A-0001_QUESTIIONS_AND_ANSWERS_7Jun18.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING COMMAND

1803 MACOMB ROAD

FORT SILL, OK 73503-1701

CCMI-CEU-SI 7 June 2018

SUBJECT: Contracting Questions and Government Answers – W9124L-18-R-0004 – Electronic Warfare (EW)

1. QUESTION: The subject solicitation contained a document posted to FBO containing FINAL RFP in the document title. Upon opening the combined PDF I only see Attachments 1, 2, 3 and Appendix A-I. No solicitation document is contained within the file. Will there be a subsequent document or post to FBO containing the RFP?

ANSWER: Solicitation was located; however, some attachments referenced are missing and will be added in Amendment 0001.

2. QUESTION: Is there a current incumbent performing the tasks?

ANSWER: Yes

3. QUESTION: If there is an incumbent, please provide name and current contract number and award value.

ANSWER: Potawatomi Training, LLC, W911S0-10-D-0017-0013, $10,523,705.35. The current task order was awarded under an OMNIBUS that is now expired.

4. QUESTION: In consideration of a WOSB as the prime contractor - if there are more than one company on the team who are WOSBs - does the 51% requirement have to be met only by the prime, or would the sum of all WOSB workshare count towards the 51%.

As an example:

Prime (WOSB) - 15% SubK 1 (WOSB) - 25% SubK 2 (WOSB) - 15% SubK 3 (SB) - 35% SubK 4 (SB) - 10 %

In this case - the three WOSBs total to 55%.

Or must only the Prime perform 51% for the WOSB requirement?

ANSWER: Under WOSB contracting the small business prime contract can utilize SIMILARLY SITUATED SUBCONTRACTORS to meet these performance requirements.

Teaming arrangements will satisfy the 50% rule. The information was obtained from the Small Business Administration (SBA).

CCMI-CEU-SI

Warfare (EW)

5. QUESTION: We respectfully request clarification on the due date for questions regarding the above-referenced RFP. I believe the RFP has two dates for questions, stating both the 28th and 29th of May in two separate places. We appreciate the hard work in getting this out before the long weekend so we have time to prepare!

ANSWER: The due date for questions was 30 May 2018 for this response. Please see Amendment 0001.

6. QUESTION: In the section concerning PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS - A.

Proposal Submittal and Inquiries in the above referenced solicitation, questions concerning the proposal are cited as being due on 5/30/18 @ 4PM. However, on page 23, the due date for questions is listed as 5/29/13. Please confirm that questions are due on 5/30/18 @ 4PM.

ANSWER: Please see answer to question five (5) and Amendment 1.

7. QUESTION: Can the TS/SCI clearance requirements be modified to “Must be able to obtain and maintain a TS/SCI clearance, with proof of the Company FSO submitting employee for TS/SCI within 30 days of start date? This will allow Interim TS or Secret cleared personnel to perform as instructors while the clearance upgrade is being processed.

ANSWER: All contractors must come on board with a minimum of SCI interim eligibility granted by the DOD Central Adjudication Facility (CAF). Due to the lengthy time it takes to be granted SCI eligibility "Proof of the Company FSO submitting employee for TS/SCI within 30 days of start date is not acceptable". The National Agency Check portion of the T5 investigation must be completed before the DOD CAF will action interim SCI requests.

Currently NAC's are backlogged at OPM. Because of the backlogs, interim SCI (via compelling needs to CCF) are taking 6-9 months to complete.

8. QUESTION: Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent vendor? If available, can you please send along the incumbent contract number?

ANSWER: Please see answer to question three (3).

9. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 83 of 109 - Section (b) Volume II (1)(b) - Question Shall the Cross Reference Matrix as part of Volume II include all Volume references (Volume I thru Volume IV) or shall the cross reference matrix be made up of only Volume II references?

ANSWER: Volume two (2) reference only.

10. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 85 of 109 – Section (c) Volume III Past Performance 3.

Submission Requirements - Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Question Could the Government please provide the Specific Relevant Contracts Form, as Attachment 3 is the PPQ form?

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001 and reference Attachment five (5) “SPECIFIC

RELEVANT CONTRACTS SHEET”.

11. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 83 - Section (1.A) Element A: Staffing Plan/Qualifications:

states that “Resumes are not desired or required”. – Question Would the Government please consider removing the requirement for names of proposed personnel, their qualifications, and Letters of Commitment (LOC) as this requirement is tantamount to providing resumes AND creates inherently unfair competition conditions?

ANSWER: This element does not require the names of personnel or Letters of Commitment (LOC). This element request description and background of the key and proposed personnel.

12. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 84 - Section (1.B) ELEMENT C: PHASE-IN PLAN: states “This plan shall contain a list of all names of proposed qualified Contractor personnel to include possession of required security clearances, qualifications, and certifications. Contractors are encouraged to submit signed letters of commitment from proposed personnel.” - Question We believe removing this requirement is in the best interest of both the Government and fair competition. In our opinion, the LOCs are redundant relative to an Executive Order (EO) and perhaps unnecessary, and the LOCs pose an onerous burden only on the non-incumbent bidders, while the incumbent team is the only bidder that employs the exact people doing the work and has a pool of candidates who possess the exact certifications and requirements. If this was new work without qualified incumbent employees, the conditions would be equal for all bidders. As this is not the case, this requirement is heavily biased towards the incumbent team, especially considering the short RFP response time available to bidders. This requirement, if kept is likely to severely restrict competition and prevent highly qualified bidders from submitting proposals.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001. Names are not required with proposal; however, the Phase-in plan shall be submitted with the proposal, and names of personnel within 10 calendar days after award, and updated against the milestones in this element.

13. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 84 - Section c. Element C: Phase-In Plan states "Proposed qualified personnel will be considered in the evaluation only if proposed qualified personnel possess the required security clearances, qualifications, certifications and the Contractors submits a signed letters of commitment for each." - Question Executive Order 13495 of January 30, 2009 requires any successful bidder to offer any service employees a position. Additionally, this requirement creates upheaval, a chaotic environment in the work place and undue pressure on incumbent employees as it necessitates non-incumbents doing their best to acquire LOCs from the incumbent instructors, many times contacting them during work hours at their work sites---that being the only contact available to the bidders. Given the factors above, the requirement for the LOC clearly provides an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent contractor. Finally, a bidder's staffing approach and its ability to successfully staff other, relevant contracts "including retention of qualified incumbents" can be validated in the past performance volume of proposals.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001 and answer to Question 12. Proposed personnel are required in the qualifications to possess SCI interim clearances. Please refer to Question 7 for this information.

14. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 50 - Section 3.5 EW RANGE OPERATIONS: "During the base year of this contract the Contractor shall provide no less than six (6) range facilitators and four (4) range facilitators for Option Year one to facilitate training at the EW range for all EW courses" - Question Can the Govt clarify whether it is asking for six (6) range facilitators, four

(4) range facilitators, or ten (10) range facilitators?

ANSWER: The government requests Not Less Than (NLT) six (6) range facilitators for the base year. The Government anticipates the requirement to reduce to NLT 4 range facilitators for option year 1.

15. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 48 - Section 2.3.1 PART I: All contract instructors and facilitators shall possess or complete during the phase-in, at the contractor’s expense, the Foundation Instructor/Facilitator Course (FIFC), Common Faculty Development Program – Instructor Course (CFDP – IC) - Question Do instructors need to complete both the FIFC and CFDP-IC or just one of the two courses?

ANSWER: No. Either one works as well as other TRADOC-approved instructor training course equivalents. There is no charge to the contractor for these courses.

16. QUESTION: Solicitation Pg. 48 - Section 2.3.1 PART I: All contract instructors and facilitators shall possess or complete during the phase-in, at the contractor’s expense, the Foundation Instructor/Facilitator Course (FIFC), Common Faculty Development Program – Instructor Course (CFDP – IC) - Question What is the cost for the FIFC and CFDP-IC?

ANSWER: There is no Cost to the contractor. The requirement to reimburse the Government for training that can be only obtained through the government has been rescinded.

17. QUESTION: Para. 2.1.1 - Pg. 47 – Reference Retain Qualified Staff states services not performed due to unfilled positions will be deducted from the contract price but then it states if we fail to provide a qualified backfill within 30 calendar days of a particular position becoming vacant then the Government will issue a CDR. - Question Can you confirm an awardee will need to reduce their invoice only in the event a vacancy goes beyond 30 days?

ANSWER: No. In the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), Page 71, PO4 states the remedy calculation methodology in the Remedy column. The government will not pay for vacant positions from day one of a vacancy. Contract Discrepancy Reports affecting CPARs ratings will be issued beginning on day 31.

18. QUESTION: Para. 3.2 – Pg. 49 – Reference 290A WOBC and 290A WOAC states: “The contractor shall provide no less than one (1) Instructor/Writer to augment the government instructors for both the fifteen-week 290A Warrant Officer Basic (WOBC) and the eight- week 290A Warrant Officer Advanced (WOAC) Courses (Appendix B and C). Each class will have up to two (2) iterations per each Government Fiscal Year (FY). Each class shall have a maximum of 16 students.” - Question Please confirm the requirement is for only one instructor/writer for this requirement versus one for the 290A WOBC course and one for the 290A WOAC course respectfully?

ANSWER: The requirement for this task is to provide no less than one (1) Instructor/Writer to augment the government instructors for BOTH the fifteen-week 290A Warrant Officer Basic (WOBC) AND the eight-week 290A Warrant Officer Advanced (WOAC) Courses (Appendix B and C). This is a minimum requirement. The contractor is free to propose a different number, above 1, based on their analysis of the task.

