PRESOL | R | This notice provides questions and answers received in response to the Draft Request for Proposal, W911SR-11-R-0007, for Program and Integration Support(PAISV) issued 30 March 2011. The Final RFP will be issued on or about 27 May 2011.

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF MAY 25, 2011 FBO #3469
SOLICITATION NOTICE

R -- This notice provides questions and answers received in response to the Draft Request for Proposal, W911SR-11-R-0007, for Program and Integration Support(PAISV) issued 30 March 2011. The Final RFP will be issued on or about 27 May 2011.

Notice Date: 5/23/2011
Notice Type: Presolicitation
NAICS: 541712 — Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
Contracting Office: RDECOM Contracting Center - Edgewood (RDECOM-CC), ATTN: AMSSB-ACC-E, 5183 Blackhawk Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5424
ZIP Code: 21010-5424
Solicitation Number: W911SR-11-R-0007-01
Response Due: 7/15/2011
Archive Date: 9/13/2011
Point of Contact: Linda Ensminger, 410 436-8564
E-Mail Address: RDECOM Contracting Center - Edgewood (RDECOM-CC)
(linda.ensminger@us.army.mil)
Small Business Set-Aside: N/A
Description: Questions and Answers for draft solicitation, W911SR-11-R-0007, entitled, "Program and Integration Support (PAIS V)" Question 1 Is there an incumbent vendor? If so, what is level of satisfaction with this vendor? What is the vendor(s) name(s)? Answer 1 Yes, there are incumbent vendors. For the integration contract it is Science Application International Corporation (SAIC), contract number W911SR-07-D-0001. For the technical contracts (contract numbers W911SR-07-D-0006, W911SR-07-D-0007 and W911SR-07-D-0008) they are SAIC, Shaw, and Stem Tech respectively. Question 2 Sec J, Sample Evaluation Task Three, page 93: Section 3.2 is missing. Please provide missing section or clarify absence. Answer 2 There was a mistake in the numbering of Sample Evaluation Task Three. The numbering will be adjusted in the final RFP. Question 3 Sec L.1.1, page 119: Please confirm that Volume I, Technical, only requires separate tab sections for Sample Evaluation Tasks 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., no Volume I introductory material is needed as per the specified page limits). Answer 3 Confirmed. Volume 1 requires separate tab sections for Sample Evaluation Tasks 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., no Volume I introductory material is needed as per the specified page limits). Question 4 Could a Word version of the draft RFP be provided to facilitate preparation of a draft proposal? Text cannot be extracted from the scanned PDF file. What is the usual protocol? Answer 4 No Word version of the draft RFP will be provided. Question 5 The RFP states that resumes are not included in the page count. Are the cover page, Table of Contents, and Cross Reference Matrices also not included in the page count? Answer 5 Yes, the cover page, Table of Contents and Cross Reference Matrices are included in the page count. The page count for paragraph L.1.1, Volume I, Technical, Evaluation Task 1, 2 and 3 will be increased from 35 pages to 40 pages. Question 6 Will the report "Science Application International Corporation (SAIC) Study #RM-09-004, 17 July 2009, Worker Risk due to a Leaking Munition at the Pueblo Chemical Depot - Depot and Construction Workers" used as an example under paragraph 3.4.5.3 of Sample Evaluation Task Three be made available to all bidders? Answer 6 Yes, the report will be made available upon request. Question 7 The PAIS V procurement will be different from the predecessor support contracts as it will provide program, integration, and technical support services in a maturing part of the ACAT I program; the evaluation criteria tends to reflect work that has been done over the years and does not explicitly tie to the changing nature of the support required. The Government may want to consider novel approaches and innovative solutions that enhance and improve draw-down efficiencies as an integral part of the evaluation criteria. Answer 7 Noted. Question 8 In a program/ mission with both finishing and emerging components, it is critical for PAIS V contractors to demonstrate performance when transitioning out of a task or a component of the program. The Government may want to consider inclusion of a "transition plan" or more specifically a "ramp up" or "ramp down" plan in the management volume. Answer 8 It is noted in paragraph L.3.2.1.2 the minimum content for the Management Proposal. Question 9 The Sample Task Order (STO) 3 evaluation