Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes.pdf

Embassy of the United States of America

General Services Office 33 Nine Elms Lane

London, SW11 7US

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Lois Moss, Procurement Supervisor

TO: Clarissa Adamson, Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: RFP No. 19UK5621R0002 – , Health insurance services for locally employed staff in Hamilton, Bermuda 10am (AST) 2nd March 2021 over Teams

US Government Representatives

US Consulate General in Hamilton, Bermuda

Raynae Fleming – Management Assistant (HR) Maria Davies – Financial Assistant

US Embassy London

Lois Moss – Procurement Supervisor

Agenda:

Agenda:

1. Introductions (Lois Moss, Raynae Fleming & Maria Davies)

2. Why the USG is Competing this Requirement (Lois Moss & Raynae Fleming)

3. Section B Prices (Lois Moss & Maria Davies)

4. Section C Specification (Raynae Fleming)

5. Section E Inspection & Acceptance (Lois Moss & Raynae Fleming)

6. Section F Deliveries and Performance (Lois Moss)

7. Section G Contract Administration Data (Lois Moss, Raynae Fleming & Maria Davies)

8. Section H Special Contract Requirements (Lois, Raynae & Maria)

9. Section I Contract Clauses, including combatting trafficking in persons (Lois Moss)

10. Section J Attachments (Lois Moss, Raynae Fleming & Maria Davies)

11. Section K Representations and Certifications including NDAA, (Lois Moss)

12. The Zadroga Act, Defense Base Act Insurance and SAM Registration (Lois Moss)

13. Section L Instructions to Offerors, including how to complete the SF 33 (Lois Moss)

14. Questions (Lois Moss)

15. Closing Remarks (Lois Moss, Raynae Fleming & Maria Davies)

1. Introductions

(Lois Moss, Raynae Fleming & Maria Davies)introduced themselves and explained their roles in the procurement process.

2. Why the USG is Competing this Requirement Again

Lois Moss & Raynae Fleming explained the background and history of the health insurance requirements in Hamilton and went on to explain the US Government Competition process. It was also noted that unlike the last competitive process which was undertaken, this time an “off the shelf” package was desired, rather than a bespoke package. The award process was explained and that the award would go to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal noted.

3. Section B Prices

The SF33 form was shown and an explanation was given on which sections to complete.

An explanation was provided of how to fully complete the matrixes for the Base Year and Option Years. It was explained that these would be Firm Fixed Prices and the Offeror would need to build in any future predictions for wage increases or increased operating costs; there would be no re-negotiation at a future date. The Economic Price Adjustment Clause in B4 was then explained, and it was noted that this was the only circumstance in which the price could be increased.

It was noted that Defense Base Act insurance has been included in the solicitation documents and at this time appears to be applicable to it. Suppliers should seek quotes for DBA insurance and include it in their bid. If it turns out prior to award DBA insurance is not required, suppliers will be informed.

Emphasis was placed on the fact that it is unilaterally the USG’s decision to exercise Option Years and that Estimated Quantities are indeed only estimates and there is no guarantee of volume other than the minimum amount of $400,000.00 BMD as explicitly stated in the Solicitation.

4. Section C Specification

Definitions were explained and the requirements were outlined with reference to the specification. Again it was discussed that what was required was an ‘off the shelf” package rather than a bespoke package and that the requirements should be treated as the minimum required. If an off the shelf package provided greater coverage, provided there were no limitation in the specification to the coverage then it was fine for that to be proposed.

5. Section E Inspection & Acceptance

It was noted that Section D Packing and marking , was reserved as it was not required in this Contract. Attendees were advised of:

• the meaning of “incorporated by reference” in relation to the FAR clauses;

• the meaning of “incorporated by reference”;

• the meaning of FAR and DOSAR

• where to find the full text of each Clause;

The Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (QASP) was explained and how performance would be monitored locally and how the performance would also be reported in CPARS. It was noted that poor performance noted in CPARS could affect future awards.

