Attachment 07 QA_BRAC PM LSIA_16 Sept 2021.pdf

Attachment 07 W9124J-21-R-0023

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program Management (PM) Support for Large Scale Infrastructure Analysis (LSIA) Services

Request for Proposal (RFP) - Solicitation Questions/Answers Matrix

QUESTION

NO.

SOLICITATION

PAGE NO.

RFP REFERENCE

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE

59 of 70 Section B General Instructions, Subsection 1: “This acquisition is a Full and Open Competition under NAICS 541618, Other Management Consulting Services. Only Firms not exceeding the revenue size standard of $16.5M are eligible to submit an offer.”

The referenced language appears to be contradictory. Can the government confirm that the second sentence is an error—i.e., that the RFP is indeed an unrestricted acquisition as stated on page 1 of the solicitation, and that competition is not limited to just firms that do not exceed the $16.5M size standard for

NAICS 541618?

The RPF language is correct.

Competition is not limited to just firms that do not exceed the $16.5M size standard for

NAICS 541618.

The SF 1449 requires putting a NAICS code and the size standard in Block 10 for all acquisitions. W9124J-21-R- 0023 is not set aside. As result, Block 10 says “unrestricted”.

2 Solicitation page PWS page 6

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 2:

“Responses to this subfactor must demonstrate Offeror’s understanding of the necessary qualifications required of personnel to adequately execute the requirements of the PWS 1.6.13.”

PWS 1.6.13 states all Contractor employees must identify themselves as such and mark Contractor documents and reports as such. Did the Government intend to refer to a different section of the PWS that list

Yes, it is the reference to PWS

1.6.27. Key Personnel.

requirements that personnel must be qualified to execute?

3 Solicitation p. 59 of 70

PWS page 1

A. Basis for Award: “1. … Award will be made to a single Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications) and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation represents the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Offer.”

PWS 1. General: “This is a non-personal services contract to provide professional services in program management, technical and policy advice, recommendations, and support with proven experience and expertise in Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions.”

PWS 1.1 Description of Services/Introduction: “The BRAC program entails the integration of many disparate program functions to support an aggressive mission and schedule for BRAC closed installations, and Non-BRAC Excess Property sites. The Contractor shall integrate and analyze the various functions associated with cost, scope, and scheduling which include real property disposition, and environmental remediation activities.”

Will the Government consider using a best value tradeoff source selection process instead of a LPTA source selection process, given that the description of services to be provided do not align with a LPTA procurement?

No, the selection process remains as the LPTA.

4 Solicitation page

PWS page 28

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 2:

“Responses to this subfactor must demonstrate Offeror’s understanding of the necessary qualifications required of personnel to adequately execute the requirements of the PWS 1.6.13. (i) … Resumes shall demonstrate relevant experience associated with the position being fulfilled IAW PWS 1.6.27, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4.

PWS 5.3.2: “Contractor BECs shall have the following minimum qualifications...

Five years DoD environmental experience (prefer ten years DoD experience)”

The solicitation documents use the terms “necessary”, “minimum”, and “prefer” when addressing BRAC Environmental Coordinators. Can the government confirm that in order to meet the acceptability standard the level of qualification for BRAC Environmental Coordinators is the preferred level of experience (i.e., 10 years DoD experience)?

PWS 5.3.2 has been edited with track changes to clarify the language.

5 Solicitation pages 63-64 of 70 PWS page 43

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 1:

“Responses to this subfactor must demonstrate understanding of the tasks outlined in the PWS. At a minimum, the proposal must demonstrate and address each of the following specified requirements:

(iv) Explosive Safety: the proposal shall provide evidence and a detailed description of the Offeror’s knowledge, experience, capabilities and personnel to support military munitions and explosives programs IAW

PWS 5.5.

5.5.1: “The expertise shall include in-depth understanding and proficiency of all munitions policy and procedures in support of the Army’s execution of the BRAC

The solicitation documents use the terms “minimum”, and “preferred” when addressing Explosive Safety personnel. Can the government confirm that in order to meet the acceptability standard the level of qualification for Explosive Safety personnel is the preferred level of experience (i.e., experience at an ammunition depot and experience with the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) in addition to

PWS 5.5.1 has been edited the language.

Program. Personnel will possess as a minimum a bachelor’s degree from a fully accredited university. Senior level DoD/Army Staff experience required, experience at an ammunition depot and experience with the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) preferred.”

Senior level DoD/Army Staff experience)?