19. QUESTION: Para. 3.5- Pg. 50 – Reference EW Range Operations states: “The contractor shall provide upkeep of the Electronic Warfare Training Site (EWTS) located on the Ft. Sill Military Reservation. This includes grounds upkeep.” – Question Please define the term grounds upkeep and provide the full scope of services to be provided (what this includes and how often items must be accomplished)? For example, does this include mowing the grass? If so, what is the acreage? Is equipment and fuel provided as GFE from the Government to accomplish this task? Does this include facilities maintenance (vacuuming, washing the windows, latrines etc)?

ANSWER: Grounds upkeep includes mowing and general facilities maintenance. Keeping the area clean and free of debris, to include the latrines on site. All equipment, PPE and supplies are provided by the Government through the EW College. Contractor will not have to purchase any PPE or supplies. Grounds area to be maintained (mowing) is approximately 15 acres.

20. QUESTION: Pg. 75 - Reference Performance Objective 4 states: “FAILURE TO PERFORM: A defect is defined as any unfilled position(s) with qualified personnel after 30 days of being vacant. If the Contractor defects on performance objective, the COR will complete a CDR and a deduction applied of labor costs for missing personnel for a specific position multiplied by the number of days vacant.

Deduction in contract for services not performed plus cost of lost training time (vacant contractor position(s) multiplied by course costs per day/hour per CME on contract multiplied by days affected for each class over the allowable performance deviation).” – Question Please confirm that the definition of a qualified personnel for replacement is one who meets the requirements of PWS paragraph 2.2 Minimum Qualifications and not a fully certified instructor at the time of hiring?

ANSWER: Yes, a qualified personnel for replacement is one that meets the minimum requirements in the referenced paragraph. They do not need to be a fully certified instructor at the time of hiring.

21. QUESTION: Para. (1.B) c PLAN - Pg. 85 – Reference RFP states: “Contractors are encouraged to submit signed letters of commitment from proposed personnel.” – Question Please confirm that commitment letters will not count against the 50 page limit for the Technical Volume. If it will be included in page count, please increase the page count by a minimum of 21 pages?

ANSWER: Letters of Commitment (LOC) will not count. Please see Amendment 0001.

22. QUESTION: Para. Statement Of Equivalent Rates For Federal Hires Pg. 23 –Reference Wages: Truck Driver Logistical Technician - Question Is it correct that these personnel are required for this contract? If so, please provide level of effort (LOE).

ANSWER: The Range Facilitators in this requirement are required to set up, maintain, and provide support to range operations and training, as per paragraph 3.5 in the PWS.

23. QUESTION: Para. Email notification - Pg. 80 – Reference When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website and verifying your email address, a separate email notification should also be sent to all three email addresses below that you have successfully submitted (and uploaded) a proposal at the AMRDEC SAFE website. - Question Only two email addresses are provided. Please provide third email address.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001.

24. QUESTION: Para. Proposal instructions - Pg. 81 and 79 - Reference C. Proposal Preparation Instructions 1. Offerer’s proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes, each with a Proposal Cover Sheet: (1) General Contract Information, (2) Technical Capability, (3) Past Performance, and (4) Price. 1.1. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Proposal shall be electronically submitted as a SINGLE pdf attachment to the AMRDEC SAFE computer portal at the following website: Question Please clarify if we are to combine all volumes into one PDF plus the excel spreadsheet, or if we are submitting 1 PDF for each volume plus the excel spreadsheet.

ANSWER: One (1) PDF for all volumes plus the Accompanying Pricing Worksheet in Microsoft Excel format.

25. QUESTION: Pg. 83 – Reference TAB B, Solicitation, Offer and Award – The SF 1449 shall be submitted fully completed. The offeror is cautioned that the SF 1449 must contain an original signature in block 30(a) through 30(c) of the form. Question Please confirm that an electronic signature is acceptable.

ANSWER: Yes, an electronic signature is acceptable.

26. QUESTION: Para. Past performance Pg. 84 and 85 - Reference Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform on the resulting contract. The Offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than five (5) years for the submitted data, and shall provide a minimum of three (3), but not more than six (6) past performance references. Question Please clarify the number of references. Does the min/max requirement apply to the entire team in total, i.e. 6 maximum combined? Or each team member is to supply a minimum of 3/maximum of 6 references? If we are to provide only a maximum of 6 references for the whole team, is there a minimum required specifically for the Prime?

ANSWER: These requirements apply to the Prime and any subcontractors providing more than 25% of the work. If the team is comprised as stated in Question 4 ANSWER, reference information will apply to the team members collectively comprising the “Prime” WOSB team. Any other subcontractors that will perform 25% or more of the work are subject to the reference information.

