693JJ319R000002_-_Q&A.1.docx

Q&A

1. The required contents of the IDIQ Progress Reports referenced in RFP Section C.6 Progress Reports are task order specific. Please confirm that this IDIQ reporting requirement only becomes effective upon award of each IDIQ Contractor’s first task order.

Answer: Confirmed.

1. Does RFP Section C.7 Annual Report apply if an IDIQ Contactor has not performed work in a given contract year?

Answer: No.

1. Per RFP Section E.6 Government Acceptance Period, “The COR shall have the right to reject or require correction of any deficiencies found in the deliverables that are contrary to the information contained in the Contractor’s accepted proposal.” As FHWA will be evaluating task order deliverables against the successful Contractor’s accepted proposal, please clarify specifically how FHWA will evaluate deliverables in relation to the associated accepted proposal. As the government typically establishes required deliverables for each project (for example, RFP Section F.7 Deliverable/Delivery Summary indicates that, “For task orders issued under this contract, specific deliverables and due dates will be specified in task order documents”), is it FHWA’s expectation that IDIQ Contractors will propose acceptance criteria for deliverables in each task order proposal that will be used to review/evaluate deliverables against?

Answer: Deliverables shall conform to language specified in the SOW and the Contractor’s proposal, in accordance with the due date.

1. RFP Section G.1 Payment, Notification of Expenditure of Funds, requires that the CS and COR be notified within 5 calendar days when costs incurred under At Cost TOs exceed 75% of the obligated funds. Will FHWA consider increasing the notification timeframe to 10 calendar days or consider just deferring to the notification requirements in the T&M Payments clause (52.232-7)? The T&M Payments clause already provides for 30 days advance notification when costs incurred are expected to exceed 85% of obligated funds. If not, does the IDIQ notification requirement replace the funding notification requirements included in Section I clauses or must Contractors report in accordance with both clauses?

Answer: RFP Section G.1 “Notification of Expenditure of Funds” has been removed.

1. RFP Section G.5 Final Invoices indicates that, “Final invoices shall not be submitted until the Contractor obtains the authorization to do so by the CO.” And further, “The CO will process the final invoice as a routine part of the closeout process. When requested, the Contractor shall submit the final invoice in accordance with the Invoice section of this contract.” Please expand on this process. The first sentence indicates that the Contractor must obtain CO authorization to submit a final invoice, yet the final sentence indicates that the Contractor shall submit the final invoice “when requested.” Does this section apply to regular invoicing under a task order (invoice for the “final” accepted deliverable of a project) or the formal closeout process?

Answer: Section G.5 Invoices has been updated.

1. RFP Section G.11 Task Order Procedures indicates that TOPRs will be issued in accordance with “Fair Opportunity to Compete clause.” Please confirm that FHWA is referring to the Fair Opportunity procedures defined under FAR Subpart 16.5.

Answer: Confirmed

1. RFP Section L.4 references 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost of Pricing Data (Oct 2010). However, as this is a highly competitive RFP that is expected to result in 3 to 5 IDIQ awards we believe that the adequate price competition exception to requiring certified cost of pricing data requirements at 15.403-1(b)(1) applies. As this is not an exception that Contractors can assert per 52.215-20, and in the interest of efficiency and ease of administration, we respectfully request that FHWA delete 52.215-20 from the RFP, as well as the related defective pricing clauses in Section I, 52.215-10, and Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Date, 52.215-12. We further respectfully request that FHWA instead clearly indicate pricing shall be in accordance with 15.403-3, Requiring Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, as implied by the instructions in Section L Volume II Business and Cost/Price Part I (4) which requires a cost build up with supporting documentation for labor rates.

Answer: Section L.4 has been removed. Clause 52.215-10 has been removed. Section L.12 shall be updated to formally request other than certified cost or pricing data.