6 Solicitation page 63-64 of 70 PWS page 44

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 1:

“Responses to this subfactor must demonstrate understanding of the tasks outlined in the PWS. At a minimum, the proposal must demonstrate and address each of the following specified requirements: … (vi) the proposal shall provide evidence and a detailed description of the Offeror’s knowledge, experience, capabilities and personnel to provide environmental management support IAW

PWS 5.7.

PWS 5.7.2: “Contractor environmental personnel shall be fully qualified to perform all tasks in this PWS, and shall have the following minimum qualifications and experience:

A professional degree (4-year accredited institution) in an applicable field (preferably in environmental sciences)…

Five years DoD environmental experience (prefer ten years DoD experience)

The solicitation documents use the terms “minimum”, and “preferred” when addressing Environmental Management Support.

Can the government confirm that in order to meet the acceptability standard the level of qualification for Environmental Management Support personnel is the preferred level of experience (i.e., a professional degree (4-year accredited institution) in environmental sciences;

10 years of DoD experience; and expert knowledge in the areas of environment, natural and cultural resources, general engineering, program management principals, and experience in executing large and

PWS 5.7.2 has been edited

Contractor shall have expert knowledge in the areas of environment, natural and cultural resources, general engineering, program management principals, and experience in executing large and complex multi-disciplinary actions, preferably at former DoD installations (IAW DoD and Army regulations, BRAC policies and associated governing federal law)” complex multi-disciplinary actions at former DoD installations, in addition to the other qualifications and experience listed in PWS 5.7.2)?

7 Solicitation page PWS pages 8-9, Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 2, item i:

“Provide the resumes for the key personnel, which is Program Manager (PM) and Alternate Program Manager (AltPM), Task Leads for Resource Management, BRAC Environmental Coordinators and Property Conveyance IAW PWS 1.6.27. Resumes shall contain the assigned specific duties/responsibilities and the necessary background, qualifications, and credentials to successfully accomplish the tasks within the PWS. Resumes shall demonstrate relevant experience associated with the position being fulfilled IAW PWS 1.6.27, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4”

PWS 1.6.27: “The following personnel are considered Key Personnel by the Government. As key personnel, a resume must be provided.

PROGRAM MANAGER

ALTERNATE PROGRAM

MANAGER

TASK LEADs for

RESOURCE

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 2, item i does not list the Explosive Safety Expert as Key Personnel, but PWS

1.6.27 does. PWS 5.5.1 describes specific required qualifications for the Explosive Safety expert that can only be conveyed in a resume.

Can the government clarify and confirm that the Explosive Safety Expert is also a key personnel and should be listed in Subfactor 2 of the instructions and evaluation criteria?

The Explosive Safety Expert is listed in 1.6.27 as key personnel and as such a resume is required.

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 2 has been edited.

MANAGEMENT;

BRAC

ENVIRONMENTAL

COORDINATORS;

and PROPERTY CONVEYANCE (for qualifications, see paragraphs 5.2.11;

5.3.3; and 5.4.1)

EXPLOSIVE SAFETY EXPERT

(for qualifications, see paragraph 5.5.1)

PWS 5.5.1: “The Contractor shall provide senior-level expertise in military munitions and explosives programs for Army BRAC (ODB). The expertise shall include in-depth understanding and proficiency of all munitions policy and procedures in support of the Army’s execution of the BRAC Program. Personnel will possess as a minimum a bachelor’s degree from a fully accredited university. Senior level DoD/Army Staff experience required, experience at an ammunition depot and experience with the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) preferred. Resume required for explosive safety personnel.”

8 Solicitation pages 66, 70 of 70 Attachment 04 Pricing Matrix

Evaluation Criteria, Factor 3 – Price. “Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404- 1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced. The

The Pricing Matrix excel workbook requires “topline” Firm Fixed Price data by CLIN. In an LPTA evaluation of Price, this can mask the underlying staffing mix

No, the Government will not consider evaluating the proposals for price realism.

Pricing matrix remains the same. As per Subfactor 2 (ii) “the offeror shall submit offeror’s total proposed price and each CLIN will be evaluated for reasonableness, and balance.”

(d) Volume IV—Price Instructions: “The Offeror shall submit prices for the BRAC PM & LSIA services as identified in the Solicitation Attachment 04 - Pricing Matrix.”

and LOEs of each labor category by bidders upon which the FFP is based. In combination with the lack of a requirement for a management plan in the technical proposal, this may lead to an extremely low price bid that will be difficult to staff and execute against the PWS requirements. Will the Government consider evaluating proposals for price realism, and requiring a breakout of labor categories, rates, and hours to allow for an accurate evaluation of price realism, as well as enable a review for completeness/accuracy and unbalanced pricing for price reasonableness?

