational Dates

Both of the sets of dates cited in the Sample Vignette Exhibit are exactly the same. Is this a typo? Is there a difference in the dates and the rotational laydown of a standard rotation (DATE) and a special rotation – MRE? Will the Government please explain any differences in dates and specific

Vignettes have been updated. Please see TE A-1 and TE A-2 for updated vignettes. Dates have also been updated within both vignettes. Please see updated vignettes for differences in the rotational laydown.

differences in the rotational laydown that is required to be addressed in the two sample vignettes?

44. TE B – exhibit #5, page 11, Line 17-19, GFP/GFE

The referenced exhibit indicates that there are three (3) buses accounted for as GFE. However, this number appears to be lower than the number of buses needed to meet requirements. We also understand that a larger number of buses have been used from time to time.

Will the Government please confirm the number of buses being provided as GFP/GFE, and whether or not the Government expects the contractor to provide additional buses?

TE B – Exhibit #5 will be updated and provided via amendment.

45. Pg. 44 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires.

Will the Government please provide the applicable wage determinations for this effort, as well as the conformance for the Role Player labor category that is in use on the current contract and approved by the Department of Labor? The Department of Labor does not appear to list the Role Player labor category in its Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations.

Please see response to Question #5.

46. Technical Exhibit B13 Pg. 1 Preamble

Employees currently covered under a

CBA.

Are only the BFE technicians currently under a collective bargaining agreement

The labor categories listed in the CBA are the labor categories that are currently covered under the CBA. If labor categories aren’t listed in the CBA, then they are not under the CBA. See TE B Collective Bargaining Agreement – Exhibit #13.

or are there other employees covered by a CBA performing work under the JRTC MSS contract?

47. Past Performance

Pages 76-77 Section L.

Volume III: Evaluation Factor # 3 and pages 88-89, Section M Factor # 3

The 3-page limit added to the Final RFP for each individual contract reference does not provide enough space to adequately describe relevance and performance on complex contracts that may address many or all of the 14 functional areas.

Section L requires the identification of “the associated tasks from the PWS represented by each project” and requires “include contracts from teaming partners that demonstrate the capability to meet one or more of the PWS functional areas.” For each contract, Section L states “include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation.”

Section L also requires quality of performance information, and Section M evaluates objectives achieved, and issues and resolutions. To provide all this information in a meaningful way with specifics will require more than 3 pages.

Will the Government please change the page limit for each Specific Relevant Contract to 6 pages? The Draft RFP specified no page limits for this volume.

See Amendment 0006, The number of pages per reference has been revised to read 6 pages.

48. Past Performance

Page 76 of 81 and Section L & Section M

In Section L, the instructions for Tab C state: “The Offeror shall include a summary describing the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner.

The summary shall include any contractor for which Past Performance Information was submitted. The summary shall also include a cross-reference matrix depicting the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner with reference to the past performance projects cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the PWS represented by each project.” Tab G instructions state, in part: “Past Performance information may be submitted for any other subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that demonstrates the Offeror’s capability to meet one or more of the PWS functional areas.”

The Section M evaluation criteria for the Relevancy Assessment states: “To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size and complexity. The Government has defined relevance as experience in training senior leaders, scenario development, managing multi-faceted logistical services, and providing and managing role players.

The instructions in Section L and the relevancy assessment in Section M appear to be inconsistent. Sectional L defines relevance as similar in nature, See Amendment 0006, Section L Factor 3 Tab G is corrected to reflect the PWS functional areas.

Section M Factor 3a.ii. was updated to reflect the PWS functional areas in lieu of the four named functional areas.

size and complexity to any of the work required by the PWS. Section M defines relevance as only four functional areas.

We request that the Government expand the relevancy criteria to address the full scope of all 14 functional areas.

Alternatively the Government could clarify that relevance information is required for all applicable functional areas, but the four named areas will be rated more highly. We provide below the specific language that appears inconsistent.

