Programmatic Industry day questions 28 Feb 2024.pdf

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EFFORT:

Q1: Will travel be required?

A1: Yes. Travel requirements are detailed in Section 1.13 of the PWS. A Not-to-Exceed amount for Travel will be provided as part of the formal solicitation.

Q2: What is the top level security clearance required? We assume at least secret to secure NATO secret for European partners.

A2: Secret clearance is required. Security requirements are detailed in Section 1.10 of the PWS.

Q3: What is the current remote work/work from home/etc policy? Is that expected to change?

A3: The telework policy is detailed in Section 1.4 of the PWS. It is not expected to change.

Q4: Is there a requirement for key personnel and any certifications they should have? For example, USASAC has significant work force development training available to it and we would assume that key personnel would need to have this prior to contract transition.

A4: Education and experience requirements for all personnel, including Key Personnel, are detailed in Section 1.20 of the PWS. No FMS specific certifications are required. There are no requirements for contract personnel to have security workforce certifications, but the online Security Workforce Development Training is available for contractors to take if desired.

Q5: How important is technical innovation in light of significant FMS case load increases and current staffing challenges?

A5: Most duties/responsibilities associated with contract support do not require technical innovation, but there are a few that call for improving automation to improve efficiencies, i.e., duties associated with the Data Visualization Specialist requires the ability to develop/implement automation in data visualization and interpretation to transform data sets, quantitative analysis, and qualitative analysis into compelling visuals.

Q6: Can you please provide an updated footprint on the locations and level of effort for the FTEs on this effort? Are they mostly in Alabama or elsewhere (Pennsylvania?)

A6: The majority of the contract positions are at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama and in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. There are contract positions located at Fort Belvoir, VA, Fort Liberty, NC, Germany, South Carolina, Hawaii, Texas, and potentially Saudi Arabia.

Q7: What are the customers main pain points? Where are they least willing to accept risk across the tasks?

A7: Timely backfill of qualified candidates with FMS Experience.

USASAC questions for industry: What is your company’s plan to overcome potential challenges with attracting personnel with FMS experience and does your company provide any FMS training to contract employees?

*Comment: the draft PWS references Fort Bragg, NC, several times; should be updated to Fort Liberty, NC.

A: Correct, the PWS will be updated to reflect Fort Liberty.

QUESTIONS ABOUT SUBMISSION & EVALUATION

Q8: Would the government consider reducing the minimum number of FTE for the experience requirements?

A8: No.

Q9: Will prime offerors be able to represent experience from major subcontractors toward pass/fail evaluation criteria? (draft RFP says “prime offeror must clearly demonstrate” required experience) A9: This requirement is being revised. See slide with revised Experience factor information.

Q10: The four functional areas allow a sub contractor to demonstrate the experience, but the prime offeror is not necessarily required to show any experience. This would allow an offeror with no experience to rely solely on a subcontractor’s experience which would not be in the best interests of the government and could introduce undue risk to mission. Will the government require the prime offeror to demonstrate experience in at least 2 of the areas? Recommend changing the note to read, "that the prime contractor must demonstrate experience in 2 of the four functional areas."

A10: This requirement is being revised. See slide with revised Experience factor information.

Q11: Section M states, "The Phase 1 factor of Experience will be evaluated for all offerors. Offerors whose proposals meet the experience requirement will proceed to Phase 2 of the evaluation where a complete evaluation of all remaining factors will be conducted. Offerors who do not meet the requirements of Phase 1 will be notified in writing of their removal from consideration for award of this contract.". Please clarify the timeline for Phase 1 evaluation, i.e., are Phase 1 submissions due prior to Phase 2? When will offerors be notified of the Phase 1 evaluation outcome?

A11: A complete proposal package is required at time of submission. The Phase 1 submission will be evaluated first, and offerors who are eliminated after the Phase 1 evaluation will be notified immediately upon completion of the evaluation.

Q12: For the requirement related to prior work managing at least 50 FTEs and meeting a certain financial value threshold on previous contracts, will an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract qualify to meet those minimums?

A12: Yes. There is no financial value threshold for the Experience requirement.

Q13: Can past performance as a significant subcontractor to a prime contractor be used towards the evaluation? For example, if my company was a key member of a larger team under a major government contract but was not the prime contractor, does that type of past performance count or will you only consider prime contractor history?

A13: This would count for the Past Performance factor, but not the Experience factor.

For the next 2 questions… Background: As you may be aware, Section 865 of the 2023 NDAA will require that the DFARS Section 215.305 be amended by July 1, 2024 to state that:

“When small business concerns bid on Department of Defense contracts, the past performance evaluation and source selection processes shall consider, if relevant, the past performance information of affiliate companies of the small business concerns.