Criteria seems to focus on PAIS V contractor performance risk; the ability of the proposed contractors to help reduce the programmatic risk should be an important factor. The Government may want consider including the PAIS V contractor's abilities to assist in the reduction of the overall ACWA Programmatic risk as an integral part of risk reduction evaluation criteria Answer 9 It is noted in paragraph L.3.1.1.2.1. the Technical Approach. Question 10 In Section C.3.6.8, the field operating activity (FOA) team to support PCAPP and BGCAPP for training of the work force and troubleshooting of key equipment and processes is not listed under section C.3.3., Field Office Services. Is the FOA to be single team that is responsive to the two sites or it is an embedded resource located at each site? Answer 10 It is envisioned that the FOA team would be comprised mainly by embedded resources located at PCAPP & BGCAPP. Question 11 In Section C.3.10.3, the second sentence related to inclusion of public affairs appears to be an internal comment and may not belong there. Answer 11 The second sentence in Section C.3.10.3. will be deleted. Question 12 Section H.1.1. stipulates that contract does not require a DD form 254; but section 8.2 of sample task 3 requires DD254 to access DOD computer system. Is our assumption correct that the final section J of the RFP will have a DD form 254? Answer 12 A DD form 254 is not required. All references to a DD form 254 in paragraph 8.2 of each of the three sample tasks will be deleted. Question 13 Sections H.5 & H.6 indicate that the responses to future Task Order Solicitations will include only cost and schedule. This implies less formal competition (no technical proposal, approach etc.). Is this correct or will a technical approach be required to compete for future task orders? A superior technical approach may present better options to the Government that will result in a lower overall programmatic life-cycle cost even though a bidder's specific task response may not be the lowest cost or shortest schedule. Answer 13 Future task orders will be competed against the evaluation criteria/selection approach identified when solicited. Question 14 Will the number of trips be normalized for STO 1 during the cost realism assessment or would the Army consider providing an anticipated number of trips similar to STO 3? Answer 14 The contractor will be required to travel in accordance with paragraphs 3.2., 3.2.1., 3.2.4, and 3.5 of the performance work statement for STO 1. Question 15 Page 45, section 3.2, directs the contractor to assume 24 trips for 1 person for 4 days to Pine Bluff Arsenal and Deseret Chemical Depot. Is the intent for the contractor to assume 24 trips total, spread across both locations? Answer 15 For estimating purposes assume 12 trips to Pine Bluff Arsenal and 12 trips to Deseret Chemical Depot. Paragraph 3.2, page 45, will be changed. Question 16 Page 45, section 3.2.1 specifies that four FTE will be located at the NSCMP offices five days per week. Are all of these staff to be located at APG or will they be located across each of the four NSCMP sites (APG, PBA, Huntsville, and DCD)? Answer 16 The staff are to be located at APG. The staff will travel to the other sites. Question 17 Page 46, section 3.5, directs the contractor to assume 3 trips for 1 person for 4 days to Pine Bluff Arsenal and Deseret Chemical Depot. Is the intent for the contractor to assume spread across both locations (i.e. a total of 3 trips) or is it three trips to each location (i.e., a total of 6 trips)? Answer 17 For purposes of estimating assume 3 trips to each location for a total of 6 trips. Question 18 Page 46, section 3.4 of STO 1 requests 0.25 FTE for integration support and analysis. It directs the contractor to assume 500 professional hours for the task. As such, should the contractor assume, for all sample tasks, that the standard for a full FTE is 2000 hours? This is inconsistent with page 45 section 3.2 that specifies four FTEs at 7600 hours. How many total hours does the government expect the contractor to use for a standard FTE? Answer 18 8000 Question 19 Page 96, section 3.5.5, requests the contractor to participate in one, four hour briefing with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. Is it correct to assume that this would be a teleconference, and that no travel dollars should be allocated for this meeting? Answer 19 No, assume a 2 day trip to the CDC offices in Atlanta, Georgia. Question 20 Section C - Performance Work Statement does not contain Public Outreach