I_A_07_Attach10_BRAC_PM_W9124J-18-R-0001_Q&A_19_July_2018.pdf

No Solicitation

Document

Pag e

No

Question/Concern Response

1 Attach1__BR

AC_PM_LSI

A_PWS_2018

-05-29

Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

- The solicitation appears to contain inconsistencies with regard to the period of performance.

-Attach 1 - PWS states "The anticipated period of performance (POP) shall consist of a one-month phase-in period followed by an 11-month base period, plus four 12-month option periods (to include a one-month phase-out period if required)."

-Attach 9, Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form states, "B. The ordering period of performance for this contract is 1 December 2018 through 30 November 2021."

-Attach 9, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices indicates labor quantities of 36 months

-Attach 9, Section L, Volume III - Cost/Price indicates a "3 year ordering period"

-Attach 1 - PWS, Estimated Workload Data identifies a potential five-year period of performance.

-Attach 9, 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract on page

52 of the solicitation indicates a total duration of the contract, including optional periods, not to exceed 60 months.

Would the government please confirm that the ordering period is 3 years?

Attachment 1: amendment to read: The anticipated period of performance (POP) shall consist of a one-month phase-in period followed by a 35-month base ordering period, (to include a one-month phase-out period if required).

Additionally, the Government reserves the right to extend the term of the contract in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8, Option to

Extend Services. The optional task at paragraph 5.9 may be implemented at any time during the POP, and may be exercised more than once (see Technical Exhibit 3). The level of effort upon execution may be less than the full amount indicated in the technical exhibit.

If a phase-out is required, then FAR clause 52.237-3, Continuity of Services, will be utilized.

Attachment 9: ordering period will be 36 months, “1

December 2018 through 30 November 2021."

52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, …not to exceed 36 months.

2 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

2 The RFP states, "4. Type of Services. The type of services sought under this solicitation are commercial."

1. Would the Government please confirm that this should state "non-commercial?"

2. If this is revised to "non-commercial," can the Government please also confirm that the FAR clauses dealing with commercial services will be removed?

Type of services are considered commercial in nature.

3 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

77 Attach 9, Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders requires 1 "sanitized" copy of Volume I - Technical. Would the

Response: "sanitized" is defined as redaction of the offeror's company name and logo.

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

government please confirm that "sanitized" is defined as redaction of the offeror's company name and logo?

4 Attach9_W91

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

78 p. 77 states that Volume I - Technical is limited to 40 pages. However,

p. 78 states 30 pages. Can the Government please confirm that the page limit is 40 pages for Volume I?

Volume IV has a 30 page limit for, Small Business

Participation only. Volume 1 technical is 40 pages

5 Attach9_W91

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

74, Attach 9, Section L, p. 74 requires proposals via email and states "Do not submit compact disks or digital video discs; the email transmittal with attachments shall comprise your official, complete submittal."

-Attach 9, Section L, Volume III - Cost/Price, p. 82 states, "All information relating to the proposed price must be included in both hard copy and electronic format. Electronic versions of the Cost/Price proposal shall be submitted on a CD-ROM in a format compatible with

Microsoft Office as further delineated below, and files should not be read only or password protected."

Would the government please confirm that proposals should be submitted via email only?

Amendment will correct errors concerning hard copy or

CD submission, Offerors shall submit one complete electronic copy of all volumes via email.

6 Attach9_W91

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

80 The instructions state that Volume II - Past Performance "shall be organized into five sections." However, the following instructions appear to identify the following three sections:

-Contract Descriptions

-Narrative

-Past Performance Questionnaire POC List

Would the Government please confirm that these three sections are the only sections required to be included in Volume II - Past Performance?

Amendment will correct to four sections

7 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

82 Attach 9, Section L, Volume III - Cost/Price, states the following:

-p. 82: "If a material handling rate or G&A rate will be applicable to the

NTE CLINs, provide the rate with your proposal, which will then become part of the contract."

-p. 82: "For the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) CLINS, which are 0003, 0006 use the Government provided NTE amount. If a material handling rate

Offerors shall not add burden/fee to the NTE amounts.

