1305M323RNFFK0014 QA.docx

1305M323RNFFK0014 – NMFS OHC STPS IDIQ

Questions and Answers

1. PWS 4.3 Key Personnel: Are the Program Manager and full-time Finance Manager intended to be billable positions or should their cost be factored into the overhead/PMO cost across all LCs?

Answer: Costs for Key Personnel are considered overhead in support of the contract and as such are not directly billable. This overhead should be considered when formulating pricing for Labor Categories in Attachment B “Pricing Schedule”. Please note the Pricing Schedule includes pricing for a Deputy Program Manager (cell A51) and Senior Program Manager (cell A52) in the event these positions need to be utilized for specific tasks requiring directed management.

2. Attachment-B Pricing-Schedule

a. Cells K16 & K34 are missing formulas.

Answer: These cells have been corrected and a new Pricing Schedule attached to the Amendment.

b. Cells G68 & I68 have inconsistent formulas.

Answer: These formulas have been removed and were erroneously included.

3. RFP page 79 lists Factor 4 (in Volume II) after Factor 5 (in Volume I). Please verify the Volume and Factor numbering.

Answer: The Volume and Factor numbering are correct. Factor 4 – Betterment will be its own submission (Volume II) and Factor 5 will be included in Volume I.

4. Are the 5 proposed betterments included in Factor 4 to be provided at no cost to the government?

Answer: Betterments should be considered overhead and factored into the fully burdened rates identified in the Offeror’s Pricing Schedule.

5. RFP page 83/84 states that a detailed explanation demonstrating relevance should be provided in Factor 5 Past Performance. Factor 3 Corporate Experience also requires the projects to show Relevance. As the projects presented in Factor 5 Past Performance must match the projects presented in Factor 3 Corporate Experience, we recommend that the requirement to demonstrate relevance be removed from Factor 5.

Answer: Relevancy will be kept in Factor 5 and will be evaluated by the Government to provide a rating in accordance with Table 3 of the RFP (page 92).

6. Does the government desire for the awardee to retain all incumbent staff?

Answer: Offerors are allowed to propose their own staffing solution based on the requirements of the PWS and the Pricing Schedule, which may or may not include the incumbent personnel at the Offeror’s discretion. Offerors shall demonstrate a sound approach and expertise to furnish the full range of solutions and services necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS.

7. Under Factor 5 Past Performance, the Government defined a contract as “a purchase order, a contract, a single task order or call order placed under an ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule.” Can offerors cite a single award IDIQ contract with multiple delivery orders as a Corporate Experience reference (Factor 3)?

Answer: Yes, Offerors may cite a single award IDIQ contract.

8. Factor 5 Past Performance references Recency, Relevancy, and Quality. But Factor 3 Corporate experience references Size, Scope, the magnitude of effort, and complexity. Would the government please clarify Factor 3 that size and scope in this matter are at the T/O size of annual value of 250K or greater (similar to the incumbent IDIQ), or allow offers to utilize single award IDIQs.

Answer: The Government anticipates individual task orders under this IDIQ to range in size and scope from $1M to $5M per year. This information will be used to determine relevancy under Factors 3 and 5.

9. Reference 1330-52.227-70 Instructions to Offerors, page 104 - “Offerors must include a Data Management Plan . . .” In which volume should offerors place the plan, and if applicable - is it included in the page count?

Answer: Offerors shall include the Data Management Plan as specified under NAM 1330-52.227-70, Section 3 (page 104) in their Volume I submission. The Data Management Plan will count towards the page limit and shall not exceed two pages per the NAM solicitation language.

10. Instructions to Offerors, Page 81 - 4. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Factor 1: Technical Approach and Expertise, “an offeror’s technical approach shall provide an explanation of their current financial system, and if they are able to update or modify it in order to track and provide cost documentation for various types of funds and projects when necessary to do so and provide information on an as needed basis (i.e., audits). Examples include spend planning tools and experience using them on complex federal contracts shall be provided.”

a. Question - Can the Government provide additional information on current spend planning tools used to support the program, so we can tailor our response to tools that will best integrate with the OHC systems, and to ensure there is not an unfair advantage to the incumbent. We have multiple solutions, and would be able to best tailor our solution to the government (as required in the instructions and evaluation criteria), based on some additional information.

Answer: Offerors will be evaluated on their technical approach and expertise with the use of a robust auditing/accounting process that can hold up to litigation and third-party audits. Appendix B of the PWS outlines additional Cost Documentation (CostDoc) information and systems currently used by NMFS OHC. Spend planning tools should include granular level support for invoicing, time card documentation, and budget projections (burn rates and forecasts) that can be tracked at the activity, project, and/or task levels.

11. Instructions to Offerors, Page 81 - 4. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Factor 1: Technical Approach and Expertise - Financial System

a. Question - Does OHC and the related entities in the IDIQ/PWS use or plan to migrate to the use of SmartSheets?

Answer: OHC and the other offices identified in the PWS do not currently use SmartSheets and there is not a plan to migrate to this platform.

