Amendment 0002 Questions and Answers.pdf

6973GH-18-R-00079

MMAC Administrative Services

Questions and Answers June 15, 2018

Question 15: The Notice contained on the front page of Amendment 0001 still indicates that this is a combined set-aside consisting of eligible small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns. All potential offerors must be both SDB and SDVOSB in order to be eligible for award.

Answer 15: Please disregard this notice as is clearly conflicts with Provisions FIRST, SECOND and THIRD of Amendment 0001. The notice will be corrected to read as follows in an upcoming SIR amendment:

NOTICE: This acquisition is set aside for SDB concerns only.

Question 16: A Joint Venture (JV) is a single entity that is neither a subcontracting scenario nor a teaming arrangement. Please confirm that a Subcontracting/Teaming Plan is not required for a JV that is not proposing any subcontractors.

Answer 16: Correct, a Subcontracting/Teaming Plan is not required for a JV that is not proposing any subcontractors; however, please remember that since this acquisition is set-aside for small disadvantaged business concerns (SDB), this also means that the JV must be certified as SDB by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in the SBA’s 8(a) program.

Question 17: Can offeror past performance be from a subcontractor or does it have to be from the prime?

Answer 17: Past performance shall be from the prime.

Question 18: NAICS Code 561110 has a size standard of $7.5M; however, Section M3, Factor 1 and Factor 4 states that in order to be technically acceptable, potential offerors are required to provide past performance information for service contracts that are valued at a minimum of $8M per year. Should this evaluation criterion be changed so that it does not exceed the requirements of the NAICS code?

Answer 18: Subfactor 1.1: Contractor Experience will be revised as follows in an upcoming SIR amendment:

Offeror shall provide a narrative with at least one (1) contract, as either the Prime or as an established partnered team, sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the offeror is experienced in administering service contracts similar to that required by the SOW and valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees.

Factor 4 (Past Performance) will also be revised as follows in an upcoming amendment:

Offeror shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) demonstrating that the offeror is capable of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR* with a minimum of 75 active contract employees. All PPQ’s must receive an overall Rating of

Satisfactory or Higher for each questionnaire. Offerors shall use the PPQ listed in Attachment 4 of the SIR.

The Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) to current or recent customers of the most relevant contracts. A minimum of one (1) but no more than four (4), completed PPQs shall be submitted directly from the Offeror’s customers to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing date. All PPQs submitted must show the projects are underway or completed with the last five (5) years.

Question 19: Section 3.12 and 3.13 of the Statement of Work (SOW) discuss the Orientation Plan and the Phase-In Plan. Please clarify if the 30 day Orientation period is before the Phase In Period? If it is part of the Phase In Period, how long does it last? Does the Government expect the incoming contractor to assume responsibility for all tasks at the end of the phase in period and start full contract performance on Day 1 of the Base Period?

Answer 19: The 30 day period immediately prior to day 1 of full contract performance is called the Orientation/Phase In Period. Paragraph 3.12 describes the actions that are anticipated to occur during this period and Paragraph 3.13 pertains to the personnel that will be allowed access to the facility during this period.

Question 20: The Government provided Wage Determination 15-5316 (Revision 5) as an attachment to the SIR. Is it the Government’s intent to annually modify the contract to incorporate the most current wage determination, as is the normal practice, or does the Government expect the contractor to escalate the annual rate in the option year pricing?

Answer 20: In accordance with AMS 3.6.2-30, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act (SCA) – Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts (OCT 2014); the Government will incorporate the most current wage determination at the time any option year is exercised and the successful contractor will have an opportunity to request a price adjustment should the updated wage determination increase compensation for SCA impacted position(s).

Question 21: Section L.3 (e) Cost/Price Information – Volume III discusses the format for the Cost Volume. Paragraph (1) states “The cost information should be tabbed in Volume III as follows:

(A) Basic Contract Period

(B) Options I through IV (Tabbed Separately)

(C) Estimating Rational, Methodology and Support”

Would the Government provide additional direction/instructions on what format, table and data is expected in each of these tabs? Is the extraction of Part 1 – Section B, Pricing Schedules sufficient for Tab A and B?

Answer 21: Yes, the extraction of Part 1 – Section B, Pricing Schedules is sufficient for Tab A and B. There is no set format for Tab C; the intent of this tab is for the offeror to provide the detail that they believe best explains how the proposed price was developed. With that being said, the Government does want to be able to understand the rationale, methodology and support that the offeror utilized to develop their pricing proposal.

Question 22: Section M.2(b) of the SIR states that the Cost/Price Proposal must contain the pricing spreadsheets with viewable formulas showing; however, the Government only provided

Part I Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs. This document has two columns labeled Unit Price and Extended Total. Is this the pricing spreadsheet referred to in this Section? If not, what pricing spreadsheet is the SIR referring to?

