RFP_Questions_and_Answers_23_Feb_2018.docx

Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology Support Services Request for Proposal (RFP) 1284JC18R0001 RFP Questions and Answers As of 23 Feb 2018

Q: Will there be a webinar or conference link for the Industry Day Open questions period?

A: There is no webinar/teleconference option for Industry Day.

Q: Is the small business required to do 50% of the work if subcontracting some of the work?

A: The solicitation contains erroneous clauses (52.219-8, 52.219-9, and 52.219-16) and is missing 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. An amendment is forthcoming to make corrections. Offerors/awardees must comply with the limits established in clause 52.219-14. The Government intends to monitor compliance with the clause on an annual basis. Offerors should also reference the SBA final rule, effective 30 June 2016 for recent changes to subcontracting limits (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/31/2016-12494/small-business-government-contracting-and-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2013-amendments?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov).

Q: Is there an incumbent for this contract or is this a continuation of an existing contract?

A: The incumbent is RedCastle Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Q: Will you be providing more information for Sample Task 2?

A: There is only one (1) Sample Task included in the solicitation. Make sure you are accessing the formal solicitation and not the draft documents.

Q: I have had several potential teaming partners call to ask the same question as follows: 1) Is this a new contract?; 2) If a re-compete of the original RedCastle award why does their contract show an end date as 05/20/2022 which appears to significantly overlap the period of performance for this new effort?

A: This solicitation replaces the canceled requirement that was posted under FedBizOps number AG-84M8-S-16-0005. The current Remote Sensing and Geospatial Support Services contract number AG-84JC-C-14-0001 was modified to correct errors in the ID/IQ clauses, including the potential performance end date for task orders issued against the contract. The ordering period has not changed and orders may not currently be placed past November 2018. The contract does however contain clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (for up to 6-months).

Q: Are resumes required for the Key Personnel listed under Performance Work Statement (PWS), paragraph 2.10.7. Key Personnel?

A: See Section L, paragraph 2.2.2 Sub-factor B-Key Personnel: Offerors are required to provide and/or address the information required in Section L within the proposal. Resumes were not requested however, offerors may use whatever information they deem necessary to address the Section L requirement.

Q: Do the Program Manager and Project Manager both need to be on-site? If so, do they need to be on-site full-time?

A: The Government does not intend on dictating the offeror’s approach to Program and Project Management. Offerors may have different approaches that may be a distinguishing factor between proposals.

Q: PWS, section 2.10.7 Key Personnel does not include LCATs for "Program Manager" or "Project Manager" (there is a Geospatial Project Manager). Are there any specific requirements for the role of Program Manager and Project Manager?

A: The section L, paragraph 2.2.1 Project Manager minimum position requirements are found in the PWS, paragraph 2.10.7.2. Geospatial Project Manager. Section L, paragraph 2.2.1 will be updated to state “Geospatial Project Manager(s)”. There are no minimum requirements stated for the Program Manager.

Q: Reference PWS paragraph 2.9 Project Management and 2.10 Program Management; where should these requirements be addressed as they are listed under the technical tasks? Should they be addressed under the response for 2.2.1 Sub-factor A-Program and Project Management?

A: The Government does not intend on directing the offeror’s response to the solicitation. All of the information requested in Section L is required in the proposal. How/where it is addressed is up to the offeror. The Government does not want a reiteration of the PWS objectives (see Section L, paragraph 2.1).

Q: Reference PWS paragraph 2.10.2. Quality Control; please clarify that a draft Quality Control Plan response is not required in the Volume 1 - Technical response.

A: Quality Control Plan is not requested in Section L.

Q: How many key personnel are required and what are their titles?

A: The key personnel labor categories required are listed in section 2.10.7. of the PWS and in section B of the Standard Form (SF) 1447. Section B of the SF 1447 provides estimated labor hours however, hours are variable and dependent on individual orders, offerors proposed strategies, and other factors. See Section L, paragraph 4.1.4. The Government is not directing the staffing strategy as offerors may have differing approaches that may be a distinguishing factor between the proposals.

Q: Would providing the requested services eliminate offerors from pursuing some projects in support of the Forest Service due to conflict of interest? To be more specific, what is the role of the consultant for task orders requesting data or evaluating their own technology? Is it a contract manager only, or is there an option to provide these services as well?

A: The Government is interested in using data and implementing technology from the best possible sources, and expects the contractor to provide the expert technical input that will assist the Government in locating appropriate solutions. The Government will not implement solutions based on contractor-owned intellectual property without a comprehensive and independent vetting process including evaluating impartial solutions.

Q: The effort appears to be focused on setting up an expert analysis team, IT and data management group within the Forest Service. In this case, we are assuming all intellectual property would rest with the Forest Service? Would there be conflict situations with our own analytics offerings if they are similar?