12. Instructions to Offerors, Page 81 - 4. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Factor 1: Technical Approach and Expertise, “offerors may provide additional labor categories as part of their technical solution… a description and associated education or experience qualifications shall be provided… an hourly rate for additional labor categories shall be provided in Attachment B… will not be included in offeror’s Total Evaluated Price.”

a. Question - Will the proposed additional labor categories be evaluated as part of the technical proposal (Vol I), and if so to what criteria?

Answer: Yes, if an offeror chooses to include additional labor categories as specified under Factor 1 they will be evaluated accordingly. As specified in the RFP, Table 1 will be used to evaluate Factor 1.

b. Question - Because this is an IDIQ, is it acceptable to propose additional labor categories to ensure all potential positions are included within the contract; that is, not based on the current work requirements but potential future requirements?

Answer: Offerors are free to propose any additional labor categories they feel are necessary to achieve the objectives of the PWS, including potential future requirements that may arise during performance of the IDIQ. If an offeror chooses to provide additional labor categories, a description and associated education or experience qualifications shall be provided.

13. IDIQ Terms and Conditions, 7. Labor Categories and Rates, Page 76, “additional labor categories and their associated labor rates for specialized professional services for which the expertise required or duties performed are within the scope of the contract, but not explicitly included in Attachment B, may be added through a bilateral contract modification.”

a. Question: if Labor Categories can be added to the contract after award, is there an advantage to proposing additional labor categories we may need to use with our proposal submission?

Answer: The Government is relying on the Offeror’s technical approach and expertise to furnish the full range of solutions and services they deem necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS. If any additional labor categories are offered they will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP under Factor 1.

14. Instructions to Offerors, Page 81 - 4. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Factor 2: Management Capacity, “offeror shall provide a detailed description of any major subcontractors or teaming partners, their role under this effort, and the amount and/or type of work to be performed.”

a. Question: What level of detail would the Government like to see in regards to the role, amount, and type of work to be performed?

Answer: Offerors should provide information they deem sufficient to provide the Government with a clear understanding of their management capacity as it relates to this requirement.

15. Instructions to Offerors, Page 82 - 4. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Factor 4: Innovation in Technical Support/Betterment, “offerors are encouraged to provide innovative technical solutions that meet and exceed the Government's minimum requirements. Offerors shall identify any “Betterment” promises it is making a … Volume II. Vol. II shall identify (1) the specific requirement in the contract clause, PWS section or paragraph, or other element that is being exceeded or enhanced; (2) the betterment promise; (3) detailed explanation of the value to the Government provided by this promise in terms of cost, schedule, performance, and/or risk.”

a. Question: Please confirm if betterments for Vol II pertain specifically to Appendix A - Performance Requirement Summary items.

Answer: As specified in the RFP, offerors shall identify the specific requirement in the contract clause, PWS section or paragraph, or other element that is being exceeded or enhanced.

b. Question: Can the Government provide additional logic behind the inclusion of “Betterment” as a separate volume and evaluation factor (Factor 4). This is appears a new requirement or focus area for NOAA.

Answer: NOAA is seeking technical innovations from industry on this requirement. The Government believes Offerors are the technical experts and should be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate innovative approaches to the Government that can improve cost, schedule, performance, and/or risk to enhance the NMFS OHC mission needs.

c. Question: Should Offerors consider all PWS areas and instructions as options to consider to provide “betterments” to NOAA?

Answer: As specified in the RFP, offerors shall identify the specific requirement in the contract clause, PWS section or paragraph, or other element that is being exceeded or enhanced.

16. Page 90, Basis for Award, Factor 4: “the offeror will be evaluated on their approach to provide innovative technical solutions that meet and exceed the Government’s minimum requirements identified in the PWS”

a. Question: Should betterments therefore, based on evaluation criteria, only be based on the PWS (beginning on page 29)?

Answer: In accordance with the Instructions to Offerors section of the RFP (beginning on page 82), Betterments can be based on contract clauses, PWS sections/paragraphs, or other elements, but should be technical in nature.

17. Instructions to Offerors, Page 83 - 4. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Factor 5: Past Performance, “.... the references submitted shall be the same references as those provided under the Corporate Experience factor.” AND A. Basis for Award, Page 89 – “ Factors 1,2,and 3 are more important than Factors 4 and 5.”

a. Question: Please confirm that Factor 3 (Corporate Experience) will be evaluated on technical relevancy to accomplish PWS Section 2.0, and Factor 5 (Past Performance) will be strictly evaluated on ability to meet all of the management and work requirements?

Answer: Factor 3 is intended to gain an understanding of the Offeror’s technical experience with projects that are similar in size, scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to the PWS requirements (i.e., what the Offeror has done), whereas Factor 5 is intended to gain an understanding of how well the Offeror (i.e., quality) has performed on similar projects.

18. Basis For Award, B. Evaluation Factors, Factor 1: Technical Approach and Expertise, Page 90. “..... and ISO approved quality processes and experience in automated systems work.”

a. Question: Can the Government please elaborate on their definition of automated systems work?

Answer: Experience in automated systems work includes utilization of financial software, systems, or technology to improve efficiencies.