6. Section F Deliveries and Performance

Again the clauses “incorporated by reference” were explained. The expected start date was discussed, then there was a repeat of the information regarding Option Years and the Government’s unilateral right to exercise option years. It was noted all deliverables and reports should be sent to the email address hml-finance@state.gov

7. Section G Contract Administration Data

The Concept of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) was explained along with the limitations on what they could do. It was explained since the Contract would be awarded from London, having the COR on the ground in Hamilton was very important, and that the COR would report back to the London-based Contracting Officer regarding the Contract.

Invoicing was covered, including that all invoices should be sent to HML-finance@state.gov Payment frequency and payments for staff covered under Riders was discussed, with the note that payments under Riders would be made directly by the Chief of Mission rather than by the US Government. Attendees were reminded that no VAT would apply to this Contract.

mailto:hml-finance@state.gov mailto:HML-finance@state.gov mailto:HML-finance@state.gov

8. Section H Special Contract Requirements

Security procedures and standards of conduct were discussed. Task Orders and ordering were discussed, along with how claimants would file claims and the administration process for claims, along with the records which must be maintained by the supplier along with their reporting requirements.

Special attention was given to the fact that to put forward an acceptable proposal the suppliers would need to demonstrate they possessed all permits, licenses, and any other appointments required for the prosecution of work under this Contract, or proof that they were in the process of obtaining them. The fact a licence is required showing that they are allowed to provide Health Insurance services in Bermuda was raised, along with the note that this licence mush be obtained by the supplier themselves. The US Government was not able to assist with this.

Refunds for erroneous payments were also covered.

9. Section I Contract Clauses, including combatting trafficking in persons

Again the concept of clauses incorporated by reference was explained, and attendees were told how they could look up the clauses. It was explained that if anyone had any specific questions about how a clause applied, they should submit a question to londonproc@state.gov about it and it would be added to the Q&A list which would be distributed to all participants.

Special mention was made of 52.204-25 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING FOR CERTAIN

TELECOMMUNICATION AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (AUG

2020) and the implications explained.

Special attention was also drawn to 52.222-50 COMBATTING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (OCT 2020). It was explained that the US Government took the matter of trafficking very seriously and that suppliers had a responsibility to ensure that they and their suppliers did not have anything to do with trafficking and if there was any suspicion of trafficking in relation to this Contract it should be reported to the Contracting Officer immediately.

Attention was also drawn to 52.223-18 ENCOURAGING CONTRACTOR POLICIES TO BAN

TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING (JUN 2020)

There was also discussion regarding:

o 52.216-18 Ordering (AUG 2020) o 52.216-19 Order Limitations Act (Oct 1995) mailto:londonproc@state.gov o 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999) o 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000)

It was noted that 52.229-12 Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements (JUN 2020) would be discussed in more detail later on.

52.232-19 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR (APR 1984) was explained, with particular attention to situations where a Task Order started in one fiscal year and ended in the next one. In these situations the funds are already committed on that Task Order and are available.

Holidays were discussed with relation to 652.237-72 Observance of Legal Holidays and Administrative Leave (FEB 2015)

652.242-73 AUTHORIZATION AND PERFORMANCE (AUG 1999) was covered, in particular in relation to the need for the supplier to be licenced to provide insurance services in Bermuda. It was reiterated that suppliers were responsibly for providing proof of their licence or that they were in the process of obtaining one and that no award could be made to an unlicenced supplier. Again it was noted that the US Government could not assist in any way in obtaining a licence.

In relation to 652.243-70 NOTICES (AUG 1999) it was mentioned that communications in writing will normally be delivered via email, particularly when communications were coming from London, as it was not practical to hand deliver and the postal service would be too slow. Attention was drawn to the fact only the Contracting Officer in London is able to make modifications to the Contract, and that in a number of cases those modification have to be pre-approved by Washington before they can be made.

10. Section J Attachments

The exhibits were discussed, and it was noted that while these represented the staffing pattern when the solicitation was released, it was likely the numbers would change over the course of the Contract. It was explained that the numbers would not vary too much from the current ones, it was likely to be increases or decreases of no more than one or two staff at any one time.

In relation to the ORE staff in Exhibit B it was noted there was currently a vacancy, but it was not certain at this time if it would be filled, but the maximum expected in that category would be 2 staff members at any one time.

