Attachment 8 - PP AE QnA AM02.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS – AMENDMENT 02

The responses provided in this document serve as the official responses to all questions received for the REAL PROPERTY PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT acquisition.

The Government reserves the right to make changes to the acquisition as deemed necessary.

No further questions will be accepted by the Government.

Question Answer 1 Regarding Q&A #3, because the SF 330 submittal must be marked CUI and cannot be password protected, do you want us to submit our proposal via DoD SAFE or an alternative method?

Please follow the instructions in the Synopsis Section 4 – Submission Requirements and the Amendment 02 to include “CUI” in the Email Subject line.

2 Submission of Relevant Projects, do projects 5 and 6 need to be “limited to work involving ONLY one of the four product types defined in 3.A.(3)”?

Please follow the instructions in the Synopsis Section 3.A.3. (pg 5) for Key example projects 5 and 6.

3 Does the Government consider the answers provided in the Q&A as being formal solicitation requirements and an integrated part of the Amended Synopsis

– even if the Amended Synopsis does not reflect the answers as provided?

The Government is unable to verify where the Q&As provided in Amendment 01 does not correspond with the Synopsis Amendment 01. If there is an actual conflict, the wording of the synopsis will take precedence.

4 The synopsis does not identify the requirement for the list of stand-alone contracts/tasks orders as indicated in the answer to question 12. Is it acceptable to include the list of stand-alone contracts/tasks orders in an appendix – and therefore not counting against the 35 page limitation for Part I?

Please refer to the instructions of Para. 4, Part I- Section H, sub-paragraph (6) of the synopsis.

5 Regarding the new definition of a Key Project (synopsis page 4, paragraph A. 1):

This new definition seems to severely limit the type of qualified projects and/or project content as described on paragraphs A. 3) a-d. and A. 4) a. It would seem that many of the previous Huntsville Center Task Order Awards would not qualify IF the entire task order scope was included in the Section F, Key Example Project documentation. Furthermore, reducing the Key Project to limit to one discrete deliverable, at one location, for only one of the four categories appears to contradict the stronger evaluation for more complex

It is the Government’s intent not to limit the types of projects but to isolate specific work experiences by type so that the Government can provide a more thorough and in-depth evaluation of each work type.

We recommend contractors take advantage of this method of evaluation by providing their best example of each type of project as defined in Sections 3.A.1 and 3.A.3 of the synopsis.

Please see Amendment 02 Attachment 7 – Key Example Project SAMPLE for further guidance.

Question Answer projects. Was this the intent of the new definition? Can we infer that future task orders from Huntsville Center will not reflect the complexity as previous TOs?

6 Applying paragraph 3.A (1), we believe that as it is currently written, and regardless of the number of deliverables / CLINs in a task order, contractors can only use one of those deliverables / CLINs as a Key Example Project.

For example, even though a USACE task order includes three separate CLINs for three separate deliverables – so one CLIN for a Requirements Analysis (RA);

one CLIN for an Economic Analysis (EA); and one CLIN for a DD Form 1391 Planning Charrette (PC/1391), and even though these documents build upon each other for one MILCON project at one installation – the PWS appears to be written such that contractors are limited to presenting only the RA, or the EA, or the PC/1391 as a Key Example Project.

Is the PWJV correctly interpreting the Huntsville Center’s intention in paragraph 3.A (1)?”

Given the fact that the CEHNC P&P program typically contracts task orders for bundled project sets that support a cohesive MILCON programming action, we strongly suggest that CEHNC consider that a multi-CLIN task order that is designed to support a single cohesive programming action be allowed to be used as a SF 330 Section F project description (e.g., a programming documentation task order as Key Example Project 1).

Likewise, for Key Example Project 2:

Master Planning; Key Example Project 3:

Facilities Assessments; and Key Example Project 4: Real Property Systems of Record, CEHNC and other USACE entities often issue multi-CLIN task orders that are treated as a cohesive project / task order, for the purposes of building upon all parts of a task order to

For the purpose of this Synopsis and the following SF330 evaluations, the contractor must not conflate a “project” with a CLIN in previous task orders. Please review the definition of “project” according to Section 3.A.1. and 3.A.3.

The 'breadth' and 'volume of relevant work' is an evaluation factor, which is related but apart from the limitations of a given Key Project.

The treatment of CPARS has been documented in the Amendment 01 of the Synopsis Section 3.C.3.

The methodology is not subjective. It is the Government’s intent not to limit the types of projects but to isolate specific work experiences by type so that the Government can provide a more thorough and in-depth evaluation of each work type. We recommend contractors take advantage of this method of evaluation by providing their best example of each type of project as defined in Sections 3.A.1 and 3.A.3 of the synopsis.

Please see Amendment 02 Attachment 7 – Key Example Project SAMPLE for further guidance.

develop complete and usable work products. This is further evidenced by the fact that at the completion of such a task order, a single CPARS is provided, rather than individual CPARS that reference separate parts / CLINs of the task order.

We again ask that CEHNC consider that SF 330 Section F project descriptions be allowed to be submitted for a full task order, rather than the individual pieces / parts of a task order.

In conclusion, and in fairness to the Government evaluators and all offerors, this evaluation methodology may arrive at more subjective conclusions than a solid objective evaluation. First, IAW Combined Synopsis-Solicitation, Primary Selection Criteria 3(A) Specialized Experience & Technical Competence, the evaluation of “breadth of specialized experience” and the “volume of relevant work” are both significantly reduced by examining a single deliverable within a contract. Furthermore, the Government evaluators are tasked to evaluate this single deliverable that will ultimately include a subjective estimated duration date, a subjective estimated cost, and past performance evaluation that will use a CPARS process that was not designed to rate an individual deliverable, but the task order in its entirety. It is feasible that within an overall outstanding CPARS evaluation the one deliverable for which the Government is now being asked to evaluate may not be specifically addressed in the CPARS and the deliverable may be less than outstanding. Again, in fairness to the Government and all offerors, this evaluation methodology will be an arduous task that may not provide the expected objective outcome and results.

PWJV respectfully suggests that by evaluating an offeror’s breadth and volume of work, and its associated past performance, via entire task order evaluation, the Government will receive to a greater extent a more clear and less subjective outcome.

7 We respectfully request guidance on the type/s of CUI associated with our proposal.

At a minimum we need clarification on;

(1) associated dissemination controls (e.g., NOFORN (NF)),

(2) any export control status (if applicable).

If no specific type is provided we will mark the information as “CUI” and treat the information as CUI “Basic”.

In accordance with DoDI 5200.48 Section 3.4(f) could you please provide us with the information below required complete the CUI Designation Indicator.

Please follow the instructions in the Synopsis Section 4 – Submission Requirements.

Emails submitted following the Synopsis Submission Requirements shall be marked “CUI” in the subject line.

The CUI designation indicator information will be applied by the Government.