49. Page 76 of 81, Section L and M, Past Performance With nearly two years elapsed time between the release of the Draft RFP and the release of the final RFP, contracts that were sufficiently recent at draft RFP issuance and even one year later are now no longer recent in view of this statement: “The Offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than three years from the date of solicitation issuance for the submitted data.”

Will the Government please revise this statement to accept contracts that go back up to four years rather than three years?

The Government requires the relevant past performance data to be no more than three (3) years from the date of solicitation issuance.

50. 76 of 81 Section L Proposal Preparation Instructions; TAB C Small Business Participation Plan.

The Government will not add the category small non-disadvantaged as there is no such socio economic category. Item iv. includes an overall category for “Small Business,” from which the Government can extrapolate small business effort

Item iv. lists multiple business categories for which offerors are to propose the total dollar value of subcontracted efforts and the percentage that dollar value represents of the total contract. This list does not include small non-disadvantaged businesses. As a result, the data entered for the individual small business categories that are listed will not add up to the total entered for “small business”.

Will the Government please add the category “small non-disadvantaged” so that the data provided adds up to the total entered for “small business” and is easily confirmed against the dollar values provided in the cost volume?

that is not further specified below it. Additionally, see Amendment 0006, Non-Dis-advantaged has been removed.

51. Page 78 of 81, Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions; TAB C Small Business Participation Plan

Item vi – Prior Performance Information 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 three years since the date the solicitation was released.” The Offeror submits a high number of eSRS reports twice a year.

In order to satisfy the Governments requirement, would the Government consider ten eSRS reports that were reported in the last three years since the date the solicitation was released?

See Amendment 0006, Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions, TAB C Small Business Participation plan has been revised. The Government will accept the last 10 eSRS reports for each year of the last 3 years.

52. PWS Technical Exhibit B Support of the functional areas requires use of various systems, some of which are owned by the Government and others owned by the incumbent.

Will the Government please provide the information below to enable offerors to develop a fully responsive transition plan and plan resource levels to assume system operation where applicable and plan/implement system replacements, as applicable:

a. Identify and provide a brief description of the systems that support each functional area.

b. For each system, indicate whether it is owned by the Government and when access will be given to the contractor.

c. For systems not owned by the Government, please identify functions and/or activities supported, whether access will be provided to the contractor after award, and the timing of such access if applicable. If access will not be provided, please indicate the extent to which the data contained in the system will be provided to the contractor in electronic form, and timing.

There are no systems within the functional areas that are owned by the incumbent. The Mission Support Contractor is an end user of any system within the functional areas that are provided to them by the Government. These systems will be available upon award to the contractor.

See Amendment 0006 TE G for list of programs.

53. SFA and JSFA Course

PWS Technical Exhibit B, Pgs.134-136

Will the Government please explain the perceived incongruity between PWS paragraphs C.5.12.3 & C.5.12.4 that state RP requirements for Security

The PWS paragraphs are correct as written.

C.5.12.3&C.2.12.4 Forces Assistant course (SFA) and the Joint Security Forces Assistance Forces (JSFA) course as group 3 type 2 role players and PWS paragraphs C.5.12.6.2 & C.5.12.7.2 (both Description & Workload (pg 137)) that describe role requirements that exceed Group 3, Type 2 and appear to belong within Group 3, Types 3 and 4?

54. Pg. 71 of 167 Para.

C.5.2.2.2 Logistics and Property Management

The Description/Workload paragraph states the current property system for government furnished property (GFP) is Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced (PBUSE). Most of the U.S. Army transitioned property accountability to the new Global Combat Support System

– Army (GCCS-Army).

Will the Government please clarify if JRTC will still use PBUSE during the contract’s period of performance or if they have in fact migrated/will migrate to GCCS-Army?

Offerors are to follow what is stated in Section C5.2.2.2 as PBUSE is a part of the GCCS-Army.

55. PWS Technical Exhibit B Pg. 73 C.5.2.6 Material Procurement

This section…