Section L, Volume III – Cost/Price will be edited to reflect

it. After the award, the invoicing instructions for CLIN descriptions for 0003 and 0006 are in the CLIN description in RFP as follows: “No indirect cost or fee are allowed.

The Contractor shall obtain prior approval from the or G&A rate will be applicable to the NTE CLINs, provide the rate with your proposal, which will then become part of the contract. Also note that fee will not be applicable to these NTE CLINs.”

-p. 83: "These estimated costs shall be presumed to include General and

Administrative (G&A) or any other indirect cost, if applicable."

However, the instructions for CLIN 0003 and 0006 in Section B state, “No indirect cost or fee are allowed.”

Would the government please confirm that in Section B, “No indirect cost or fee are allowed.” should be changed to "These estimated costs shall be presumed to include General and Administrative (G&A) or any other indirect cost, if applicable. Offerors shall not add burden/fee to the NTE amounts”?

Contracting Officer before any travel costs are incurred.

The travel costs incurred for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses (as defined in the regulations) shall be considered reasonable and allowable only to the extent that they do not exceed the amounts allowed in accordance with FAR

31.205-46(a)(2). When submitting invoices for this CLIN, the Contractor shall provide documentation supporting the actual travel costs incurred. “

8 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

82 The SF 33 and Section B are currently required in both Volume III and

Volume V. Would the government please confirm that this is intentional?

Yes, pricing shall be included in section B of the SF 33 in

Volume V and Volume III using attachment 8.

9 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

87 Attach 9, Section L, Volume V - General, first paragraph, states, "The

General volume shall contain the completed SF 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, Sections A - Solicitation/Contract Form, B - Supplies or

Services and Prices, G - Contract Administration Data, and K -

Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors."

The subsequent instructions for Volume V, Section 2 - Representations and Certifications do not reference Section G. Would the government please clarify whether Section G should be included in Volume V?

Include Section G if not in System for Award Management

(SAM), Section 2, Volume V must be adhered to.

10 Attach1__BR

AC_PM_LSI

47, CLIN 0005 is identified as FFP. However, Section 5.9 of the PWS indicates that this task is a "Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Optional Task."

Because the magnitude and scope of the LSIA task are not fully defined at this stage, it is not feasible to accurately develop a Firm-Fixed Price.

Would the government please confirm that CLIN 0005 should be revised to reflect "CPFF"?

The FFP would be labor categories as used in the Program

Management/BRAC Support CLIN 0002. A request for task order proposal (RTOP) would be issued and the FFP labor prices would be used unless additional labor categories are required.

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

11 Attach1__BR

AC_PM_LSI

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

47, Would the government please advise whether pricing for the Optional

LSIA task (CLIN 0005 and PWS Section 5.9) should be based on a client site or corporate site location?

Optional task area, will be awarded using an RTOP once a requirement is identified.

12 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

2, Attach 9, Section A, states, "the ceiling for all task orders awarded as a result of this contract is $41,000,000."

Attach 9, Section I, indicates a maximum order for "a single item in excess of $20,000,000" as well as "any order for a combination of items in excess of $20,000,000".

Would the government please confirm that these statements are not in conflict with the CLIN structure and expectations for task order awards?

Section A language remains the same "the ceiling for all task orders awarded as a result of this contract is

$41,000,000.

Section I language ( 52.216-19) will be edited as follows:

(1) Any order for a single item in excess of $4,000,000 for CLINs 0001 through 0004; any order for a single item in excess of $17,000,000 for CLINs

0005 through 0006;

(2) (2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of $21,000,000

13 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

37 Attach 9, Section I, indicates a payment schedule for "Work performed.

The Government will pay the Contractor as follows upon the submission of commercial invoices approved by the Contracting

Officer:

(i) Hourly rate.

(A) The amounts shall be computed by multiplying the appropriate hourly rates prescribed in the contract by the number of direct labor hours performed. Fractional parts of an hour shall be payable on a prorated basis."

This language is more consistent with a time-and-materials type order than an FFP-type order. Would the Government please clarify the anticipated invoicing instructions for the various FFP and T&M

CLINs?

The language cited is a standard general language directly from FAR 52.212-4 for commercial clauses. FAR 52.212-4 will remain. The clarify the invoicing, the government will:

1) Delete the paragraph “Invoicing Instructions” from page 13 of 101

2) Insert DFARS 252.232-7006 WIDE AREA

WORKFLOW PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS

(MAY 2013).

