Questions Answers 7-29-19.pdf

Solicitation: 6973GH-19-R-00100

Rapid Support Services

Questions & Answers

Document, Section, & page Question

(1) Tab 16 Attachment 0002-CLIN & Price Matrix file, Base Year, Option Year 1, and

Option Year 2 tabs

The 'Total Evaluated ... Contract Price' formula does not seem to be calculating correctly on all three (3) tabs, Base Year, Option Year 1, and Option Year 2. It is summing all of the hourly labor category rates and multiplying that total by the total number of hours for all labor categories. The cells are protected. Will the government correct the formula and reissue the price matrix?

Response: The pricing matrix has been updated and corrected.

(2) Tab 16 Attachment 0002-CLIN & Price Matrix & Tab 16 Attachment 0003- Labor

Categories_10102018

The price matrix contains labor categories not defined in the labor category descriptions and the labor category descriptions define labor categories that are not included in the price matrix. Will the government please clarify or reissue these documents?

(3) SIR Section B: B.1 Type & Term of Contract [Page 6]

This contract is an Time & Materials (T&M) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Task Order Contract, which will also include Labor Hour (LH) and Travel (Cost Reimbursable)

Contract Line Items Number(s) (CLINs). The contract may also include Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

Task Orders based on the awarded direct labor hour rates.

Section L

3.2.4-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1996) [Page 66]

The FAA contemplates award of a This contract is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) task order contract, which will also include some time and material (T&M) Contract Line Item Number(s) (CLINS) for Over & Above (O&A) actions along with travel contract resulting from this Screening Information Request.

Section M: M.1 EVALUATION FOR AWARD [Page 70]

(a) Source Selection

(3) The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed-Price IDIQ contract to the Offeror whose proposal is the lowest price technically acceptable and determined to be responsible.

However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

a. Various sections of the SIR as noted are contradictory as to whether this IDIQ is anticipated to be primarily T&M/LH or primarily FFP. Please clarify whether this IDIQ is expected to consist of primarily T&M/LH or FFP task orders.

b. In Section L, 3.2.4-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1996) there is a reference to ‘Over

& Above (O&A)’ which is not mentioned anywhere else in the SIR. Please clarify that the O&A reference was intended to be in this SIR.

Response: (a) This will primarily be a T&M/LH IDIQ contract with the possibility of

FFP task orders. (b) Section L & M has been updated and corrected.

(4) SIR: L.12 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL-VOLUME II

FACTOR 1 – Understanding the Requirement

SUB-FACTOR 1.1: Experience with Similar Requirements [Page 59]

CRITERIA1.1: The offeror must demonstrate relevant corporate experience in performing work that is similar to that required by the SOW. The offeror shall complete a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) "Past Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J-

Attachment 4), in response to this factor.

If the prime offeror is forming a team with subcontractors, may Past Experience Information forms from subcontractors be submitted to meet the requirement, and if so, of the 3-5 required, what is the minimum number that must be submitted by the prime offeror?

Response: There is no minimum requirement. Past experience information forms must be complete and demonstrate relevant corporate experience from the prime and any subcontract that will be performing on the contract. The offeror must determine the appropriate amount of forms to submit, within the provided limits (3-5), to demonstrate relevant corporate experience for both the prime and subcontractor.

(5) SIR: L.13 PRICE PROPOSAL- VOLUME III [Page 61]

This volume should be sufficiently detailed in support of the proposed pricing to demonstrate price realism and reasonableness.

M.1 EVALUATION FOR AWARD [Page 70]

(a) Source Selection

(1) The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the lowest price, technically acceptable offer based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors.

Section M states that the award will be made to ‘the lowest price, technically acceptable offer’

(LPTA), while Section L states that offers must ‘demonstrate price realism and reasonableness.’

If the lowest price offer(s) that is/are deemed to be technically acceptable are unrealistically/ unreasonably low (e.g. represents clear likelihood of non- performance due to obvious undercutting of rates for the required expertise and skill levels, and thus represents a risk to the government), will the government be able to select an offer that is technically acceptable but not actually the lowest price under an LPTA acquisition in order to mitigate this risk?