Staffing Plan and estimated hours of the proposed personnel to adequately minimize risk and successfully complete the requirements of the PWS”.

9 Solicitation page

A. Basis for Award; Section 2: “The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques.”

Given the level of technical expertise and location-based and site-specific support required to provide the services in the PWS, will the Government consider including price realism as part of the price evaluation criteria, especially if no trade-offs

Price realism is for trade of source selection. This is LPTA source selection, therefore price realism will not be used.

between cost/price and non-price/cost factors are permitted?

10 Solicitation page

B. General Instructions: “1. The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection (negotiated) procedures as delineated in FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items,” in conjunction with FAR Part 15.3, “Source Selection” as authorized in FAR 12.203 and supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS).”

Will the Government consider utilizing a Best Value Tradeoff source selection instead of a Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection, given the nature of the PWS and the special and unique skills of the staffing (education, technical experience, and Army organizational and processes experience)?

No, the Government will not consider the trade off.

11 Attachment 03 Specific Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet

Attachment 03 Specific Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet: “7. Government or Commercial Technical Representative or Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Identify in specific detail for each contract listed, why or how you consider that effort relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation. In determining relevancy, consideration should be given but not limited to such things as product/service similarity, product/service, size and complexity, contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction.”

Can the government more clearly define the “similar work” standard in more detail than “nature, size, and complexity”? For example, can the government define “similar work” as a relevant experience that addresses program management, environmental coordination, munitions and explosives of concern policy, site-specific support, installation support, general

The Government will evaluate similar work as product/service similarity, product/service, size and complexity, contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction.”.

The Government will evaluate “as whole” the content, the dollar amount and the duration of the contracts listed in the past performance volume of the proposal.

environmental clean-up efforts, and database/spreadsheet design and records management?

12 N/A Attachment 04 Pricing Matrix Ordering Periods 2 and 3 in Attachment 04 – Price Matrix, both contain CLINs for 30 day phase in periods and 11 months for BRAC PM Labor. Can the government please confirm that the Phase-in only applies to Order Period 1 and that the BRAC PM Labor CLINs for Ordering Periods 2 and 3 are a full twelve months, and modify the Pricing Matrix accordingly?

The CLIN 0001 (phase in ) for Ordering Periods 2 and 3 are a will be deleted. See the updated Attachment 04 Pricing Matrix.

13 Solicitation pages 64 and 68 of 70

Subfactor 3: Transition Plan: “Responses to this subfactor must outline the Offeror’s Quality Control Approach. Quality control is observation techniques and activities the Offeror expects to execute to fulfill requirements for quality.”

The instructions for this sub factor are not clear. It is titled Transition Plan but describes Quality Control Approach. The instructions in item i) refer to transition in order to execute parts of the PWS. The evaluation for criteria for Subfactor 3 is also titled Transition Plan but likewise describes evaluating a Quality

The language for Subfactor 3:

Transition Plan has been edited.

Control Approach. Can the government clarify if a Transition Plan or Quality Control Approach is required? Can the government clearly define the acceptable requirement for transition plan and how it will be evaluated? For example, the requirement could be to provide a complete plan for onboarding Key Personnel within two weeks of the Phase-In Period of Order Period 1;

and provide a plan for having 100% of all non- Key personnel within three weeks from the start of the Phase-In Period, as required by PWS 1.6.31.

14 Solicitation page PWS page 11

c. Subfactor 3: Transition Plan: “The proposal must outline the Offeror’s Quality Control Approach. Quality control is observation techniques and activities the Offeror expects to execute to fulfill requirements for quality. To be considered acceptable, the offer shall include:

i. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate to successfully transition into full contract performance within the designated periods IAW PWS 1.6.1, 1.6.31, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.”

It is unclear how the Government will evaluate the Transition plan in accordance with PWS 1.6.31, given that the solicitation states that offerors have to demonstrate their ability to successfully transition into full contract performance within the phase-in period, but Technical Exhibit 1 tasks

1) The language for Subfactor 3 has been edited.

2) PWS 1.6.31.2 has been edited

PWS 1.6.31.2: “The Contractor shall have 100% of Key Personnel, as referenced in paragraph 1.6.27, ready for full performance within two weeks from the start of the phase-in period. The Contractor shall have all remaining personnel ready for full performance to support all BRAC tasks (detailed in the PWS) within three weeks from the start of the phase-in period. The Contractor and contractor personnel shall be proficient with 100% of all BRAC performance requirements in the PWS and Technical Exhibit 1, and ready to commence full performance of services on the specified date.”

don’t occur until after the 30 day Phase In. Could the Government clarify?