1. RFP Section L.11 Proposal Format indicates that proposals must be submitted via “email with each proposal volume attached as individual emails.” Please clarify if FHWA requires each volume to be submitted in separate emails, or for each volume to be attached individually to an email or emails (if file size requires multiple emails).

Answer: Section L.11(a) has been updated to read “attachments” versus emails.

1. RFP Section L.12 Proposal Content and Configuration, Volume II Business and Cost/Price, Part I, (1) indicates that, “Cost/Price proposals must adhere to the pricing structure established in Exhibit J.1.” and that, “Exhibit J.1 format may be modified as necessary by the Offeror; however, the content of the sheets must be fully complied with if submitted in an alternative format. It is the Government’s preference to have the cost proposal submitted in the suggested format. Exhibit J.1 shall be submitted as the offeror’s Cost/Price proposal.” Please confirm that offerors may modify the spreadsheet format accordingly to account for the requirements in (4) which requires pricing data that verifies each proposed hourly rate and requires that the Cost/Price proposal shall include unburdened rates with supporting documentation (so, a cost build up for each rate). As currently formatted, Exhibit J.1 which we assume is the file titled “Price Proposal Matrix Exhibit 1” only accommodates fully burdened labor rates.

Answer: Section L.12 Volume II Part I(1) amended to stay consistent with Section L.12 Volume II Part I(2).

1. RFP Section L.12 Proposal Content and Configuration, Volume II Business and Cost/Price, Part I, (2) Use of the Form indicates that, “Standard Form 33 is to be executed fully and used as the cover sheet (or first page) of this volume. Include the original signed copy of the form in the original Volume.” Please provide the SF33 for this RFP.

Answer: L.15 updated to remove SF33.

1. One of the required submittals for Volume II Business and Cost/Price is a completed Standard Form LLL. However, in accordance with the form’s instructions it appears that the Standard Form LLL only needs to be completed and submitted with the proposal if federal officials were lobbied in connection with this opportunity/contract by one or more federally registered lobbyists. Are offerors required to submit blank forms if they have no lobbying activity to report, or may offerors include a statement in their proposals indicating that this form is not applicable?

Answer: A statement of non-applicability is acceptable.

1. RFP Section M.2 Evaluation Factors, (a) Technical Capabilities, Subsections B. Key Personnel and C. Staffing indicate that offerors will be evaluated on their ability to provide “cleared” personnel in a timely manner. Please clarify what FHWA means by “cleared.” The RFP does not define clearance requirements.

Answer: The RFP has been amended to remove “cleared” from Section M.2(a)(B) and (C).

1. Section L.12 of the RFP (Proposal Content and Configuration) initially indicates that Volume II – Business and Cost/Price should contain Parts I – IV. However, throughout the rest of the RFP instructions, the Business and Cost/Price Volume only provides instructions for Parts I – III. Please confirm that the Business and Cost/Price Volume only requires Parts 1 – III.

Answer: Section J.3 lists the Subcontracting Plan as an attachment and is in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. The RFP is amended to include Part IV under Section L.12 Volume II.

1. Past Performance is referenced throughout the RFP’s IDIQ evaluation factors, but no specific instructions are included for offerors to provide past performance information. Is it the government’s intent to evaluate past performance without input from offerors? If so, how will the government evaluate relevant past performance on non-federal contracts/projects?

Answer: Yes, it is the Government’s intent to evaluate past performance without input from offerors, where the information is available.

1. Can FHWA provide examples of the types of software it would anticipate being developed under this contract? Would it be stand-alone construction/project management software, add-ons to industry standard software, or customization of off-the-shelf software packages? Would FHWA anticipate these would be assignments for specific highway projects, generic tools for wide industry use, or both?

Answer: It could be stand-alone construction/project management software, enhancements to programs FHWA has previously developed, or applications that help bring innovations or information to highway stakeholders. Any software developed under this contract would be developed with the intent to distribute to highway agencies and other interested stakeholders and will need to be 508 compliant.