Response: Offerors must demonstrate price realism and reasonableness in order to be deemed fair and reasonable in accordance with Section M.9. Therefore, the lowest technically acceptable offeror’s proposal can be rejected if it is determined that their pricing is not fair and reasonable.

(6) SOW

3 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL/WORK REQUIREMENTS [Attachment 1 Page 8]

The PM must, at a minimum, have a Bachelor’s Degree, have successfully completed 24 hours of college level management or business courses, and have a minimum of five (5) years of program management experience within the last five (5) years with service contracts that are of comparable scope and dollar value to this requirement.

The PM requirement stated in the SOW is for ‘a minimum of five (5) years of program management experience within the last five (5) years’ which means that 100% of the last 5 years of the individual’s experience would be performance of PM roles. Would the government consider modifying this requirement to: ‘a minimum of five (5) years of program management experience within the last ten (10) years’ which would provide the same amount of PM experience but would not require that the individual performed nothing other than PM duties within the past five years?

Response:

See amended SOW, Section 3.2.

(7) SOW

3 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL/WORK REQUIREMENTS [Attachment 1 Page 8]

A resume must be submitted detailing the qualifications and experience of key personnel.

Please confirm that the Key Personnel resume can be included as an Appendix and is not included in the page count of any Volume of the proposal submission.

Response: Yes, key personnel resumes can be included as an Appendix to the Volume II.

(8) SIR, Section M

Sub-factor 1.1. Experience with Similar Requirements [Page 71]

ACCEPTABLE 1.1: The standard is met when the offeror provides documentation to demonstrate how their corporate experience will ensure the successful accomplishment of all the requirements of the SOW. At a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate evidence of three years of experience working on labor-hour service contracts similar to that required by the SOW.

Since this is a requirement to demonstrate relevancy of scope, magnitude of efforts, and complexities, would the government consider updating the criteria to read: ACCEPTABLE 1.1:

The standard is met when the offeror provides documentation to demonstrate how their corporate experience will ensure the successful accomplishment of all the requirements of the SOW. At a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate evidence of three years of experience working on labor-hour service contracts similar to that required by the SOW at ESC or another FMLOB Shared

Service Provider in a fee-for-service environment.

Response: No, the evaluation factor remains unchanged.

(9) SIR Section M

SUB-FACTOR 3.1. Understanding of ESC: [Page 73]

ACCEPTABLE 3.1: The standard is met when the offeror at a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate evidence of two efforts within the previous three years of experience working with

Government Financial and IT Services and adherence to Government procedures and guidelines.

Evidence should include a description of the requirement(s), offeror’s role, size and complexity of requirements, applicable procedures and guidelines adhered to, monitoring methods, and lessons learned.

Since this is a requirement to demonstrate an understanding of ESC, would the government consider updating the requirement standard for being deemed acceptable to demonstrate evidence of two efforts within the previous three years of experience working specifically in support of ESC, or with other Government Financial and IT fee-for-service Shared Service

Provider(s) which offer the Oracle Federal Financial (OFF) E-Business Suite R12.2 as its

Financial Management solution for its customers.

Response: No, the evaluation factor remains unchanged.

(10) Attachment 2—CLIN/Price Matrix

The worksheet uses a level of effort of 1 (one) labor hour for many of the labor categories and

1840 hours for others, for a total of 40,588 labor hours per year (equivalent to 22.08 FTE level of effort per year). Does this establish the total contract ceiling value? If so, is this sufficient for the intended purpose of this SIR?

Response: Yes. This does establish the total contract ceiling value; however, this is an

IDIQ contract. The provided labor hours are estimated usage amounts.

(11) SIR Section M.8 ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION [Page 85]

Section M.8 references the SSO. Who is the SSO for this SIR?

Response: Upon request, SSO information may be released after the contract award.

(12) SIR Section L identifies the NAICS code for this acquisition as 541990, All Other

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, with a size standard of $15 million. This will eliminate many small businesses from this opportunity, restricting competition.

