Questions_and_Answers_12.23.15.pdf

1) RFP L.4 VOLUME I GENERAL, PROPOSAL TRANSMISSION LETTER states “The Offeror shall provide a certificate of non-disclosure in the format of Attachment 7 in Section J.” Does the Government want an Attachment 7 to be completed by all subcontractors?

Yes.

2) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE, Present/Past Performance Information Submission. Will the Government allow Offerors to delete items 3 and 4 from Attachment 1 in order to maximize the space available for providing past performance summary information?

No.

3) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE, Present/Past Performance Information

Submission. Will the Government allow Offerors to delete the “Notes” from Attachment 1 in order to maximize the space available for providing past performance summary information?

4) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE states “the Offeror shall submit a consent letter (Section J, Attachment 11) executed by each teaming partner authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.” Does the Government want a completed Attachment 11 from all teammates or only those providing Past Performance Summaries?

Only those providing Past Performance Summaries.

5) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE Present/Past Performance Information

Submission states “(d) Primary government or industry points of contact. Provide the name, office, address and telephone number for the current Program Manager, PCO, ACO, and COR/COTR.” Attachment 2 only lists the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Representative”. Can you please clarify which POC’s the Government would like offerors to provide.

Use CO and COR as primary. If neither are available, tailor form to add information for PM and/or ACO.

6) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE Present/Past Performance Information

Submission states “(d) Primary government or industry points of contact. Provide the name, office, address and telephone number for the current Program Manager, PCO, ACO, and COR/COTR.” Attachment 2 lists the Name, Office, Address, E-MAIL, Telephone and

Fax. Can you please clarify which information the Government would like offerors to provide.

Use CO and COR as primary. If neither are available, tailor form to add information for PM and/or ACO.

7) RFP L.4 VOLUME III TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL Section C –

Organizational Experience states “The Offeror shall provide a description of the SETA support services that the company has performed within the past five years.” Does the Government desire only information pertaining to the Prime contractor?

No, the government desires information regarding the entire offeror team.

8) RFP L.4 VOLUME III TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL Section A –

Technical Approach and Staff Proposed to Perform the Sample Task Order states “For each sample Task Order, the Offerors Staffing Plan shall include a summary list (MS Excel format preferred) of ALL personnel proposed for each sample Task Order.” Will this document count in the page count?

9) RFP L.4 VOLUME III TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL Section A –

Technical Approach and Staff Proposed to Perform the Sample Task Order states “Additionally, resumes shall be submitted, separated by sample Task Order, for ALL personnel proposed for each sample Task Order and are limited to 3 pages each.” Does the Government want resumes for all management, administrative, and execution staff proposed to be direct charged to the task?

Yes, for all personnel proposed at 25% FTE or greater.

10) RFP L.4 VOLUME V - SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN Page 94 states

"The format of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is the responsibility of the Offeror" however, in Attachment 3 the Government provided a Small Business Subcontracting Plan template. Does the Government desire contractors to provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the contractor's format or in the provided template?

The government-provided template is desired.

11) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV - PAST PERFORMANCE, Page 91 states "If the Offeror submits past performance information for an indefinite delivery contract, then the Offeror must identify a specific task order under the indefinite delivery contract.” If the Offeror provides multiple past performance information summaries addressing different TOs from the same indefinite delivery contract, do they count as individual references?

12) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV - PAST PERFORMANCE, Page 91 states "The Offeror shall submit past performance information for five (5) contracts or Task Order references where the Offeror performed as prime Contractor and may submit up to three (3) contracts or Task Order references for any teaming partner, as desired." Can the contractor provide three (3) past performance information summaries for EACH major subcontractor or is the government limiting past performance information to three (3) subcontractor summaries

TOTAL.

Subcontractor past performance information summaries are limited to a total of three.

13) RFP L.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE, Organizational Structure Change

History, page 92 states “This information is required on the Offeror and teaming partners.”

Does the Government want Organizational Structure Change History from all teammates or only those providing Past Performance Summaries?