Support scope yet Section J, Sample Task 2 includes this scope at the field office. Including public outreach support in the field office tasks has resulted in improved communications and cost efficiencies for the Program. Given the status of mission at each site, it would be most effective to keep that scope available for the appropriate field office tasks. Please confirm that public outreach scope will be included in the Performance Work Statement to support the field office public outreach requirements. Answer 20 Paragraph C.3.3.10 will be added to state, "The contractor shall provide site specific public outreach support as required." Question 21 Paragraph L.2.2 recommends the use of indices and cross-reference matrices and paragraphs L.3.1.1.1 and L.3.2.1.1 specify the use of indices in the Technical Proposal for the sample tasks and the Management Proposal, respectively. Are these and any front matter such as acronym lists excluded from page count? Answer 21 The indices, cross-reference matrices, and acronym lists, are counted in the page limit. Question 22 Section L.2.4 indicates that the offeror's proposal shall be printed in a 12 point font (foldout pages or electronic spreadsheets - 10 point font) with one-inch margins (top, bottom, left and right). Is it also permissible to use 10 point font for graphics and tables, regardless of whether the graphic or table is on an 8.5x11 page or an 11x17 fold out? Answer 22 This is acceptable. Question 23 Draft Solicitation Sections L.2.2, L.3.1.1.1, L.3.2.1.1, and L.3.3 request the use of cross-reference indices with the proposal. Are these indices included or excluded from volume page limits? Answer 23 The cross-reference indices are counted in the volume page limits. The page limits have been adjusted in L.1.1., Volume 1. Question 24 Draft Solicitation Section L.1.1 indicates that Proposal Volume II, Past Performance Factor does not have a page limit. Draft Solicitation Section L.3.3.2.2, however, concludes by stating that "[t]he offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages for each contract cited." Please clarify if L.3.3.2.2 refers to the entirety of the offeror's information for each contract cited or to a specific portion of the past performance data. Answer 24 Past Performance Factor is Volume III. Paragraph L.3.3.2.2. limits information for each contract cited to two (2) pages in its entirety. Question 25 Draft Solicitation Section L.3.5.1.2 states that "[t]he offeror shall submit supporting computations and summaries contained in the cost proposal on CD-ROM using Excel." Should the offeror submit an individual CD-ROM for each Evaluation Task, or should supporting data for Evaluation Tasks 1 through 3 appear on separate discs? Answer 25 The offeror shall submit a separate disk for each sample task including all computations and supporting data. Question 26 Draft Solicitation Section L.3.2.1.1 states that Proposal Volume II, Management and Related Corporate Experience Factors shall 'have an index that contains narrative titles which are cross-referenced to the offeror's discussion.' Please clarify what information should be cross-referenced. Answer 26 The Management Volume should cross reference back to section C, performance work statement, paragraphs 3.2 thru 3.10. Question 27 Since our company will be proposing Facilities Capital Cost of Money, it is requested that FAR 52.215-17, Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money, be removed from the solicitation. Answer 27 Both need to be included in solicitation. The resultant contract will identify one or the other. Question 28 FAR Clause 52.228-4, Workers' Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas, relates to insurance requirements for work being performed outside of the United States. It is our understanding that all work under this solicitation will be performed within the United States; therefore, this clause would not apply. Please clarify. Answer 28 The clause will be deleted. Question 29 DFAR Clause 252.237-7006, Subcontracting, requires Contracting Officer approval of all subcontracting and is prescribed via 237.7003(b) for inclusion in all mortuary services solicitations. As such, it is requested that this clause be removed. Answer 29 The clause will be deleted Question 30 If there are Program Management/Project Control/Administrative direct charge labor hours and/or any associated other direct costs above and beyond the labor hours and travel specified in any or all of the individual Task Orders should they be included in the Task Order Cost