A: The ownership of intellectual property typically depends on whether the technical data or computer software was developed at government or contractor expense. Since the majority of this contract is anticipated to be of a Time and Material (T&M) type nature (approximately 85% T&M and approximately 15% Firm Fixed Price (FFP)), it is expected that intellectual property will be developed at government expense. This has historically been the case. New inventions developed as a result of experimental, developmental, or research work during performance of the contract may also be affected if not disclosed or excluded (see FAR clause 52.227-11). As a general rule, the Government will first seek out commercial sources rather than relying on contractor-proprietary applications.

Q: What is the state of the existing infrastructure and the incumbent? There are very specific technology requests in the job descriptions, leading to the conclusion that the consultant would need to support a legacy infrastructure. Does this support include continuation of development, or are alternate options allowed?

A: The contractor is supporting existing infrastructure and technology while accommodating requests for technology enhancement/modification and/or new design and development. In many cases, the FS has considerable investment in existing infrastructure and enterprise applications therefore, new or alternate solutions may not be entertained if they require significant re-investment or do not integrate with existing technology.

Q: With regard to proposal delivery and the March 29 deadline, what is the government contingency plan on the potential of a government shutdown March 23?

A: At this time, it is expected that the respond-by date will not change as a result and proposals will still be due at the stated date/time/place in the solicitation.

Q: In the table provided in Section B – Suppliers or Services/Prices, is the expected value for ‘Estimated Amount,’ simply the stated ‘Estimated Quantity’ multiplied by the ‘Ceiling Rate? Based on past USFS solicitations, awards, and program execution the majority of contractor staff are placed at rates that are below awarded “ceiling rates.”

A: Yes, the Estimated Amount is the Estimated Quantity multiplied by the Ceiling Rate. I cannot speak to other USFS (non-GTAC) requirements however, the estimated amount in this solicitation is based upon historical averages.

Q: With regard to International Projects Support as well as potential off-site support (not on-site at GTAC or other US government locations), would the Government like us to consider and wrap those rates and estimated amounts into the ceiling rate requested in Section B? Or provide separate tables with ceiling rates for on-site, off-site, and International Projects support?

A: The solicitation is requesting one ceiling rate per labor category. The proposal response must conform to the Section B schedule for evaluation purposes. Since November 2013, approximately 96% of the dollars obligated to this contract have been for work that is performed on-site at a Government facility. Less than 2% of the dollars obligated to this contract have been for work that is performed OCONUS in support of International Programs. Historically international work is prepared on-site with OCONUS travel utilized for the delivery of workshops and training.

Q: Are the majority of personnel expected to fill the listed labor categories and quantity by hour incumbent staff? If so are resumes required for these incumbent staff positions?

A: The Government is not directing the staffing strategy as offerors may have differing approaches that may be a distinguishing factor between the proposals. The only resumes required with the proposal are for the Program and Geospatial Project Manager. See Section L, paragraph 2.2.1.

Q: There is no definition or labor category provided for Program Manager under PWS 2.10.7. Is it appropriate to identify rates for the Program Manager under the Geospatial Principle Investigator labor category?

A: There are multiple Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) that identify a Principal Investigator as a labor category that is wholly distinct from that of a Program Manager. A Principal Investigator, as described in PWS paragraph 2.10.7.1., is a scientific technical expert capable of providing consultation on complex technical projects. See also Section L, paragraph 4.1.4. The Government did not include a direct labor category for Program Manager.

Q: With regard to International Projects Support, can the government describe the volume of work and locations for those services in the past 5 years?

A: Approximately 6% of the money obligated on the existing contract has been in support of International Programs although much of this work has historically and can be performed on-site. Contractors have historically traveled to Zambia, Bhutan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Brazil, Nepal, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia.

Q: With regard to International Projects Support, were any of those services in the past 5 years urgent deployments and activation?

A: The most urgent projects/services were not deployed faster than two weeks from initiation to execution, and in those cases would have relied on already-generated content or materials, or would have been a consulting mission where the contractor acted as a subject matter expert in a group setting. Typically, most missions have multiple months of preparation time.

Q: Can team subcontractors provide their rate build up to government directly?

A: It is normally expected that subcontractors share information with the prime under government contracts (e.g. FAR 15.403-4(b) “When certified cost or pricing data are required, the contracting officer shall require the contractor or prospective contractor to submit to the contracting officer (and to have any subcontractor or prospective subcontractor submit to the prime contractor or appropriate subcontractor tier) the following in support of any proposal…”). Clauses such as 52.232-7, Payments under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts, 52.215-22 – Limitations on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort, and 52.244-2, Subcontracts also flow down to the subcontractor. It is the prime's responsibility to ensure the applicable provisions/clauses are included in their contracts with subs and that the sub provides information as requested. These are auditable areas prior to award and also during contract performance. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to write the proposal as the Government has no privity of contract with a subcontractor. The prime also has a responsibility to perform their own cost/price reasonableness determination of subcontracted work and be able to explain their analysis to the Government. As such, I do not want to receive direct submissions from subcontractors.