Only provide Organizational Structure Change History for teammates providing Past Performance Summaries.

14) RFP L.4, Volume I General, Section A (Page 83), and Attachment 13 (Task Order Pricing)

-There appears to be an inconsistency in the on-site/off-site designations between the staffing tables on Page 83 and Attachment 13. Would the Government please clarify which site (on-site or off-site) refers to the Government Location, and which refers to Contractor Location, and also advise if Offerors should use the site listed in Attachment 13 for pricing the Sample TO?

Onsite refers to government facility. Offsite refers to contractor facility. Yes, offerors should use the sites referenced in Attachment 13 for pricing the sample TO.

15) Section L.4, Section A has a matrix of labor categories for each Sample Task Order. The

Task Order 1: Financial Management, Acquisition and Front Office Technical and Administrative Support matrix contains 12.25 FTE. These 12.25 FTE are reflected in Attachment 13 CLIN 0001.

Attachment 13 also contains additional labor categories (22 FTE) associated with Sample Task Order 1 CLIN 0002 (identified as Section 3.3 only), as well as 2 FTE in Option CLIN 0006.

Should offerors include the additional CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0006 FTEs, referenced in Attachment 13, in their Sample Task Order 1 technical response (to include resumes) in addition to the pricing as instructed in Attachment 13?

16) RFP Section L.4, Volume III – Price/Cost Proposal, 6. Price/Cost Reasonableness and Realism, Paragraph (4) Additional Reimbursable Line Items, states “Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will be reimbursed at actual costs only (excluding indirect costs and profit). The Government may pay a fixed material handling fee, or other equivalent charge.” Is it the Government’s intention that the same fixed material handling fee would be paid on all travel and other direct costs?

The Government may pay a fixed material handling fee, or other equivalent charge, on ODC’s only.

17) RFP Section L.4, Volume III – Price/Cost Proposal, 6. Price/Cost Reasonableness and

Realism, Paragraph (4) Additional Reimbursable Line Items states “Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will be reimbursed at actual costs only (excluding indirect costs and profit). The Government may pay a fixed material handling fee, or other equivalent charge.” Will the government allow subcontractors to also apply a fixed material handling fee to their ODCs?

18) Reference: Section M.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE, page 104 states “Relevancy will be established based upon the Government’s assessment of similarity of service/support to this solicitation requirement, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Comment: As this solicitation is for an IDIQ contract, the most relevant contract type should be an IDIQ and therefore the most relevant service/support contract should be an IDIQ which would best cover the full scope of the PWS requirements. However the RFP states in Section L.4, p. 91 of 106, VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE “If the Offeror submits past performance information for an indefinite delivery contract, then the Offeror must identify a specific task order under the indefinite delivery contract.” Therefore providing only one Task Order from an IDIQ could make it relatively impossible to rate it as highly relevant. As an example the current DSO IDIQ contract should score to be the most relevant past performance but based on the Section L instructions referenced above, it could not be used in its totality.

Question: Would the Government consider removing the probation from using an entire IDIQ reference and adjust the relevancy definitions and evaluations criteria as follows:

1. Removing from Section L.4, page 91, VOLUME IV PAST PERFORMANCE, second paragraph, the following sentence “If the Offeror submits past performance information for an indefinite delivery contract, then the Offeror must identify a specific task order under the indefinite delivery contract.”

2. Adjusting the evaluation criteria in Section M.2, FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE, page 104 0f 106, as follows:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort (at least $50 million for a non-IDIQ contract or single award or at least $500 thousand for a task order of an IDIQ contract during the past performance effort) and involved essentially the same complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort (at least $25 million for a non-IDIQ contract or single award or at least $100 thousand for a task order of an IDIQ contract during the past performance effort) and involved many of the complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort (at least $10 million for a non-IDIQ contract or single award or at least $50 thousand for a task order of an IDIQ contract during the past performance effort) and involved some of the complexities this solicitation requires.

