RFP Questions and Answers May 13.docx

Enterprise Support Services Request for Proposal 12318720R0007 Questions and Answers as of 13 May 2020

Q: Is there currently an incumbent company or previous incumbent, who completed similar contract performing these services? If so - can you please provide incumbent contract number, dollar value and period of performance?

A: The incumbent contractor is Sehlke Consulting, contract number AG-3187-C-15-0013, value $1,720,478.01. The current contract ends 31 July 2020.

Q: Is the estimated value for this requirement greater than $250K?

A: The estimated value of this acquisition (12318720R0007) is greater than the Simplified Acquisition Threshold which is why it is released as an “R” vs “Q”.

Q: Are you satisfied with incumbent performance?

A: The Government does not release past performance information to competitors.

Q: What is the budget of this opportunity? Is Budget approved?

A: We do not intend to share the independent government estimate as it may be used for price evaluation purposes. Funding is budgeted for this acquisition.

Q: We would like to include a subcontractor / teaming partner on our team. If we do, can we utilize their experience in our proposal? Would you accept the experience for evaluation of our subcontractor/teaming partner?

A: We will consider the experience of the sub/teaming partner. Note that the past performance attachment indicates the Offeror must describe whether their contract/experience was as Prime or Sub. The small business prime contractor must provide at least 50% of the contract cost to qualify for the set-aside. Also make sure you comply with solicitation provision 52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges-Identification of Subcontract Effort.

Q: We are considering solicitation 12318720R0007 however we did not find instructions to properly respond. In the attached PDF we find Section L however could not find instructions as to page count, volumes, format, and more. Are there other documents that we have not found?

A: Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Methodology can be found in the provisions in Sections L (e.g. 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees) and M, as well as, FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and 52.212-2 Evaluation. Any clauses may be viewed in their entirety at www.acquisition.gov. There are no page limitations and responses can be in contractor format. There are no required volumes however, the offeror should include information sufficient for the Government to evaluate the factors in FAR 52.212-2: Factor 1 - Technical Approach; Factor 2 - Relevant Experience; Factor 3 - Past Performance; Factor 4 – Price.

Q: In Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 5.0 “Access to Contractor-Owned Meeting Facilities,” the government requires access to meeting facilities owned by the contractor. Many contractors lease, rather than own, their office space. Will the government accept a proposal as compliant regarding Section 5.0 if a bidder has control over an appropriate meeting space, either through ownership or a lease agreement?

A: The intention of the Government was to have access to contractor meeting facilities. The contractor’s meeting facilities do not need to be owned.

Q: Can the government provide an estimated average number of hours per year for each area of support in the PWS?

A: The Government estimates the incumbent's time is allocated across PWS task areas 3.1 to 3.5 in the following manner:

3.1: 5% of the hours 3.2: 37% of the hours 3.3: 16% of the hours 3.4: 37% of the hours 3.5: 5% of the hours Q: Can the government provide who is the authorizing official and what guidance is followed to obtain an ATO?

A: The ATO process follows the USDA Risk Management Framework Guide. Additional information may be found at: https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/departmental-regulation-3540-003. The Authorizing Official is the Deputy Chief of the National Forest Service.

Q: Can the Government confirm the location(s) where personnel are required to be located?

A: Contractor personnel provided under any contract resulting from this solicitation shall be located in Denver, Colorado. The Recreation One Stop Program Office is physically located at 1644 Platte Street; Denver, CO 80202.

Q: Can the government confirm the location of the required Contractor-owned meeting facility, is it Denver, Colorado or Washington, DC?

A: Contractor-owned/leased meeting space shall be provided in the Washington D.C. area.

Q: The New requirements for this Contract looks like it also needs additional KP: 1 Agile expert, 1 Data management expert. Do we need to recommend other Key Personnel Positions?

A: Offerors are not required to propose additional Key Personnel designations; however, Offerors are not prohibited from doing so if they believe it will increase the benefit of their proposed technical solution to the Government.

Q: Or only need to provide the two Key Personnel positions requested in our response?

A: Offerors are required to propose to the minimum requirements specified in the requirements, but may choose to exceed those minimum requirements at their own discretion if they believe doing so will grant them a competitive advantage within the framework of the evaluation criteria and source selection methodology defined in the RFP.

Q: Who is doing the build work to support reporting and other needs currently?

A: All development work is provided by Booz Allen Hamilton under the Recreation One Stop Support Services contract, AG-3187-C-16-9000.

Q: We are a new company and do not have any performance references. Would that immediately preclude any consideration for the pre-solicitation?

A: Please refer to the evaluation methodology in solicitation provision 52.212-2. The Government is evaluating the following factors: Factor 1 - Technical Approach; Factor 2 - Relevant Experience; Factor 3 - Past Performance; Factor 4 – Price. The Government will provide an integrated assessment based upon the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal. We cannot provide theoretical evaluation results without actually reviewing the proposal submission and judging it against the criteria in the solicitation.

Note the solicitation states a rating of “Neutral” will be given for the Past Performance Factor if “No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. A Neutral rating is considered to be neither positive nor negative.” Lack of Past Performance record does not excuse the Offeror from meeting other solicitation requirements such as evidence of Relevant Experience per Factor 2.