B.x.x - Questions+Responses_Att1_PSD's Admin Supp Svcs - v20220610.pdf

QUESTIONS + RESPONSES

(Attachment 1)

Re-Compete of Administrative Support Services for ATF: OPRSO's PSD + PSPB, also HRPD's National Academy 15A00022R00000080

RFQ Reference (i.e., Contract Line-Item Number {CLIN}, SOW, Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Criteria, etc.)

OFFERORS' QUESTION(S) ATF's RESPONSE

1 General/Overall

Is the Due date in Block 8 correct of 6/17/2022 – making this a 9 day turn?

With questions not due on June 13th, is it really possible for the government to answer all and allow time for the offerors to provide compliant meaningful proposals?

Please clarify the due date via an amendment for all bidders. We believe that a more reasonable due date would be sometime in Mid July providing for a 30-45 day write for a meaningful competition.

The dates are not typos – The Pre-Solicitation Notice (15A00022RFPTBD), which contained the Draft SOW, was posted on 5/21/2022 for this commercial buy. Everything will depend on the questions received & how soon the Gov’t can return the response, whether such significantly impacts the action.

2 SOW, section 3.0, item A Item A states: "A. The Contractor shall provide qualified personnel to fill the below positions…" Is it accurate that offerors should provide resumes for all 36 positions listed within section A?

The Offeror shall provide resumes for its proposed personnel. However, if the Offeror proposes to retain the incumbent staff, then resumes are not required. If the Offeror does not yet have personnel to propose, then it must explain how it plans to fill the positions based on its past experience.

3 SOW, section 3.0, item B Item B states: "B. The contractor shall provide the below specialized/exempt positions…" Should offerors provide resumes for these 12 positions as well?

See Response to Question #3.

4 General/Overall This appears to be an exceptionally quick timeframe for a $38M requirement. We simply cannot create a quality offer in that timeframe so we wanted to confirm the accuracy of this timeline.

The timeline is correct - See Response to Question #1.

5 SOW Who is the Incumbent? The Pre-Solicitation, #15A00022RFPTBD, was amended to add this information: Arctic Slope Mission Services, LLC.

6 SOW What is the current contract number? Artic's contract # is DJA-17-AHDQ-V-0317 per the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG).

7 SOW -- Resume submission

Do you need resumes for all eight labor categories OR just the On-Site Supervisor?

(1)Administrative Assistant,(2) General Clerk I, (3) General Clerk III, (4) Internal Communications Specialist, (5)Management Analyst, Data Analyst, (6) On-Site Supervisor, Operations Analyst,(7) Secretary III, (8) Senior Investigative Program Manager, (9) SharePoint Developer, Supply Technician & Word Processor III

See Response to Question #3.

8 SOW= Section 6.0 -- Facility Clearance

Is the prime contractor permitted to use its subcontractor's facility clearance as proof of facility Clearance at the Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive-Compartmented Information (SCI) level.

No - Per DOJ requirements, the Prime and any Sub(s) must all have their own Facility Clearance.

L.1, 3.6 Section 2 – Factor 2, Key Personnel

Of the positions on p. 44 deemed "essential," which of the positions does the Government consider "key" and needing a resume included with the proposal? Will it be acceptable to include some representative resumes for non-key personnel?

See Response to Question #3. (Unsure what a "representative resume" is..)

10 Section L page 63 of 72

52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993) is included in the RFP. Please clarify where this plan should be put within the proposal and how the Compensation Plan is to be evaluated. If a plan is required to be submitted, please confirm that it is not part of the page count in either volume. If this is not a requirement, please remove the clause.

FAR 22.1103 requires clause #52.222-46; the Quotation Instructions have been updated to exclude the Compensation Plan from the page count of Vol. II.

Section B Rate Tables pages

8 and 9

Several positions are * to be covered under Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) -formerly Service Contract Act. Please provide which DOL Wage Determination numbers are to be used to ensure we are compliant with the requirement for SCLS.

Our apologies - Both Wage Determination #s 2015-4281 (DC) & 2015-4477 (GA), as revised, are attached to the SF30 of the solicitation.

Re-Compete of Administrative Support Services for ATF: OPRSO's PSD + PSPB, also HRPD's National Academy 15A00022R00000080

RFQ Reference (i.e., Contract Line-Item Number {CLIN}, SOW, Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Criteria, etc.)