19) Reference: ATTACHMENT 5 SAMPLE TASK ORDER 0001, page 2, paragraph 3.2 Human/Animal Subjects Research Support

Comment: This STO requirement is not within the scope of the RFP Section C.1 IDIQ

PWS.

Question: Please clarify if this requirement will be added to the IDIQ PWS?

Paragraph 3.2 Human/Animal Subjects Research Support is hereby deleted from

ATTACHMENT 5 SAMPLE TASK ORDER 0001.

20) Reference: Section L.4 VOLUME II TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL, Section A, page 83 of 106, Task Order 2, and ATTACHMENT 13 PRICING TABLES, “Project Labor” Tab

Comment: The Onsite and Offsite FTE alignments are inconsistent between the above two references.

Question: Please clarify which FTE alignments are correct.

Tables on page 83 have been updated. Attachment 13 is correct.

21) REFERENCE: PWS, Pages 93-94, Past Performance Questionnaires and Page 1, Attachment 1- Past Performance Questionnaire

The PWS document has the United States Postal Service/FedEx/UPS Deliveries address as:

R. Travis Authier US Department of Health & Human Services Program Support Center

12501 Ardennes Avenue, Suite 400 Rockville, MD 20857 Office: (301) 443-0728 Email: Richard.Authier@psc.hhs.gov

Attachment 1 has the address as:

Department of the Interior Interior Business Center Acquisition Services Directorate Division III 354 South Highway 92 Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

QUESTION: Would the government clarify which is to be used?

Use the DHHS address.

22) REFERENCE: Attachment 12: Work Order Requirements for Front Office Support Task Order

1.3 PRICING INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLINS 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, AND 4002:

FRONT OFFICE SUPPORT: PWS SECTION 3.3 ONLY

The following Labor Categories are provided as representative of the anticipated labor mix and estimated level of effort for SETA services under these CLINS based on historical information. Utilizing the “Price Model Template” offerors shall propose their off-site rates for these categories, which will be used to establish a ceiling for these

CLINS.

These CLINS will be awarded to a Not-To-Exceed ceiling amount. In execution, the successful offeror will propose the appropriate labor mix as necessary to meet the needs of the specific SETA Work Order requirements for these CLINS.

QUESTION: Please confirm the government considers 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) equals 1920 hours per annum. In the above table, is the government’s intent that the period of performance be 6 months (one half year)?

Each FTE is 1920 hours per annum. The government’s intent is for each FTE in the table to work 1920 hours.

23) REFERENCE: ATTACHMENT 9 – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP) states: “1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed to ensure the performance of critical contract elements. The QASP serves as the plan for surveillance of performance and identifies the performance indicators, standards, inspection methods and procedures to be used in monitoring performance. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

This requirement is for contractor services to provide technical, programmatic, financial, and administrative advisory and assistance services (A&AS)/Scientific, Engineering and Technical assistance (SETA) support for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office (DSO). The resulting vehicle will be a performance based, multiple award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Resulting task orders will be issued as Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF). This contract is for five (5) years, during which time orders may be placed.”

While the Solicitation [16-233-SOL-00030] SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS B.1 CONTRACT TYPE/TASK ORDER TYPES states:

“This is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. All services will be obtained through the issuance of Task Orders on either a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Time and Material (T&M), or Cost Plus Fixed Fee Basis (CPFF). Task Orders will be issued by a Contracting Officer with the Department of Health and Human Services Program Support Center.”

QUESTION: Will the government confirm that task orders may be on either a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Time and Material (T&M), or Cost Plus Fixed Fee Basis (CPFF)?

Attachment 9 has been revised to reflect that T&M, FFP, and CPFF task orders may be issued.

24) Reference: PWS, Pages 9-13, 2.2 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TASKS – 3.

OPERATING CONSTRAINTS and Attachment 4 Personnel Qualifications

Question: Previous DARPA SETA Support solicitations have included defined personnel qualifications, including educational levels required and desired, and years of relevant experienced required. Is it the government’s intent to include more detailed requirements for personnel during the procurement process?

No, please refer to attachment 4.