15 Solicitation page

c. Subfactor 3: Transition Plan. “The proposal must outline the Offeror’s Quality Control Approach. Quality control is observation techniques and activities the Offeror expects to execute to fulfill requirements for quality. To be considered acceptable, the offer shall include:

i. the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate to successfully transition into full contract performance within the designated periods IAW PWS 1.6.1, 1.6.31, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.”

Will the Government consider adding PWS

1.6.27 (all sub sections) (Key Personnel), including the Explosive Safety Expert, as part of the evaluation criteria for Subfactor 3 (Transition Plan)?

The Explosive Safety Expert is listed in 1.6.27 as key personnel and as such a resume is required.

Solicitation Factor 1, Subfactor 2 has been edited.

16 PWS pages 3 and

Section 1.6.6.1: “All Contractor employees, whether on-site or field personnel performing work in support of this contract, shall have final adjudicated SECRET Clearance from the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) at time of the proposal submission, and shall maintain the level of security required for the

How will the Government evaluate this exception to a preference in an LPTA evaluation?

Section 4.2, Secret Facility Clearance, requires the Contractor

The clearance language is standard AT/OPSEC language approved by G-9 Security.

There is no exception to a preference for the clearance.

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.”

Section 4.2, Secret Facility Clearance: “The Contractor’s employees performing work in support of this contract shall have been granted a SECRET security clearance from the DISCO at the time of proposal submission.”

employees to have been granted a SECRET security clearance at the time of proposal submission, and does not mention Interim or Fully Adjudicated status. Could the Government clarify the discrepancy?

17 PWS page 10 of

Section 1.6.27.7.4: “The Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager shall have at least ten or more years recent experience…”

Since Section 1.6.27.4 includes the language “at least ten or more years” in the requirement, will the Government require some higher number of years of recent experience than 10 years; like15 years?

Including both “at least” and “or more” is unnecessary.

Alternatively, will the Government consider removing “or more years” from the section because any additional years will not considered in an LPTA evaluation?

PWS 1.6.27.7.4 has been edited with track changes to clarify the language.

18 PWS page 9 of 67 Section 1.6.27.6: “The specified experience, included as part of the required qualifications, shall have been obtained in

Since it appears that there are no areas where applicable experience is

PWS 1.6.27.6 has been edited the fields of endeavor indicated in the applicable labor categories listed below.

Unless otherwise stated, the applicable experience shall be within the last five years.”

outside the last five years, should the Government reference this section in each of the labor category qualifications for clarity and awareness?

19 PWS page 26 of

PWS page 29 of

Section 5.2.2, 1st bullet: “Bachelor of Arts or Science degree preferred…”

Section 5.3.2, 2nd bullet: “Bachelor of Arts or Science degree (preferably in environmental sciences)”

How will the Government evaluate these preferences in an LPTA environment?

Can the government confirm that in order to meet the acceptability standard the level of qualification is the preferred qualifications (i.e., Bachelor of Arts or Science degree for BRAC RM and Bachelor of Arts of Science degree in environmental sciences for BECs)?

PWS 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 have been edited with track changes to clarify the language.

20 PWS page 29 of

Section 5.3.2, 5th bullet: “Five years DoD environmental experience (prefer ten years DoD experience)”

How will the Government evaluate this preference in an LPTA environment?

Would the Government change to the higher 10 years DoD experience since it is preferred?

PWS 5.3.2 have been edited with track changes to clarify the language

21 PWS 29 of 67 Section 5.3.2, 7th bullet: “Contractor BECs shall have expert knowledge in the areas of environment, natural and cultural resources, general engineering, program management principals, and experiences in executing

How will the Government evaluate this preference in an LPTA environment?

Would the Government remove the word “preferably” from this

PWS 5.3.2 have been edited the language large and complex multi-disciplinary actions, preferably at former DoD installations…” requirement since this is

LPTA?

22 PWS page 42 – 43 of 67

Section 5.5: “The Contractor shall provide senior-level expertise in military munitions and explosives programs for Army BRAC (ODB). The expertise shall include in-depth understanding and proficiency of all munitions policy and procedures in support of the Army’s execution of the BRAC Program. Personnel will possess as a minimum a bachelor’s degree from a fully accredited university. Senior level DoD/Army Staff experience required, experience at an ammunition depot and experience with the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) preferred. Resume required for explosive safety personnel.” The qualifications for Explosive Safety do not include the number recent and relevant years of experience for the Explosive Safety expert.