Estimate or should they be included in some yet to be specified Program Management Task for the overall PAIS V Contract? Answer 30 All costs to perform the tasks should be included in the estimate for each task order. Question 31 Paragraph C.3.2.9 addresses providing operations and maintenance support for IPMS but does not include AIPMS. Will IPMS supplant AIPMS? Answer 31 No. Question 32 IPMS, addressed in Paragraph C.3.2.9, has been used for CRDLS A001 and A002 report submittal under the current PAIS IV contract. The CDRLS indicated that the preferred method of submitting the Monthly Progress Report and Monthly Progress and Status Report is the latest version of Microsoft Office products in lieu of IPMS discussed in Section C.3.2.9, is that the intent? Answer 32 Yes, the intent is to do Microsoft office products. Question 33 Sample Evaluation Task 3 Paragraph 3.4.4 requires the contractor to "maintain, update, or upgrade the existing chemical weapons risk models (information and programming) for BGCAPP and PCAPP." In order to estimate the level of effort required for this task could access to the risk models be provided with release of the Final RFP? Answer 33 The risk models cannot be directly provided. For estimating purposes assume 1.5 FTE's. Question 34 Sample Evaluation Task 3 Paragraph 3.4.4 requires the contractor to "maintain, update, or upgrade the existing chemical weapons risk models (information and programming) for BGCAPP and PCAPP." In order to estimate the level of effort required for this task could the Government provide additional guidance as to the requirements that should be assumed for proposal purposes? Answer 34 The chemical weapons risk models must take into account previous actual chemical demilitarization accident types and rates for equipment and operations at chemical agent storage, operational, and demilitarization facilities with respect to explosive and chemical agent associated hazards and risks. It must also take into account accident rates and failures of items in industry (e.g. valves, tanks, piping, processing equipment, etc.) in order to build a database of information to draw from in a quantitative manner. The model then applies this quantitative data in a risk assessment of PM ACWA facility operations to derive quantitative risk based profiles for both workers and the general public from chemical agent exposure and explosive hazards for ACWA operations. The models should be reviewed every six months to incorporate evaluation of new incidents, new techniques, or design changes at ACWA facilities. In addition the model platform should be evaluated and chosen to allow for upgrades through completion of the ACWA program. Question 35 To support an evaluation of the requirements for Sample Evaluation Task 3, could the Government provide access to the qualitative and quantitative risk assessments that have been performed in support of the ACWA program over the last five years? Answer 35 The BGCAPP Screening QRA for Public Risk will be made available upon request. It describes the risk assessment methods used and illustrates the level of detail expected. Question 36 Sample Evaluation Task 3 Paragraph 3.4.5.3 references SAIC Study #RM-09-004, 17 July 2009, Worker Risk due to a Leaking Munition at PCD. Could this study be made available to the offerors with the release of the Final RFP? Answer 36 Yes, the report will be made available to all bidders. Question 37 Sample Evaluation Task 3, Paragraphs 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 refer to specific travel that is different than the travel required in Paragraph 9.0 TRAVEL. Is the travel in Paragraphs 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 in addition to the specified travel in Paragraph 9.0? Answer 37 The travel in Paragraphs 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 are not in addition to the travel specified in Paragraph 9.0; Paragraph 9.0 includes all the travel in Paragraphs 3.5.4 and 3.5.5. Paragraphs 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 provide more detail about the purpose of one visit to PCAPP, one visit to BGCAPP, and one visit to the CDC. However, Paragraphs 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 only include time spent at the site itself; Paragraph 9.0 also includes time spent traveling to and from the site.In paragraph 9.0 travel will include one (1) person, for two (2) days trip to Atlanta, GA to visit CDC. Question 38 Paragraph L.3.2.2, Related Corporate Experience, requests the offerors discuss their Corporate Experience related to the Chem Demil Program; however, there does not appear to be a corresponding evaluation criteria in Section M. Could the Government provide the evaluation criteria for Paragraph L.3.2.2, Related Corporate Experience in the Final RFP? Answer 38 Paragraph M.4.4. Related Corporate Experience Factor will be added to the final RFP. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated that it possesses the depth and breadth of corporate experience necessary to perform efforts relevant to program management, integration and technical support that are applicable to the CMA and ACWA chemical demilitarization missions. Question 39 Paragraph L.3.2.1.2.3, Facilities, requires the offerors to present a description of their facilities. Is it a requirement of the Contract to have a Laboratory capable of handling and analyzing for chemical agents? Answer 39 No. Question 40 Paragraph 5.2 in Sample Evaluation Tasks 1, 2 and 3 require a Final Comprehensive Report to be produced at the conclusion of the tasks. This Final Comprehensive Report is not discussed elsewhere in the Sample Evaluation Tasks. Could the Government elaborate on the elements of the Final Comprehensive Reports especially with relation to Sample Evaluation Tasks 2 and 3? Answer 40 The elements of the Final Comprehensive Reports especially with relation to Sample Evaluation Tasks 2 and 3 are in accordance with Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) A003, DI-MISC-80711A. Question 41 The three Sample Evaluation Tasks cover some, but not all, of the services identified as required in Section C "Description and Specifications" of the Draft Request for Proposal (RPF). Given that the only technical approach to be included in the proposal response is specifically in relation to the three Sample Evaluation Tasks please describe how the Government intends to evaluate the offeror's ability to provide the full breath of services identified in Section C. Answer 41 The offeror's Management proposal will be evaluated IAW section M.4.4 through M.4.4.4. Question 42 Paragraphs 2.7 through 2.12 in Sample Evaluation Task 1 are references to documents required for proposing on this Task. Will access to these documents or access to the CMA Document Management System (if they are contained therein) be provided with the release of the Final RFP? Answer 42 The documents listed in paragraphs 2.7 through 2.12 in Sample Evaluation Task 1 will be made available in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). Question 43 Paragraphs 2.1.11 through 2.1.14 in Sample Evaluation Task 2 are references to documents required for proposing on this Task. Will access to these documents or access to the CMA Document Management System (if they are contained therein) be provided with the release of the Final RFP? Answer 43 The documents listed in paragraphs 2.1.11 through 2.1.14 in Sample Evaluation Task 2 will be made available in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). Question 44 Paragraph 2.1 in Sample Evaluation Task 3 states "All documentation is available on-site in the PCAPP and BGCAPP document control centers, available from the organizations listed above, or otherwise available through SC and ACWA portal access via the internet." Will access to these document repositories be provided with the release of the Final RFP? Answer 44 No, but requested documents can be provided. Question 45 Will there be any set aside for small business in this solicitation? Answer 45 No. Question 46 Is this solicitation similar to the RDECOM Support Contracts W911SR09R0023 and W911SR09R0031 or "Omnibus" contracts where there are multiple awards but no guaranteed work (Delivery Orders are competed amongst awardees)? Answer 46 The solicitation contemplates multiple awards, see paragraph M.1.1. The minimum quantity of $25,000 is stated at paragraph B.2.1.1. Task Orders will typically be competed among awardees.
Web Link: FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/214fd2322a6583240bed95138f2d49d0)
Place of Performance: Address: RDECOM Contracting Center - Edgewood (RDECOM-CC) ATTN: AMSSB-ACC-E, 5183 Blackhawk Road Aberdeen Proving Ground MD; Zip Code: 21010-5424
Record: SN02454588-W 20110525/110523234444-214fd2322a6583240bed95138f2d49d0 (fbodaily.com)
Source: FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

R -- This notice provides questions and answers received in response to the Draft Request for Proposal, W911SR-11-R-0007, for Program and Integration Support(PAISV) issued 30 March 2011. The Final RFP will be issued on or about 27 May 2011.