In relation to the claims history it was noted that the most recent figures were not yet available, which was why there were only 4 years of past claims.

11. Section K Representations and Certifications including NDAA

The representations and certifications were discussed, and attendees encouraged to read them and send in any questions they had regarding them. NDAA was explained, along with how to complete the representation.

It was highlighted that where the representations refer to a “Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)", this is referring to a US tax identification number, not a local one, and that suppliers should only complete a TIN if they held a US TIN. If they only have a local TIN they should not complete anything in those sections referring to a TIN.

652.225-70 ARAB LEAGUE BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL (AUG 1999) was explained.

Special attention was given to 52.204–24 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (OCT 2020) and the implications of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). How to find out which companies were listed as prohibited was explained, and examples of what constituted covered services under the Act.

52.229-11 TAX ON CERTAIN FOREIGN PROCUREMENTS—NOTICE AND REPRESENTATION

(JUN 2020) was noted and that it would be discussed in the next section.

12. The Zadroga Act, Defense Base Act Insurance and SAM Registration

The Zadroga Act was explained with its history and that a 2% withholding would be made on all invoices as a result. The W-14 form was mentioned and it was noted that information was available from the IRS website concerning the tax, how it applied and the exemptions which might be available. It was noted that as it stood, there did not appear to be any exemptions available for this Contract.

The Defense Base Act was explained and it was noted that as discussed earlier on, quotes should be obtained for DBA insurance and if it turned out that DBA insurance was not required for the resulting Contract they would be informed.

It was explained that SAM Registration was a requirement for this award. Attention was drawn to the fact that all information in the DUNS, NCAGE and SAM systems must match absolutely exactly for the registration to be successful. Attendees were strongly encouraged to start the process sooner rather than later as it can take some time, and that an award would not be made without an active SAM registration. If issues were faced in registering in the SAM system, the Federal Service Desk www.fsd.gov could be of assistance.

http://www.fsd.gov/

13. Section L Instructions to Offerors, including how to complete the SF 33 The SF33 was covered earlier on in the session prior to prices being discussed, so that was not reviewed again here. Instead emphasis was put on the fact that bids must be complete to be capable of being deemed acceptable. Attention was drawn to the summary of instructions, and the list of contents for each section of the proposal. It was explained that if suppliers failed to include information which was asked for under Section L particularly in regard to price, they risked their proposal not being considered.

The ability for them to provide multiple proposals was covered, and the fact that they must make this clear and submit separate pricing tables for each proposal. It was commented that it would be helpful if suppliers followed the numbering format in Section L when formulating their answers, as it would make it easier for the TEP to review their bid for technically acceptability if it was clearly laid out and followed the same order as the Section.

Again attention was drawn to the requirement for licencing information, in Part 4 of the requirements and the importance of this proof stressed again with specific attention drawn to the fact that “Failure to demonstrate that the offeror is an authorized insurance company permitted to write and administer health insurance policies in Bermuda shall be grounds for rejection of the proposal.”

Profit sharing was covered and suppliers asked to make it clear in their proposals if there was any profit sharing, pooling or other credit procedures which would apply.

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998) was noted, with the information again of how to look up FAR clauses. DOSAR 652.206-70 ADVOCATE FOR COMPETITION/OMBUDSMAN (FEB 2015) was also highlighted.

Section M was then covered, with a reminder that as at the start, the award would be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. It was explained that the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) in Hamilton would review the proposals without any sight of the pricing, and that once they reported back to the Contracting Officer in London, the pricing would be reviewed in light of the acceptability of the proposals.

Should the lowest priced offer be technically acceptable, then the Government reserved the right to make an award without discussions. However should there be the need, clarifications may be sought from suppliers regarding their bids prior to award.

14. Questions

Attendees were reminded that all questions should be submitted in writing to londonproc@state.gov and that all questions received would be collated, anonymized and the answers distributed to all parties who had requested the solicitation. The questions and answers would also be posted on Beta.Sam.

15. Closing Remarks

Attendees were reminded of due dates for questions and bids and thanked for their time and interest in the solicitation. It was noted that bids could be submitted electronically by email to londonproc@state.gov and also via Beta.Sam