3) For Time-and Material CLINs 0003 and 0006, the instructions are given in the CLIN description as follows: “No indirect costs or fee are allowed. The

Contractor shall obtain prior approval from the

Contracting Officer before any travel costs are incurred. The travel costs incurred for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses (as defined in the regulations) shall be considered reasonable and allowable only to the extent that they do not exceed the amounts allowed in accordance with FAR

31.205-46(a)(2). When submitting invoices for this

CLIN, the Contractor shall provide documentation supporting the actual travel costs incurred”.

14 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

0001_BRAC_

PM_&_LSIA

99 Can the Government please clarify how they intend to assess reasonableness and balanced pricing for the Cost/Price Factor, given that there are few details required to support the primary services effort being priced in CLIN 0002? Would the Government consider including a requirement to identify staffing and labor rates in the price narrative to support the FFP buildup for CLIN 0002?

See Tech Exhibit # 3 in the end of the PWS for the historical manpower hours.

15 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

001_BRAC_P

M_&_LSIA

80 States Offerors shall submit the following information for no more than ten recent (within the past three years) and relevant contracts.

Given that the last BRAC round was in 2005 and other services have conveyed most of their property it will limit competition to restrict past performance to 3 years. Request an increase in the past performance age

It is the contracting Officer’s decision to limit past performance for last three (3) years.

16 Attach9_W91

24J-18-R-

001_BRAC_P

M_&_LSIA

84 Minimum total contract value goals.

Socio-economic category % SB

Participation goal Small Business (SB) 9

Small Disadvantage Business

(SDB)

0.5

Women-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

Historically Underutilized

Business Zone (HUBZone)

Small Business

0.2

Veteran Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

1) The Government will not provide the incumbent contract current small business breakout.

2) It is the Contracting Officer’s decision do not review the table. The table has been developed in collaboration with MICC-FSH Small Business

Specialist.

Service-Disabled Veteran-

Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

The minimum goals as laid out appear to favor the incumbent with this mix of percentages. Please provide the incumbent contract current small business breakout. Suggest revising this table to simplify the goals and allow flexibility that will increase competition on this RFP.

17 - - From Justification Review Document, Control No: 2018-15 dated 6

Dec 2017. We teamed with a large business on the September 2017

Sources Sought. It was documented in the J&A that we “did not demonstrate requisite past performance, qualifications, and capabilities to perform all BRAC PWS Tasks.” We believe this response was done to simply retain the incumbent contractor with the bridge contract. Our company past performance includes support to another DoD service

BRAC headquarters office, providing nearly 60-staff and a more expansive set of requirements than the Army PWS. Our large teaming partner has over 15 years Army headquarters experience as well as

DoD large scale infrastructure analysis.

What will contracting do to ensure a fair evaluation of our proposal versus the incumbent contractor’s proposal?

All evaluation criteria are spelled out in the solicitation.

The Government will adhere to the evaluation criteria to ensure a fair evaluation of all proposals.

18 - - From Justification Review Document, Control No: 2018-15 dated 6

Dec 2017 and previous J&As. The incumbent contract was supposed to end in December 2015 and be competitively sourced. Over the period of the past two plus years the Army has implemented J&As to extend the contract and then justify a sole source bridge contract. In reading the J&A determinations the Army has determined that although over 20 companies responded to multiple sources sought requests that only

Calibre is capable of perform Army BRAC work.

What will be done in the evaluation of this proposal to ensure contractors are fairly evaluated?

All evaluation criteria are spelled out in the solicitation.

The Government will adhere to the evaluation criteria to ensure a fair evaluation of all proposals.

19 PWS 1.6.6.1 3 All Contractor employees, whether on-site or field personnel performing work in support of this contract, shall have been granted a

SECRET security clearance from the Defense Industrial Security

Paragraph PWS 1.6.6.1 will be edited to match Section A

(pp 2-3) of the solicitation as follows:

Clearance Office (DISCO) at time of the proposal submission, and shall maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract. This will not be a limiting factor – contractor personnel may work under an interim clearance if need be, but the Government would prefer this to be the exception and not the standard.