Would the government consider using NAICS code 541519, Other Computer Related Services, which has a size standard of $27.5 million?

Response: No, the requirement is for Information Technology and Financial services.

The NAICS code remains unchanged.

(13) SIR Section M states that the award will be made to the “lowest price, technically acceptable offer” as opposed to the offer which is deemed to provide the government with the best value based on technical capability, proven experience, and price. We can say with a high degree of certainty that awarding to the offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and lowest price will result in ESC receiving resources under this contract that are of sub-par quality and skill level and unable to provide the required level of performance to support ESC and ESC customers adequately, especially considering the goal of this IDIQ is to provide resources rapidly to support high priority projects and surge requirements.

Would the government consider changing this acquisition to a best value tradeoff evaluation methodology in order to enable ESC to select the offeror who will provide the best resources for the best value rather than the offeror who provides the cheapest resources who may meet requirements on paper but will not perform to the level required by ESC?

Response: No, the current award methodology remains unchanged.

(14) SIR L.10 PROPOSAL FORMATTING INSTRUCTIONS, #12 [Page 58]

“… The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in Read Only Memory…”

L.15 SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

Requested electronic copies in the format specified above (Table 1) must be submitted to the

Contract Specialist at lameisha.m.cheridor@faa.gov by the specified due date.

By “Read Only Memory” does the government mean that the electronic copy submission is a

CD to be included with the sealed hard copy offers as well as email?

Response: No, CD submissions are not required. “Read Only Memory” means the submitted electronic PDF documents must be in “Read Only” format in order to prevent document modification.

(15) SIR: Section: B.1-Page 6

Since “This contract is an Time & Materials (T&M) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) Task Order Contract,” is it the government’s intention to make one (1) single award for the IDIQ?

Response: Yes, see Section M.1(a).

(16) SIR: Section: I-Page 23

It says one of the Contract Clauses includes "3.6.1-1 NOTICE OF TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS

SET-ASIDE (JAN 2010)" Can the government clarify if this is a total small business set-aside?

Response: Yes, the requirement is total small business set aside. See Section L.1

(17) SOW: Section: 1.1-Page 1

When it says “Contract support includes, but are not limited to the following requirements:

Helpdesk” can the government confirm if this includes Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 helpdesk support?

Response: When needed, requirements will be specified on the individual task Statement of Work

(18) SOW: Section: 1.1-Page 1

When it says “Contract support includes, but are not limited to the following requirements:

National Wireless Program” can the government define what type of work is anticipated for this requirement?

(19) SOW: Section: 1.1-Page 1

The government indicates “This vehicle must be used as the Rapid Support Services vehicle to meet the ebb and flow of ESC ever-changing ‘Financial and IT Service’ environment.” Can the government clarify how much anticipated work in included in the “ebb” versus the “flow”?

(20) SOW: Section: 1.1-Page 1

The government indicates “This vehicle must be used as the Rapid Support Services vehicle to meet the ebb and flow of ESC ever-changing ‘Financial and IT Service’ environment.” Can the government clarify if there are certain times of year where this might be higher or lower than other times of the year?

Response: We have no historical information to support an answer.

(21) SOW: Section: 1.4-Page 3

When it states “If the requirement is for support within 60 calendar days, failure to meet this timeframe may result in negative evaluations”, can the government clarify what this means?

Response: The awardee’s performance will be evaluated throughout the duration of the contract. Failure to meet the 60 calendar day timeframe will result in a negative performance evaluation and could impact the Contractor’s ability to receive future contract awards.

(22) SOW: Section: 3.1-Page 8

“The Contract PM is considered key personnel within this SOW and as such must be employed with the firm at the time of award and must be maintained to the maximum extent possible throughout this program.” Will the government allow contractors to propose additional personnel as key?

Response: No. In accordance with SOW Section 3.1, the Government will determine if additional personnel are key to successful completion of the requirement of this contract.