Q14: Will the Government please confirm that past performance information from affiliate companies will be evaluated as part of this source selection process in Volume IV in compliance with this impending DFAR amendment?

A14: Yes, we are willing to consider relevant affiliate past performance information.

Q15: Will the Government please confirm that Experience information from affiliate companies will be evaluated as part of this source selection process in Volume II in compliance with this impending DFAR amendment?

A15: No. Experience and past performance are two distinct things.

Q16: Will the government accept CPARs in lieu of past performance questionnaires?

A16: No.

Q17: (Volume IV page 61) Requirement: Offerors shall submit all Government contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. Please confirm there are no limits on the number of contracts that should be provided as past performance references.

A17: This requirement is being revised. There will be a limit of 3 contracts provided for the prime contractor, and 2 contracts provided for each subcontractor.

Q18: (Volume IV page 61) Requirement: Offerors shall submit all Government contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Please clarify if there is a minimum number or percentage of total past performance references provided that must be from the Prime.

A18: This requirement is being revised. There will be a limit of 3 contracts provided for the prime contractor, and 2 contracts provided for each subcontractor.

Q19: (Volume IV page 61) Requirement: Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code 541611) required by the RFP.

Question: Please confirm that the government will evaluate all past performance references relevant to the RFP, even if the NAICS code is something other than 541611?

A19: Yes, as long as the work performed is relevant, it will be considered.

Q20: The RFP generally states that past performance or experience recency is based on a five year timeframe, however, on page 61, the RFP states "Offerors shall submit all Government contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP…", on page 62, "offerors will be reminded they must at a minimum include the most recent and relevant efforts (performance within the past three years)", and page 72, "Recent efforts are defined as those performed during the last three years.". Please update all recency definitions to "A “recent” contract is defined as one that was performed within the past five years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation."

A20: This will be revised to be 5 years.

Q21: Section L states, "A “recent” contract is defined as one that is performed at least three years during the past five years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation." The way this is written, it seems to require that three years of performance must have occurred in the previous five years. This implies that in order for a contract to be recent, its period of performance must have ended no later than two years prior to the solicitation. This is unduly restrictive to competition. Please re-state the requirement as "A “recent” contract is defined as one that was performed within the past five years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation."

A21: This will be revised to be 5 years.

Q22: "A “recent” contract is defined as one that is performed at least three years during the past five years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation…" The way this is worded it sounds like you must have performed 3 years of a contract within the past 5 years to be considered recent? This is atypical in that recency relates to the period that a contract will be considered for PP and the time frame for performing the contract is typically one year in order to be able to produce performance information such as a CPAR. This is also contradictory to the paragraph above that states the contracts must be within three years of the issued date of the RFP. Would the government clarify the recency requirement as being 5 years? And would the government consider amending to state that the offeror must have at a minimum of one year of performance from the date of final proposal submission?

A22: The recency is being updated to 5 years.

Q23: Section L states, "For all contracts identified in Volume 3 above, a past performance questionnaire (Solicitation Attachment) shall be completed and submitted." The questionnaire was not provided with the draft RFP. Please provide the questionnaire as part of the draft RFP so industry may provide feedback on it prior to release of the final RFP.

A23: The past performance questionnaire is a generic template. We are not soliciting feedback on this document. It will be included with the solicitation.

Q24: The Draft RFP lists 20 defined Labor Categories, however, doesn’t define the quantity/number and performance location(s) (CONUS/OCONUS) of those LCATS/FTE’s. The Draft RFP Section L “Cost Volume” requirements state “Offerors shall propose in accordance with the Government-provided skill mix and level of effort included in Cost Model, Attachment 3 (xxxxCOSTxxxx.xlsx)”. Will this pending Attachment 3 break out the LCATS and LOE by performance location? And can this be provided now to facilitate our staffing plan research for each performance location?

A24: As noted in the posting, the final LOE is not available at this time. The LCATs and LOE will be specified by location when the formal solicitation is released.

Q25: What is the breakdown of LOE and LCAT at each geographic location supported on this effort?

A25: This information will be provided with the release of the formal solicitation.

Q26: Sections B and L both reference a Government-provided level of effort (LOE) which sets forth the labor requirements for the RFP. This is a crucial component of the RFP and will have a major impact on offeror's bid decisions and proposal strategy. Please provide the level of effort (LOE) as part of the draft RFP so industry may provide feedback on it prior to release of the final RFP.

A26: The LOE will be provided with the formal solicitation.

Q27: Will the government accept representative resumes for the five key personnel? (i.e. the CV of an individual who is not currently employed by the company but possesses the qualifications and experience that align with project requirements.)

A27: Yes.

Q28: The required education levels across each position do not allow for experience trade-off. There are many current contractors that do not meet the minimum education requirements, but have 30+ years of experience working FMS cases. USASAC would be at risk if they lost a large portion of their current contractors due to a new educational requirement. Will the government add an experience trade-off for each position description regarding minimum education?

A28: Waiver requests for substitution of experience for education or education for experience will be considered.

Q29: The Personnel Recovery Specialist III and Data Visualization Specialist have lower years of experience and their duties cover a smaller subset of the PWS tasks than the other three key personnel labor categories. Due to the high demand for these two labor categories, along with the relatively low density of fully-qualified personnel available, resumes provided for these key positions are likely to be unavailable at the time of award, due to the high demand for available candidates. Please remove the key personnel requirement for the Personnel Recovery Specialist III and Data Visualization Specialist.

A29: This requirement will not be removed.

Q30: The Personnel Recovery Specialist position is not specific to FMS, but has been designated as a key position. As the experience is written, only a person who has personnel recovery experience AND who worked at SATMO could qualify for this position other than the incumbent contractor. As written it provides an unfair competitive advantage for the incumbent contractor. Additionally, the required skill set for personnel recovery for uniformed personnel are typically met by mid level Non Commissioned Officers or Warrant Officers. The training required for uniformed personnel is approximately 40 hours to be certified. And because Personnel Recovery among uniformed forces is not a Military Occupational specialty, it is a billet that a service member is detailed to with very limited (o/a 40 hours) training, they don't normally stay in the billet longer than 3 years. This is skill set should not rise to the level of being a key person. Will the government remove this position from the key personnel listing?

A30: No.

Q31: The lists of Labor Categories provided it the PWS and the LOE attachment do not include a Deputy Program Manager. Based on our evaluation of the performance requirements, we believe a Deputy Program Manager position should be added. Please consider adding a Deputy Program Manager labor category with the qualifications and responsibilities of the Program Manager, with required YOE reduced from 12 to 9 years. This addition would provide increased management capabilities to ensure all programmatic needs are met and stakeholders have another dedicated resource attending to program management functions which can require quick turns, such as travel approval, meeting support in later time zones, etc.

A31: The Labor Categories provided in the PWS have been reviewed and meet the customer’s requirement.

Q32: The Executive Assistant labor category doesn't include a specific years of experience requirement.

Please provide years of experience for the Executive Assistant labor category.

A32: This will be added.

Q33: Can the government clarify if subcontractors need to provide a cost narrative and model in addition to the primes cost information?

A33: Yes. As indicated in the 3rd paragraph of the submission instructions for Volume V – Cost Proposal, ”Each PRIME OFFEROR AND SUBCONTRACTOR shall complete the Cost Model found within Attachment 3 in its entirety (xxxxCOSTxxxx.xlsx). If any prime Offeror or any of its respective subcontractors do not provide a completed Cost Model (Attachment 3) and a cost narrative, inclusive of the requirements set forth below, the entire prime proposal may be considered nonresponsive and ineligible for award.”

Q34: Can the government please clarify the need to provide pay roll records and/or paystubs showing rate of pay? (ITO pg 64 Volume V – Cost Proposal, 7.C) A34: This information is being requested to aid in verifying costs.

Q35: (Proposal Content Requirements pages 59-61) Please clarify the minimum percentage required to be considered a major subcontractor. Page 59 States: “Note: A major subcontractor is considered one that will perform at least 15% of the work areas above.”, whereas Page 61 States: “A “major subcontractor” is defined as a member of the Offeror’s overall team who is expected to perform 10% of the total proposed price.”

A35: This will be revised. “15% of the total proposed price” will be utilized in both places.

Q36: The RFP states that a major subcontractor is expected to perform "10% of the total proposed price" on page 61 and 62. It also states that a major subcontractor is expected to perform "15% of the work" on page 59 and 70. Please confirm that a major subcontractor is expected to perform 10% of the total proposed price.

A36: This will be revised. “15% of the total proposed price” will be utilized in both places.

Q37: Section L, Volume II experience & Volume IV Past Performance states a major subcontractor must perform at least 15% and later in Volume IV it states in Paragraph 2 that a major subcontractor performs 10% of total proposed price. And is listed in volume IV, section 3, as 10%. Due to the special nature of this work will the government consider raising the major subcontractor to 30%?

A37: A major subcontractor is one that performs at least 15% of the total proposed price.