27. QUESTION: Will the government please consider a two week extension to the due date?

ANSWER: An extension will not be considered in order to preserve the current 90-day Phase-in requirement by 30 September 2018, which is the end of the fiscal year.

28. QUESTION: Pg. 85 – Reference Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment Two (2) – Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form for the Release of Past Performance Information to the Prime Contractor. –Question The Attachment 2 – Consent Letters appears to be missing. Please provide.

ANSWER: ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001 and reference attachment four (4) “Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form for the Release of Past Performance Information to the Prime Contractor”.

29. QUESTION: Pg. 85 – Reference Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment Three (3) – Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet, and are limited to three (3) pages per reference. – Question Attachment Three (3) – Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet appears to be missing. Please provide.

ANSWER: ANSWER: Please see amendment 0001 and reference attachment five (5)

“SPECIFIC RELEVANT CONTRACTS SHEET”.

30. QUESTION: Para. (b) Tab Two (2) – Accompanying Pricing Worksheet. Pg. 86 – Question Will the government provide a worksheet template such that all offerors will submit on the same basis?

ANSWER: The government does not have a template to provide for proposal contents.

This worksheet contains offeror proprietary information that includes compensation and other fringes. Please provide what is normal for your company submission with formulas intact.

31. QUESTION: I understand that the Electronic Warfare training will be moving away from Fort Sill in a year. Will this contract move with the training? So would we be recruiting EW training professionals to live in Oklahoma for a year or so and be willing to move when the school moved? Or will this contract end when the training moves?

ANSWER: The exact timeline for move away from Fort Sill is unknown at this time. The contract is expected to execute as written with the expectation to execute options. Any contract awardee will be notified in advance of any potential changes. The government retains discretion to exercise any option years included in this solicitation.

32. QUESTION: Is there an incumbent that is already providing EW trainers? If so, what is the name of the incumbent? Is this an additional contract to the existing incumbent? Are they having trouble filling the slots?

ANSWER: Yes, Potawatomi Training, LLC. No, this is not an additional contract. They Government will not disclose information pertaining to performance of a current contract.

33. QUESTION: Pg. 80 of 109 – Reference 52.212-1 – Question 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (on page 80 of 109) states, “NOTE: Offerors shall include all three (3) points of contacts in clarification requests.” However, only two points of contact are provided. Please confirm that the reference to three (3) points of contact is a typo or provide a third point of contact.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001.

34. QUESTION: Pg. page 82 of 109 – Reference 52.212-1, C, 2, (g) – Question In 52.212-1, C, 2, (g) (on page 82 of 109), the RFP states, “Letter size and spacing requirement for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the Offeror but must be easily readable.”

However, the RFP does not identify size and spacing requirements for standard proposal text.

Does the above-stated requirement apply to standard proposal text or does the government intend to define the letter size and spacing requirements for proposal text?

ANSWER: Times New Roman, 10 or 12 pitch is the standard in order to stay within the page limitations.

35. QUESTION: Pg. page 85 of 109 – Reference 52.212-1, C, 3, (c) – Question 52.212-1, C, 3, (c), Volume III – Past Performance (on page 85 of 109) refers to Attachment Three (3) – Specific Relevant Contract Sheets as well as Attachment Three (3) – Past Performance Questionnaire. However, we only find Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire in the RFP. Please clarify the attachment numbers assigned to each of these attachments and provide the Specific Relevant Contract Sheet attachment.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0001 and reference attachment five (5) “SPECIFIC

RELEVANT CONTRACTS SHEET”.

36. QUESTION: Pg. 84 of 109 – Reference 52.2121, C, 2, (b), 1.C – Question Please confirm that the Letters of Commitment encouraged in this section do not count toward the page limit for Volume II.

ANSWER: Letters of Commitment (LOC) if submitted do not count toward the page limit.

Please see Amendment 0001.

37. QUESTION: Pg. page 85 of 109 – Reference 52.2121, C, 2, (c), 1 – Question Please confirm that the Subcontractor Consent Letters and Client Authorization Letters required do not count toward the page limit for Volume III.

ANSWER: No, they do not count toward the page limit.

38. QUESTION: Pg. page 88 of 109 and page 88 of 109 – Reference 52.212-2, (a) and ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, a, (1) – Question 52.212-2 (a) states, “Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.”

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, a (1) states that this is a “best value source selection.” But also states, “Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer.”

Please confirm how the evaluation of proposals will be conducted – through Lowest Price Technically Acceptable or best-value source selection? If evaluation is conducted via a best-value source selection, please confirm how tradeoffs can be made.

ANSWER: In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 LPTA is also part of the Best Value Continuum. All proposals will be evaluated using the stated evaluation criteria for acceptability. An acceptable proposals received when the technical evaluation is completed will then be evaluated according to price.