Will the Government consider language less subjective than “senior-level expertise in military munitions and explosives program” and add the number of recent and relevant years of experience required for the Explosive Safety Expert?

PWS 5.5.1 have been edited the language

23 PWS page 44 of

Section 5.7.2, 1st bullet: “A professional degree (4-year accredited institution) in an applicable field (preferably in environmental sciences)”

How will the Government evaluate this preference in an LPTA environment?

Will the Government consider changing this to read “A Bachelors degree …” and remove reference to preferably in environmental sciences to clarify the evaluation requirement in this LPTA environment?

PWS 5.7.2 have been edited the language

43 PWS page 44 of

Section 5.7.2, 3rd bullet (environmental personnel): “Five years DoD environmental experience (prefer ten years DoD experience)”

How will the Government evaluate this preference in an LPTA environment?

Will the Government consider changing the requirements to ten years DoD experience since that it was is preferred?

the language

25 PWS page 44 of

Section 5.7.2, 5th bullet (environmental personnel: “Contractor shall have expert knowledge in the areas of environment, natural and cultural resources, general engineering, program management principals, and experience in executing large and complex multi-disciplinary actions, preferably at former DoD installations (IAW DoD and Army regulations, BRAC policies and associated governing federal law)”

How will the Government evaluate this preference in an LPTA environment?

Will the Government remove the word “preferably” to clarify the evaluation criteria and since experience at former DoD installations is what is preferred?

the language

26 PWS page 26 of

Section 5.2.2, 1st bullet: “Bachelor of Arts or Science degree preferred…”

Section 5.3.2, 2nd bullet: “Bachelor of Arts or Science degree (preferably in environmental sciences)”

Section 5.3.2, 5th bullet: “Five years DoD environmental experience (prefer ten years DoD experience)”

Section 5.3.2, 7th bullet: “Contractor BECs shall have expert knowledge in the areas of environment, natural and cultural resources, general engineering, program management principals, and experiences in executing

Will the Government consider changing from an LPTA evaluation to a best value tradeoff evaluation since the former cannot be used if the Government will realize value from a proposal that exceeds the minimal technical or performance requirements, and the PWS indicates the Government has a preference and would realize value from a

PWS 5.2.2, 5.3.2,5,5 and

5.7.2 have been edited with track changes to clarify the language.

PWS page 42 – 43 of 67

PWS page 44 of large and complex multi-disciplinary actions, preferably at former DoD installations…”

Section 5.5: “The Contractor shall provide senior-level expertise in military munitions and explosives programs for Army BRAC (ODB). The expertise shall include in-depth understanding and proficiency of all munitions policy and procedures in support of the Army’s execution of the BRAC Program. Personnel will possess as a minimum a bachelor’s degree from a fully accredited university. Senior level DoD/Army Staff experience required, experience at an ammunition depot and experience with the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) preferred. Resume required for explosive safety personnel.” The qualifications for Explosive Safety do not include the number recent and relevant years of experience for the Explosive Safety expert.

Section 5.7.2, 1st bullet: “A professional degree (4-year accredited institution) in an applicable field (preferably in environmental sciences)”

Section 5.7.2, 3rd bullet (environmental personnel): “Five years DoD environmental experience (prefer ten years DoD experience)”

Section 5.7.2, 5th bullet (environmental personnel: “Contractor shall have expert knowledge in the areas of environment, proposal that exceeds the minimum requirements?

natural and cultural resources, general engineering, program management principals, and experience in executing large and complex multi-disciplinary actions, preferably at former DoD installations (IAW DoD and Army regulations, BRAC policies and associated governing federal law)”

27 58 Proposal Submittal and Inquiries Page 58 states that proposals shall be submitted electronically via email whereas Page 61 states that Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically via the DOD SAFE file exchange website (safe.apps.mil) ONLY.

Which is the appropriate method of submitting a proposal?

Page 58 will be corrected to reflect that Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically via the DOD SAFE file exchange website (safe.apps.mil) ONLY.

28 66 Volume III – Past Performance Many of our clients are reluctant to submit PPQ’s when current CPARS records are available. Can CPARS be submitted in lieu of past performance questionnaires (PPQ)?

If the PPQ are not available, there is no need to submit the CPARS in lieu of the PPQ.

The Offerror doesn’t have to submit the CPARS, since the Government has the access to the CPARS.