Q38: Section L states, "Each Offeror shall also provide documentary evidence as to the adequacy of its purchasing system in accordance with DFARS 252.244-7001.". Please remove the requirement and confirm that offerors are not required to maintain an approved purchasing system and that purchasing system status will not be an evaluation factor. This requirement would be unduly restrictive to small businesses as the threshold for audit is $50M within a 12-month period.

A38: DFARS 252.244-7001 is required in all contracts that contain the clause FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts, and 52.244-2 is required in all cost-reimbursement contracts in accordance with FAR 44.204(a)(1)(i). This is a regulatory requirement and will not be removed.

Q39: Section L states, "Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below.". Considering that Table 15-2 is used to present certified cost and pricing data which is not requested in the proposal, we request that the requirement to submit information in accordance with Table 15-2 be removed.

A39: No. The use of table 15-2 is not restricted to the submission of certified cost and pricing data.

Q40: Section L states, "Each Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall provide whatever information is necessary to help the Government understand why the proposed costs are realistic in the xxxxCOSTNARRxxxx.docx (or PDF).". Please consider requiring separate Cost Models and Cost Narratives from only the prime offeror and major subcontractors, not minor subcontractors.

A40: This request is under review.

Q41: The reference states: "The last five years for this solicitation is defined as 01/01/2019 through 12/31/2023". Will these dates change with the release of the final RFP or are they set as listed for the duration of this competition?

A41: These will be the dates used in the solicitation.

Q42: Section L states, "Each PRIME OFFEROR AND SUBCONTRACTOR shall complete the Cost Model found within Attachment 3 in its entirety (xxxxCOSTxxxx.xlsx)." The cost model was not provided with the draft RFP. Please provide the cost model as part of the draft RFP so industry may provide feedback on it prior to release of the final RFP.

A42: The cost model will be released with the formal solicitation.

Q43: Section L states that a Total Compensation Plan shall be provided by the prime offeror and each subcontractor "for each proposed labor category subject to FAR 52.222-46". Please specify which labor categories are subject to FAR 52.222-46.

A43: All of the labor categories are subject to FAR 52.222-46.

Q44: We believe that benchmark minimum direct labor rates would provide several benefits to the Government, including:

1. Ensuring that contractors are able to execute the work effectively and efficiently, which would lead to successful program outcomes.

2. Reducing the risk of personnel challenges that come from low compensation in an extremely tight labor market, such as inability to hire creating gaps on programs, retention issues, and loss of institutional knowledge.

3. Reducing the risk of cost overruns and delays due to contractors being unable to perform the work at the proposed rates.

4. Ensuring that the Government receives proposals that are comparable and based on the same assumptions, which would make the evaluation process more objective and transparent.

We request that the Government consider including minimum benchmark direct labor rates below which offerors cannot propose.

A44: This is under review.

Q45: The RFP includes the clause FAR 52.230-7, Proposal Disclosure-Cost Accounting Practice Changes.

Per FAR 30.201-3, this clause is to be inserted in solicitations for contracts subject to CAS. Considering this is set aside for small businesses which are not subject to CAS, the clause is not relevant to this solicitation. Please remove clause 52.230-7.

A45: This will be removed.

Q46: Estimated travel costs: The government has historical travel costs for the current contract.

Providing a plug number for historical averages creates a level playing field for competitors. Having offerors estimate travel costs provides an unfair competitive advantage for the incumbent and creates risk to the government. If the government does not wish to provide a plug number then request the number of PMRs, CMR, FMRs and all other contract related travel by location for past five years. Will the government provide a plug number for Travel costs?

A46: Yes, this will be provided.

Q47: Section L, Volume V, Cost/Price Volume, Para 10 states, in part “"...include the exact Government-prescribed estimates for Travel and Materials Other Direct Costs (ODCs) in its cost proposal. The Government-prescribed estimates included in the cost model workbook are the total costs for Travel and

Materials ODCs exclusive of any Offeror’s associated indirect charges. The Offeror shall propose any applicable indirect charges on the Travel and/or ODC estimates in accordance with its disclosed accounting practices.". Is this saying that the government will provide a plug number or an estimate that we will use?

A47: A plug in number will be provided.

Q48: Transition Plan: The requirement states the winner will have a max of 5 days from date of contract award date to provide a transition plan, but then goes on to say the plan must meet full staffing within 5 days after contract award? The CLIN structure shows a 30 day transition and Section L, Section 3, Volume 3, states 30 day transition. Will the government clarify the length of the transition period? Recommend re-phrasing.

A48: This will be updated to indicate that the plan must meet full staffing within 30 days.