This paragraph is confusing. It indicates SECRET clearances are required at the time of proposal. This appears to limit competition and favor the incumbent. Will the evaluation weighting favor proposed staff with SECRET clearances?

1.6.6.1 The Facility Clearance Level for this PWS is

Secret. Offeror’s must have a Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission.

1.6.6.2 All personnel must have as a minimum an interim

SECRET security clearance at the time of the proposal submission, and shall attain/maintain the required level of security required for the life of the contract.

20 PWS 5.2.2

and 5.2.3

27 BRAC Financial Management (BRAC FM) as noted in 5.2.3 below.

5.2.3 The Contractor shall use the BRAC Financial Management tool.

This is an Excel-based tool which supports the following:

The text in 5.2.2 states that minimum qualifications for BEC support includes use of BRAC Financial Management tool. This appears to be a proprietary tool only the incumbent has experience with. This appears to limit competition.

BRAC FM is an Army system; winning offeror will be provided access as appropriate.

21 PWS 5.3.2 27 The Contractor BECs have a requirement for Army Financial Module and Repository of Environmental Army Documents Module (READ).

This language appears to limit competition to the incumbent contractor.

Suggest revision to include similar systems within DoD.

READ is an Army wide system, it is not limiting to the incumbent. READ is open source (publically accessible) and is from the Army’s environmental proponent.

22 PWS 5.3.3.1 30 The URL provided, http://www.hqda.pentagon.mil/acsimweb/brac/conveyance_Status.html does not resolve. Please provide valid URL.

The updated link is http://www.acsim.army.mil/brac/

23 PWS 5.3.3.2

and 5.3.3.3

30 The terms “BEC support” and “support to government BECs”. These two terms appear to be the same thing. It appears 5.3.3.2 is for

Contractor BECs. Please provide clarification.

These are 2 different things. As the names should indicate the BEC support is a standalone position and the support to a government BEC is a support role to a designated

Government BEC.

24 PWS 5.3.3.2

and 5.3.3.3

30 These sections require BEC support for approximately 29 locations.

The LOE for BRAC Environmental Coordinators is approximately 7

FTEs. There are 29 installations to support. Please provide the working location of incumbent staff. Without this disclosure, this

Pending http://www.hqda.pentagon.mil/acsimweb/brac/conveyance_Status.html http://www.acsim.army.mil/brac/ solicitation appears to limit competition as only the incumbent knows where staff are located to support these installations.

25 PWS 5.9 47 Support for Large Scale Infrastructure Analysis/Army Basing Study

(Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Optional Task).

Inclusion of this optional task seems premature given the lack of desire by DoD to pursue another BRAC round in the near future. This also limits competition as only the incumbent and a very few large companies have past performance for Large Scale Infrastructure

Analysis. Suggest removing this optional task from the RFP to increase the number of bidders for this RFP.

1) Language “Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Optional Task” will be deleted from the PWS. It is IDIQ with

Firm-Fixed-Priced and Time-and Material CLINs.

2) Large Scale Infrastructure Analysis/Army Basing

Study task will remain in the PWS.

3) If utilized, it will be a Firm-Fixed-Priced Task

Order.

26 PWS 5.9 47 Support for Large Scale Infrastructure Analysis/Army Basing Study

(Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Optional Task).

Question related to past performance – Page 80 of “Attach9_W9124J-

18-R-001_BRAC_PM_&_LSIA” states Offerors shall submit the following information for no more than ten recent (within the past three years) and relevant contracts.

Given that the last BRAC Round was 2005, the number of companies with large scale infrastructure analysis related to DoD or the Army is very limited.

1) Language “Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Optional Task” will be deleted from the PWS. It is IDIQ with Firm-

Fixed-Priced and Time-and Material CLINs.

2) Large Scale Infrastructure Analysis/Army Basing

Study task will remain in the PWS.

3) There have been large scale infrastructure actions since the last BRAC round. DoD has conducted large-scale infrastructure analysis and consolidation actions since

2005. OSD lead a DoD-wide European Infrastructure

Consolidation action in the 2013-2015 timeframe that used many of the same techniques and procedures as those used during prior BRAC rounds.