Q: Can GTAC provide a template for labor rate buildups in a format they would prefer?

A: A sample has been provided.

Q: Is it permissible to show Ceiling as well as actual BAFO labor rates? If so, how would GTAC like that shown in the proposal?

A: The solicitation is requesting one ceiling rate per labor category. The proposal response must conform to the Section B schedule for evaluation purposes.

Q: With regard to Attachment L: Past Performance Information Sheet. In the first block, both “Company Name” and “Contracting Organization” are listed. Are these the same? If not, please explain the difference. In the second block, you are requesting information on the owner of the contract (organization who solicited the work to be performed) correct? If so, why do you request a CAGE Code?

A: For Section L Attachment L-3 Past Performance Information Sheet, “Company Name” and “Cage Code” are referring to the awardee of the stated/submitted contract. Offerors often submit teaming partner contracts as evidence of past performance. When the source selection team evaluates past performance, we want to ensure that it is clear as to which company actually performed under the contract submitted for evaluation. “Contracting Organization” refers to the owner (i.e. customer) of the contract.

Q: See Section L, paragraph 1.17 Indexing: Where a factor includes only one subfactor should we still tab the factor and subfactor?

A: No, that is not necessary.

Q: See Section L, paragraph 1.19 Binding and Labeling: Do we need to mark every page and can it be a footer below the print margin?

A: Each proposal volume should be accurately marked. It is not necessary to mark each individual page.

Q: See Section L, paragraph 1.20 Electronic Offers: If the spreadsheet is locked is it still considered editable? The concern here is that if it is editable an erroneous change could accidently be made by the viewer.

A: No, a spreadsheet would not be editable if locked. The source selection team will use the hard copy submission for comparison.

Q: See PWS paragraph 2.10.1.2: What is meant by “facilities” in the context of being provided by the contractor?

A: For work performed “off-site”, or at a non-Government location, the contractor shall provide the facility, as necessary. This would be the same case for administrative or business segment labor (e.g. finance managers, human resource managers, contract administrators, buyers, supervisors, program managers, etc.). The Government intends to amend the PWS paragraph 2.10.1.2 to the following: “Except as provided per paragraph 2.10.3, the contractor shall furnish all necessary and appropriate personnel, facilities, consumables, and services needed for, or incidental to, performing and completing the work in accordance with the requirements in this PWS.”

Q: See Section L, paragraph 3.1.1 Relevant Contracts: Is a task order considered a contract?

A: Yes

Q: See Section L, paragraph 4.2.3: Should this information be included in the cost proposal for each labor category?

A: Yes, Section L, paragraph 4.0 are instructions for Proposal Volume 3 – Cost/Price

Q: See Section L, paragraph 2.2.1 Sub-factor A-Program and Project Management: Can the Government help us to understand whether they are looking for a single program manager and multiple project managers?

A: The Government does not intend on dictating the offeror’s approach to Program and Project Management. Offerors may have different approaches that may be a distinguishing factor between proposals.

Q: See Section L, paragraph 2.2.2 Sub-factor B-Key Personnel: If resumes are not required, how does the Government track Key Personnel and their potential replacement?

A: The evaluation criteria selected was what the Government believed would be distinguishing factors between proposals. The key personnel categories listed in the PWS section 2.10.7. contain a minimum level of qualifications/experience/education for each position. Since this is a performance-based contract, as long as the awardee ensures that the minimum level is met, along with any other contract terms and conditions, then the personnel replacement would be deemed acceptable. Sub-factor B-Key Personnel is not an evaluation of the individual(s) proposed for positions but an evaluation of the offeror’s plan for recruiting and retaining those key personnel.

Q: See Section L, paragraph 2.2.2 Sub-factor B-Key Personnel: Are all labor categories considered Key Personnel?

A: The labor categories listed in PWS section 2.10.7 are key personnel.

Q: Can the government provide SF 1447, Sections I & K in Doc format and not PDF?

A: We will not provide a Word version of this document but offerors may save the RFP in an editable format or complete the fill-ins by hand.

Q: Can we get definitive instructions for filling out SF 1447? There are conflicting instructions on the top of 1447 vs what is stated in Section L 5.1.1 regarding blocks 12-18? We need more information for filling out Blocks 21 & 22 on SF 1447

A: The Government will correct the instructions in Section L, paragraph 5.1.1 to “The offeror is required to complete blocks 13 and 15 and Schedule B-Supplies or Services/Prices (beginning on page 7) of the SF 1447”. An amendment to the solicitation will be released following Industry Day.

Page | 6