(23) SOW & Pricing Matrix

The “Program Manager” requirements are described in the SOW and a “Program Manager I” is included in the Pricing Matrix. Are these one and the same? That is, is the “Program Manager” a direct billable position?

Response: SOW section 3.2 specifies the criteria for the contract Program Manager which is not the Program Manager I. Program Manager I has been removed from the

Pricing Matrix. Only similar labor category in the Pricing Matrix is the Project

Manager and that is the stand alone category.

Also, the Program Manager is not direct billable position per SOW section 2.4 states

“The fully burdened labor rates include all direct labor, indirect costs applicable to that direct labor (such as fringe, overhead, G&A, contract deliverables, and adequate

Program Management/Supervisory coverage), and profit.”

(24) Pricing Matrix

In the Pricing Matrix, the “Total Evaluated Base Year Contract Price” formula seems to be multiplying the sum of hours * the extended price which is the sum of the product of hours and rates. Placing any reasonable rate in the matrix yields excessively large amounts. Is that intentional?

(25) SIR

In the SIR Section L.10 #5, does the 10pt. minimum font size also apply to Graphics and tables?

Response: Yes, the 10-point font requirement applies to all graphics and tables.

(26) SIR

While the evaluation is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), in section B.1 it states

“All Task Orders labor rates must be at or below the awarded direct labor hour rates.” Is it the intent that the bidders pricing matrix is ceiling prices and task orders will be separately priced with possibly discounts?

Response: Correct

(27) SIR

The Program Manager is identified Key Personnel in section SOW 3.1. When is the resume required to be submitted?

Response: The resume(s) must be submitted with the offeror’s proposal as an Appendix to Volume II.

(28) SOW

The SOW section 3.2 does not detail the requirements for the “backup designated person.”

Should we assume the same requirements apply as to the Program Manager? Or may a contract supervisor be designated as a backup for a short period of time

Response:

It is up to the Contractor to designate whoever can represent their company

(29) SOW

SOW section 3.2 Program Manager requirements include 24 hours of college business courses.

For technical Program Managers with Computer Science or Engineering bachelor’s degrees, highly qualified technical program managers may not qualify (business courses are not required for these programs). Will FAA reconsider this requirement?

Response: See amended SOW.

(30) SOW

SOW section 1.4 Guidelines states "Due to the rapid response necessary for this requirement, contractors must provide pricing based on specific timeframes: 60 calendar days after the issuance of the Task Statement of Work (TSOW) award." Should "pricing" be replaced with

"staffing" or should the word “award” be removed since Task Orders would be priced prior to award?

Response: No, the sentence is correct. The Contractor’s pricing must be based on providing support within the 60-calendar timeframe. Task Orders are not pre-priced, only the hourly labor rates. The provided labor hours are estimates only.

(31) SOW

The SOW section 1.3 scope states, "Contractor personnel must perform work as required to accomplish IT and related support services requirements of MMAC." Does this mean other

MMAC organizations can use this vehicle? Or is this limited to just ESC?

Response: See amended SOW. The SOW section 1.3 states “Services will be principally performed at the MMAC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, unless otherwise stipulated by the

Government on the individual TSOW”. Currently, the IDIQ is expected to be used by

ESC only; however, other MMAC organizations may use the vehicle, if approved by ESC management.

(32) CDRL

The Attachment 6 CDRL has an item "A006" as "MONTHLY CONTRACTORS PROGRESS, STATUS AND MANAGEMENT REPORT" which is not included in the listing in the SOW. Is it still required or should it be considered added by reference?

Response: The “Monthly Contractors Progress, Status, and Management Report” is item

A003. Block 1 of the CDRL has been corrected to read: A003. The CDRL titles listed in the SOW have been corrected.

(33) Wage Determination

In the Wage Determination on page 2 the labor category "01612 - Word Processor II" was highlighted. There is no mention of that labor category in the Labor Categories or Pricing Matrix.

Was that highlight done in error?

Response: The wage determination has been updated and corrected.

(34) SIR

Is there an incumbent Contractor?

Response: No, this is a new requirement.