Answer 22: As previously stated in the answer to Question 21, there is no specific format for the pricing spreadsheets. Offerors should prepare spreadsheets that they believe best explains their pricing rationale, methodology and support.

Question 23: If an offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), does the Government require a subcontracting and/or teaming arrangement as discussed in Section L.5 of the SIR?

Answer 23: As previously stated in the answer to Question 16, a Subcontracting/Teaming Plan is not required for a JV that is not proposing any subcontractors; however, please remember that since this acquisition is set-aside for small disadvantaged business concerns (SDB), this also means that the JV must be certified as SDB by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in the SBA’s 8(a) program.

Question 24: Section M.2 of the SIR states that pages are to be typewritten, double spaced on standard 8 ½” X 11” letter size paper. Since this significantly increases the number of pages in the proposal that have to be printed and copied for submittal of the proposal response, would the Government consider changing the requirement for double-spaced to single space to conserve paper and reduce the size of the documents?

Answer 24: The Government will not be changing the requirements listed in Section M.2 of the

SIR.

Question 25: Please clarify the types of contracts the Government considers as service contracts in relation to Technical Proposal, Factor 1 - Contract Experience/Personnel, Sub- Factor 1.1, Contractor Experience

Answer 25: There is not an exclusive list of what the Government considers as service contracts in relation to the Technical Proposal, Factor 1 – Contract Experience/Personnel, Sub- Factor 1.1, Contract Experience. It is up to the offeror to demonstrate and explain how their particular experience is similar to the MMAC Administrative Services.

Question 26: There seems to be a disconnect in the following paragraph from L.4, Technical Proposals, Factor 4: (Past Performance), 3rd paragraph from the top of page 62 which reads as follows:

“The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this SIR. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources, such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess the performance risk associated with each proposal. Relevant contracts include services involving the Management, Operations, Utility Systems, modification to facilities, maintenance of facilities, as a prime or primary (minimum of 50% of the performance), on projects with the same or similar scope and complexity of this requirement.”

Answer 26: The subject paragraph will be revised as follows:

“The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this SIR. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources, such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess technical acceptability.”

Question 27: In reference to SOW Section 5.1.2.1, will the Government allow for the contractor to furnish the office space allocated for the on site management team? Will the Government furnish the on site management team a computer system or will the contractor provide the computer systems for on site management?

Answer 27: Per paragraph 5.1.2.1 of the SOW, the on-site management staff must be provided suitable, unfurnished, facilities at the MMAC in accordance with FAA Order 4665.4. The upcoming SIR amendment will address the question regarding whether or not the on-site management team will be provided a computer system.

Question 28: Would the Government provide the years of service for the incumbent staff?

Answer 28: This longevity information for the current contract will be provided as an attachment in the upcoming SIR amendment.

Question 29: Would the Government verify that Executive Order 13706, which establishes the requirement for up to 56 hours of paid sick leave, is applicable to this solicitation.

Answer 29: Yes, Executive Order 13706 is applicable to this SIR.

Question 30: The Volumes and the associated numbers do not align in Sections L and M. We respectfully request this be corrected.

Answer 30: This issue will be corrected in an upcoming SIR amendment

Question 31: Formatting instructions are not included in Section L, Instructions but are included in Section M as evaluation criteria. Please clarify.

Answer 31: This information will also be added to Section L in an upcoming amendment to maintain consistency between Sections L and M of the SIR

Question 32: Will the Government be providing workspace for the on-site PM and APM?

Answer 32: Per paragraph 5.1.2.1 of the SOW, the on-site management staff must be provided suitable, unfurnished, facilities at the MMAC in accordance with FAA Order 4665.4.

Question 33: Are entities whose offering does not constitute the need for submitting a subcontracting/teaming arrangement plan evaluated favorably or unfavorably given the following statement in Section L.5: “Subcontracting/teaming plans will serve as a discriminator among offers.”

Answer 33: Section L.5, Subcontracting and/or Teaming Arrangements, paragraph (a) will be revised as follows in an upcoming SIR amendment:

When subcontracting and/or teaming arrangements are proposed, the offeror will provide a plan that identifies the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of each subcontracting and/or teaming participant. The subcontracting/teaming plan will be limited to 10 pages and will not count toward the 100 page limit for the technical proposal. When a subcontracting/teaming plan is required, it shall be included as part of the technical evaluation for Factor 1 – Contract Experience/Personnel, Sub-Factor 1.3 – Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan.

Question 34: Can the Government confirm whether this is a new requirement? If this is not a new requirement, please provide the name of the incumbent contractor and contract number.

Answer 34: This is not a new requirement. The current contractor is Unispec Enterprises of Largo MD and the current contract number is DTFAAC-13-D-00044.