OFFERORS' QUESTION(S) ATF's RESPONSE

Section L 2.0 6th paragraph

RFP States "The offeror shall present all information in an organized fashion so ATF will understand the price of the work to be performed and provide a basis of estimate, explaining the level of effort used to calculate the prices".

Given that the level of effort is dictated in both section C 3.0 Page 11 of 72 and in Attachment 2 pricing template, what type of detail is the government requesting in the basis of estimate?

The Gov't is requesting the Offeror provide the info. in 3.9 of Section L.1 (pg. 66 of 72) in an organized fashion, to include the basis for its labor rates. If this information is captured in the Compensation Plan , then that will be sufficient.

If the Offeror elects to propose a different labor mix @ its own risk, then the Gov't expects an explanation/rationale for such.

Section L 2.0 4th paragraph

Pages 63 of 72

Page 63 states "The offeror shall submit condensed files so that it only attaches no more than two (2) files: its Technical proposal, its Pricing proposal, and the “PricingTemplate” (Attachment 2)."

The language suggests that three files should be submitted, technical proposal, pricing proposal, and the pricing template (attachment 2). Please confirm that three files should be submitted.

Correct - Section 2.0 of Section L.1 has been updated to reflect three (3) files. The initial thought was that the Pricing Template would be combined w/the Price Section;

however, said Template must be in Excel.

Section B - Supplies or

Services and Prices/Costs

Will the government clarify that Section B, Schedule of Supplies/Services, as found on p. 5- 8 of the RFP is different from Section B of Volume I. Please confirm that these pages should be included in Volume II of the proposal, and that these pages are not included in the page count.

The last sentence in Section 2.0 of Section L.1 requires pgs. 5-8 of the RFP/SF1449 in Vol.

II, the Price Section. The table has been updated to reflect that these pages are excluded from the page count.

15 Section C 4.0 Pages 12-20

Eduction and years experience requirements were not provided for the SharePoint Developer/Site Manager, Senior Investigative PM, and Internal Communications Specialist though those positions are specified as not under the service contract labor standards. Please clarify as to if any such minimum requirements exist for those positions.

Section 4.0 of the SOW has been updated to require a Bachelors Degree or equivalent and related experience (Tasks 15-17 & 19) .

16 Section L 3.0, p. 64 of 72 Will the government please consider increasing the page count for Volume II, Price, from NTE 6 pages to NTE 10 pages?

The Price Section was increased to nine (9) pages. (Also see Response to Question #s 10 & 14.)

Re-Compete of Administrative Support Services for ATF: OPRSO's PSD + PSPB, also HRPD's National Academy 15A00022R00000080

RFQ Reference (i.e., Contract Line-Item Number {CLIN}, SOW, Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Criteria, etc.)

OFFERORS' QUESTION(S) ATF's RESPONSE

Section 3 Factor 3 Past

Performance

Quotation Submittal Instructions in section 3 - Factor 3 Past Performance states "The offeror shall provide a detailed summary for all three (3) of its recent (within the past three {3} years) and relevant (closely connected/appropriate or similar to the work size, scope and complexity described in ATF’s SOW) projects."

Many companies are structured with multiple divisions or multiple legal entities that individually perform Prime Contracts, but fall under a broader corporate umbrella. Recognizing such corporate structures exist across the industry, the procurement rules and numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of affiliate companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B-

414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018)(holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company), and Iyabak Construction, LLC, B- 409196 (Comp. Gen. Feb.6, 2014)(holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of affiliates).

Defining an Offeror to include its affiliates and evaluating the past performance of affiliates benefits the Government by increasing the pool of competitors, which in turn likely leads to more innovative proposals, more robust technical solutions, and lower prices. Further, the agency will receive access to the resources, tools, and other valuable skills that an offeror’s affiliate and broader organization can contribute to contract performance.

Would the government please clarify that the Offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and experience of an affiliate company so long as the Offeror demonstrates how the resources of the affiliate will meaningfully contribute to the performance of this work in support of ATF Admin Support Services effort

Section 1.3 of Section M.1 has been updated to allow detailed summaries for an Offeror's parent or affiliate company(ies) under Factor 3, provided the Offeror explains/demonstrates how said firm(s) will meaningfully affect the performance of this

SOW.

6.10.2022