Q49: PWS 1.9.4 requires the outgoing contractor to provide phase in training. What is the government's estimate on the amount of time for the phase in training and what is the training audience provided by the out-going contractor so that we can use as a planning factor for our transition plan?

A49: The Phase-In Training should be accomplished in 30 days and be IAW details specified in the PWS.

Q50: PWS 1.13.1 Use of GSA Vehicles describes the requirement to carry insurance for contractors operating GSA vehicles. Will the government make clear if there is a requirement for contractors on this contract to drive a GSA vehicle and if so, how many in which state? What about vehicles provided to contractors in Saudi Arabia or other OCONUS locations?

A50: The Government will make clear if there is a requirement for a contractor to drive a GSA Vehicle and at which locations. This requirement is expected to be limited to only a few contractors at the RSA and potentially New Cumberland locations.

Q51: In PWS 1.19, the second paragraph discussing locations states "in the following AOR, Headquarters, Redstone Arsenal, AL…". Please clarify what is meant by AOR, Headquarters??

A51: AOR stands for Area of Responsibility and should have been followed by a colon to refer to all locations listed after AOR. This will be updated.

Q52: Regarding PWS 1.19.9.i Personnel Recovery, the information provided is not clear as to the location of this position? Are there multiple specialists, one at each ASCC HQs or co-located with the JPRSC?

What is the location of this position and quantity required by location? What are the travel requirements for this position?

A52: This information will be reflected on the Level of Effort Spreadsheet that will accompany the formal solicitation.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CURRENT CONTRACT/MISC

Q53: Does the Government have a planned schedule for release of the final RFP?

A53: On or around 25 March, though an earlier release will be effected if possible. The solicitation will be synopsized in advance of publication as required by FAR 5.201.

Q54: Will the Government conduct any formal market research (specifically, issuance of an RFI or SSN and conduct of one-on-one discussions) before release of the final RFP?

A54: Formal market research is concluded. There have been two RFIs issued, the most recent on 30 October 2023.

Q55: The SSN for this was released quite a while back. Is there intent to do another round of market research on this requirement?

A55: There was a second RFI posted on 30 October 2023. There will not be another round.

Q56: Does the Government plan to issue any additional draft RFPs, TO/DOs, or other information prior to release of the final RFP?

A56: No.

Q57: Will the single award IDIQ contract favor awarding to a single prime vs. prime with subs? If the former is there an ability to solicit subcontractors for specific task orders after award, or does the solicitation presume all potential subcontractors will be identified in the original proposal?

A57: No, the single award IDIQ will not favor awarding to a single prime as opposed to a prime with subs.

All subcontractors should be identified in the proposal.

Q58: Is this a new contract or a follow-on? If it is a follow-on contract: Who is the current contractor?

How long has the contract been in Place?

A58: This is a follow-on contract. The current contractor is ProjectXYZ. These services have been obtained under multiple contracts since 2007.

Q59: Is this a new requirement or an existing contract with an incumbent(s). If it’s an existing requirement, can you provide the company name and contract # of the incumbent?

A59: See prior question. Contract # W91CRB-18-D-0005.

Q60: Is the current incumbent still ProjectXYZ?

A60: Yes.

Q61: Is the incumbent still eligible to bid? It appears that their SAM registration is inactive at this time.

A61: Any vendor bidding on this contract will need to have an active SAM record to be considered eligible for award.

Q62: Is the current contractor eligible to bid on it as a small business?

A62: Any vendor who submits a proposal will need to be able to meet the solicitation requirements.

Q63: Can an HBCU serve as the Prime contractor?

A63: No, HBCUs are not considered small businesses.

Q64: What were the weakness for the Army to go back into the market? What necessities were not met?

A64: None. The existing contract providing these services is coming to the end of its term, so a new contract needs to be awarded.

Q65: What is the Vision of the Army for this particular opportunity?

A65: To engage the services of an experienced, responsible small business contractor in order to obtain the support detailed in the Performance Work Statement.

Q66: Will USASAC or ACC-APG facilitate teaming arrangements by sharing potential offeror company information before the RFP is issued?

A66: No.

Q67: What contract vehicle will the Army use for offerors to find the solicitation and submit our work.

A67: The solicitation will be posted on SAM.gov.

Q68: Are there SDVOSB / WOSB set-aside opportunities? Are there Small business set-aside opportunities? Are there subcontracting opportunities?

A68: This action is being competed as a small business set-aside. There are subcontracting opportunities.

Q69: May we receive a small business office POC and how can we sell A.I products and services to army?

A69: This is not an appropriate forum for this question.