Question 35: SIR Provision L.3, second paragraph says, “Technical proposals shall be submitted as separate and complete sections for each of the Technical Evaluation factors outlined in Table L.1 and Section M.” Table L.1 does not contain any evaluation factors.

Answer 35: Table L.1 will be revised in an upcoming SIR amendment to add the evaluation factors as follows:

Table L.1 Proposal Organization

Volume Title

I Contract Documentation

II *Technical Proposal Factor 1 – Contract Experience/Personnel

Sub-Factor 1.1 - Contractor Experience Sub-Factor 1.2 - Personnel Management Plan Sub-Factor 1.3 - Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan

Factor 2 –Orientation Plan, Phase-In Plan and Phase-Out Plan Sub-Factor 2.1 - Orientation Plan Sub-Factor 2.2 - Phase-In Plan Sub-Factor 2.3 - Phase-Out Plan

Factor 3 - Quality Control Plan

Factor 4 – Past Performance and Experience

III Cost/Price Information

*No reference shall be made to prices/costs in Volume II.

Question 36: The instructions on page 59 of the SIR state “(5) Proposals will be submitted electronically in accordance with Section L, Provision 3.2.2.3-20. All volumes should be submitted in electronic format . . . To expedite review of the proposals, the responses for each evaluation factor shall be provided in a separate section and the section should be tabbed for ease of reference.” Does the Government intend for tabs to be inserted into the electronic document or are you referring to paper copies?

Answer 36: Yes

Question 37: Does the Government want both electronic and paper copies of the proposal?

Answer 37: Yes

Question 38: Section L.6 of the SIR discusses Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor.

Please clarify what the Technical Evaluation Factors are that you are referring to in Section L.

Answer 38: Item (1) Technical Capability will be removed from this provision in an upcoming SIR amendment.

Question 39: Can the government confirm that only SDB, 8a small businesses with annual revenues at or below $7.5M for a 3 years average can submit a proposal as prime contractor for this opportunity?

Answer 39: After discussions with the Small Business Administration (SBA), the government confirms that to be eligible for award of the subject SIR, a business must be certified by the SBA as a SDB and the particular SDB’s 3 year average annual revenue must not exceed $7.5M.

Question 40: 1. Based on the new language in the SIR. Does our company need to have a $7.5 million contract currently or do we just need to demonstrate our capability of managing a $7.5 million contract?

Answer 40: Potential offerors must have been awarded and are successfully performing a contract valued at $7.5M annually *OR* with a minimum of 75 active contract employees.

Question 41: Can two SDB's form a JV that meets the criteria? Or does it have to be an SBA 8(a) approved JV?

Answer 41: As stated in the answer to Question 16, yes, a JV may submit a proposal for this acquisition; however, the JV must be certified as SDB by the SBA for participation in the SBA’s 8(a) program.

Question 42: Regarding the Government's answer to Question 18, is there a minimum period in which the offeror must have "performed" on the one (1) past performance contract (e.g., 1 year) to demonstrate its capability of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year OR with a minimum of 75 contract employees?

Answer 42: The minimum period in which the offeror must have “performed” on the one (1) past performance contract to demonstrate its capability of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year OR with a minimum of 75 contract employees is one (1) year.

Question 43: Regarding the Government's answer to Question 18, a consolidation of more than one (1) contract cited, if all from the prime, which meets the minimum value of $7.5 million per year OR with a minimum of 75 contract employees would also demonstrate the prime's capability of managing the magnitude of this effort. We respectfully request the Government consider this option which in the spirit to the SDB 8(a) program would allow the SDB companies to compete who do not otherwise meet this threshold on a single contract.

Answer 43: After consideration, the past performance requirement remains that potential offerors must provide at least one (1) contract which meets the minimum value of $7.5 million per year *OR* with a minimum of 75 contract employees.

Question 44: Please confirm whether PPQs are due by 3 p.m. CT July 3, 2018, which is the “closing date of solicitation,” or if they are due by 2 p.m. June 28, 2018, which is “the due date specified on the surveys.”

Answer 44: PPQs are due 2:00 p.m. CDT on July 3, 2018. The corrected PPQ will be included in the SIR amendment.

Question 45: Please confirm whether the 100-page limit for Volume II Technical includes resumes for key personnel and the Quality Control Plan.

Answer 45: Correct

Question 46: Should offerors include their response to the Subcontracting and/or Teaming Arrangements requirement in Volume I – Contract Documentation?

Answer 46: As stated in the Answer 33, when subcontracting and/or teaming arrangements are proposed, the offeror will provide a plan that identifies the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of each subcontracting and/or teaming participant. The subcontracting/teaming plan will be limited to 10 pages and will not count toward the 100 page limit for the technical proposal.

When a subcontracting/teaming plan is required, it shall be included as part of the technical evaluation for Factor 1 – Contract Experience/Personnel, Sub-Factor 1.3 – Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan.