Questions 10-24-24.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70FA6024R00000012
- Issued by
-
Federal Emergency Management Agency
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a federal contract opportunity issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program (HMTAP) Non-Architectural and Engineering Services.
The key details are:
- This is a solicitation for three single-award Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts covering three geographic zones in the United States.
- The contract will provide enhanced capacity in meeting FEMA's pre-disaster, during disaster, and post-disaster mitigation and environmental responsibilities related to HMTAP.
- The questions address issues such as proposal due dates, task order pricing, evaluation factors, key personnel requirements, and corporate experience requirements.
- Proposals are due on November 12, 2024.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 70FA6024R00000012 A00003.pdf | ||
| 70FA6024R00000012 A2.pdf | ||
| Questions 10-24-24.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment C - CostPricing Worksheet Sector C (Part 3).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment C - CostPricing Worksheet Sector A (Part 1).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment C - CostPricing Worksheet Sector B (Part 2).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 70FA6024R00000012 A00001.pdf | ||
| Attachment A - HMTAP Recompete PWS_final 07222024.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment D Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf | ||
| Final Solicitation 9-26-2024.pdf | ||
| Attachment C - CostPricing Worksheet Sector C (Part 3).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment A - HMTAP Recompete PWS_final 07222024.pdf | ||
| Attachment C - CostPricing Worksheet Sector B (Part 2).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment C - CostPricing Worksheet Sector A (Part 1).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT B - QASP June 2024.pdf |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q and A
| Question | RFQ Page | RFQ Paragraph | SOLUTION | |
| The SF 33 states a due date of 11/8/2024. However, L.9 indicates 11/12/2024. Please clarify the true date for submission of proposals. | 1 | SF 33, L.9 | 11/12/24 | |
| Please clarify if the due date is November 8th or November 12th? | 1 | p 115 - L.9; SF 33 - Block 9 | 11/12/24 | |
| Please confirm the proposal due date. | 1 | L.9 Submission of Proposals | 11/12/24 | |
| The SF33 states the proposal is due Nov 8, 2024; however L.9 states the response is due Nov 11, 2024. Can the government provide clarification as to the due date? | 1 | SF33 box 9 and L.9 | 11/12/24 | |
| For any Firm Fixed Price task order it is clear the Contractor shall utilize the fixed rates established in this RFP. | 3 | B.4 Task Order Pricing | Yes this will be stated in future Task Order Proposal Requests (TOPR) as applicable | |
| Will the Government please confirm that the Contractor will propose the hours applicable to all Firm Fixed Price Task Orders? | 3 | Firm Fixed Price Task Orders | Yes | |
| Where “mark-up” is interpreted to mean “indirect rate,” this direction would cause a noncompliance with disclosed practices where General and Administrative (G&A) is applied to total cost, inclusive of ODCs. Could the Government modify this direction to state, “Contractors shall apply indirect rates in accordance with their disclosed practices?” | 3 | B.4 Task Order Pricing (Other Direct Costs (ODCs): The Contractor shall propose ODCs required to support the task order. No material handling fee or any mark-up is permitted. | Removed the word Mark up since it is causing confusion | |
| Section B.4 states: “Other Direct Costs (ODCs): The Contractor shall propose ODCs required to support the task order. No material handling fee or any mark-up is permitted.” Will FEMA consider allowing contractors to propose G&A or other indirect rate markups on FFP task orders consistent with our CAS Disclosure statement? | 3 | B.4 | Removed the word Mark up since it is causing confusion | |
| As part of Evaluation Factor 5, it requires that the offeror complete Section B.5 Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates. We assume that this is the completion of the table on page 4 of section B.5 Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates. If the offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), does FEMA want the rate information submitted for each JV partner individually, or as a blended rate for the JV? | 3-4 | L.7, Evaluation Factor 5 – Price/Cost | Blended | |
| Attachment C shows Senior for Accountant whereas the Draft Solicitation shows Master Accountant. Please clarify. | 4 | Attachment C Cell A6, Solicitation pg. 4 | Please see Attachment C and Solicitation Section B.6 for the updates | |
| Section B.6 in the solicitation identifies an Accountant 3, Master (20+) and Attachment C identifies an Accountant 3, Senior (10-20). Please clarify the appropriate designation. | 4 | Solicitation pg. 4 | ||
| Attachment C_Cell C6 | Please see Attachment C and Solicitation Section B.6 for the updates | |||
| How does the Government want the offerors to price non-key positions otherwise required to support the program, i.e., PMO positions (project controls, supply chain, etc.)? For offerors who propose such positions as direct to the programs they support it would not be a level evaluation to include these positions in the total evaluated price. | 4 | Worksheet provided as Attachment C. Offerors shall fill-in the sector for which the rates apply. Offerors may propose additional Key Personnel Position(s). Any proposed additional Key Personnel and the fully burdened labor rate(s) shall be added to: (1) B.6 Price Schedule and the (2) Price Worksheet provided as Attachment C. For the Price Worksheet, each additional proposed Key Personnel shall be based on 1,880 hours for the base period and each option year. The price of the additional Key Personnel shall be included in the total proposed amount and the total evaluated price. | The question is not fully understood. It is not clear what is meant by PMO positions. Offeror’s may add any labor categories that are allowable pursuant to FAR 31.201-2 to the price worksheet as unique labor categories that will be included in the total evaluated price. However, it is noted that some functions such as payroll and accounting may qualify as indirect cost IAW FAR 31.203. | |
| The PWS indicates that Sector B includes NFIP. Does that mean that all technical assistance to the Floodplain Management Division will be assigned under Sector B? | 4 | PWS Sector B | Floodplain Management Division as a whole is not included, only NFIP. | |
| For clarification, in identifying additional key personnel, may the offeror simply identify an existing prescribed Labor Category (with prescribed years of experience) as key personnel? (In other words, identify key personnel by utilizing the current Level 3 position and not introduce new positions?) | 4-34 | B.6 | Yes, Please see Section B.6 paragraph 3 | |
| The FEMA Floodplain Management Division (FPMD) has an existing contract (GSA schedule GS00Q14OADU108, task order 70FA6023F00000032) “Floodplain Management Program Integration and Support Services.” Please clarify how technical assistance to FPMD will be divided between HMTAP and the existing floodplain management GSA task order. | 4 | PWS Sector B | FPMD support will no longer be provided by HMTAP | |
| The Solicitation has identified 20+ years as a requirement for Key Personnel (i.e., Program Manager, 3 Senior with a minimum of 20 years of relevant experience); however the current construct of the Price Schedule has only two Labor Category levels identifying 20+ years of experience. In identifying additional Key Personnel positions, may the offeror propose additional Labor Category ‘Experience’ levels (e.g., ‘Master's, 20+ years’) to enable mapping of staff with greater than 20 years of experience? | 4-34 | B.6 | See updated secton B.6 and Cost Sheets | |
| May the offeror propose additional experience levels to the currently identified Labor Categories to capture staff with 20+ years of experience (e.g., ‘Master's, 20+ years’)? | 4-34 | B.6 | See updated secton B.6 and Cost Sheets | |
| The discussion of “Post Award Reports and Deliverables” in indicates that a project/task schedule will be due five days after award. Will a project/task work plan also be required at that time? | 6 | PWS 2.7 | This will be addressed at the Task Order Level | |
| Recognizing the critical nature of this contract and the need for strong leadership, would the Government require Offerors to present Program Managers who are fully dedicated and available exclusively for the successful execution of this contract? | 7 | Section 3.2 Key Personnel | Yes | |
| The terms “Program Manager” and “Project Manager” are used throughout the PWS. Please clarify/confirm if these are different positions. | 7-9 3.2, Page 7; 3.5 Page 9 | e.g., 3.2 Key Personnel, The Contractor shall provide a Program Manager; 3.5 Employee Conduct, The Project Manager | Yes these are two separate positions | |
| Please confirm it is the intent of the Government for the Contractor to seek pre-approval from the COR for all reimbursable travel events. If so, would the Government consider allowing the Project Monitors to approve travel requests? | 10 | 4.5 | Per OCCPO policy, the COR is the only one who approves travel requests | |
| PWS sections 4.6 through 4.8 describe multiple deliverables due within 20 days of contract award. At the time of contract award, will the Government also award an initial task order to fund the Post Award Conference, draft Project Plan, and Business Continuity Plan efforts? | 10 | PWS 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 | No initial task orders are awarded for Post Award conferences, draft Project Plans, and Business Continuity Plan efforts. | |
| In paragraph 6.0, please confirm if the mention of PWS 6.0 at the end of the sentence should be PWS 5.0. Government Furnished Resources. | 13 | 6.0 Contractor Furnished Property. The Contractor shall furnish all facilities, materials, equipment, and services necessary to fulfill the requirements of this contract, except for the Government Furnished Resources specified in PWS 2.0 and PWS 6.0. | Correct, it should have read PWS 5.0. The PWS has been updated to reflect this information. | |
| PWS section 7.0 states that “the COR will review deliverables prior to acceptance.” Does this statement refer only to contract-level deliverables or will the COR also review task order-specific deliverables? | 13 | PWS 7.0 | The COR reviews task order specific delieverables | |
| PWS section 9.0 mentions a “Quality Control Plan” that is not mentioned elsewhere in the PWS. Will the successful offeror be required to submit a Quality Control Plan after contract award? | 15 | 10 | At time of TOPR the vendor will receive a PRS or QASP | |
| The second potential conflict of interest specified in I.15 requires clarification. Many of the most highly qualified potential offerors may fit the description of “Contractors providing Programmatic Technical Assistance services and/or Training services for HMTAP and assist in developing guidance for HMA Programs.” Please specify for each HMTAP Sector the types of previous FEMA assignments that may cause a contractor to have a potential conflict of interest. | 71 | I.15 | Revised solicitation language | |
| Please confirm that the cover and TOC pages are part of the "front matter" as noted and do not count in the total page count. | 108 | L.7, Technical Proposal, Volume I, Instructions | The solicitation reads ". All other material such as brochures or samples of work, attachments, or extra pages will not be considered. Mitigation plans for OCI will NOT count against the page count. Front matter resumes of Key Personnel, and letters of commitment from subcontractors do not count against the 20-page limitation." | |
| Please confirm the term “bookmarks” is referring to the Adobe tool used to bookmark headings in a PDF document. | 108 | L.7 Instructions to Offerors; (A) General Proposal Preparation Instructions | Bookmarks are encourages and can be utilized in both Adobe and Word | |
| On Page 108, the RFP specifies that “The technical proposal shall address the following evaluation factors. Each factor is of approximate equal importance: Factor 1: Technical Approach; Factor 2: Corporate Experience; Factor 3: Key Personnel; Factor 4: Past Performance,” while on Page 117, the RFP states that “The Government will conduct an evaluation of each Offeror’s technical proposal in accordance with the following evaluation factors which are listed in descending order of importance: 1. Technical Approach, 2. Corporate Experience, 3. Key Personnel, 4. Past Performance, 5. Price”. Can the Government confirm how each factor will be evaluated against each other? | 108 | P. 108: last sentence of the page P117 | Each factor will be evaluated and they are listed in the descending order of importance. They are not evaluated against each other. | |
| The solicitation states "Front matter resumes of Key Personnel, and letters of commitment from subcontractors do not count against the 20-page limitation." Additional front matter of Title page, Table of Contents, cross-reference matrix, and acronym list are referenced in paragraph 4 on the same page. Since these front matter items are typically necessary, we respectfully request that they do not count against the page limit of 20 pages in the technical volume. | 108 | pg. 108, paragraph number 4. and 2nd paragraph under Vol I, Instructions | I will ad TOC does not count | |
| Per the solicitation, front matter and the table of contents may not exceed a total of two pages. We typically include a title page, table of contents, solicitation cross-reference matrix and acronym list to make our proposal reviewer friendly. Limiting front matter to two pages will not allow these reviewer tools; therefore we request that these items be allowed for a total of four uncounted pages. | 108 | pg. 108, 2nd paragraph under Vol I, Instructions | Increase to 4 pages | |
| Please define the term “Work Products.” | 109 | Describe the best practices you will use to ensure successful work products. | changed to read to ensure successful service delivery | |
| For Factor 2 - Corporate Experience, would FEMA consider accepting IDIQ contracts with multiple inter-related task orders as Corporate Experience? Many current FEMA contracts are IDIQ’s where multiple task orders comprise a single PWS requirement. As such, an IDIQ contract with multiple inter-related task orders would be considered a single project, best demonstrating the comprehensive relevance of the experience to the HMTAP PWS requirements. | 109 | Section L.7, Evaluation Factor 2 - Corporate Experience, paragraph 2: Offerors shall present up to three (3) relevant contracts/projects, performed within the past five (5) years for clients (including federal, state, and local governments and commercial clients) as the prime or subcontractor, which demonstrate experience comparable to the PWS requirements. A “project” is defined as a single award contract, task order, IDIQ contract task order, or a BPA call order. Multiple contracts and/or task orders shall not be listed as a single project. The project will not be considered if it included multiple contracts and/or orders. At least one project must be submitted for the prime Offeror. At least one project must be in support of an organization with multiple directorates, divisions, and offices. The specific contract, task order, or call order number shall be provided. Note-if only a IDIQ contract number or BPA number is provided these will not be considered for corporate experience. | ||
| Correct. The solicitation reads "Offerors shall present up to three (3) relevant contracts/projects, performed within the past five (5) years for clients (including federal, state, and local governments and commercial clients) as the prime or subcontractor, which demonstrate experience comparable to the PWS requirements. A “project” is defined as a single award contract, task order, IDIQ contract task order, or a BPA call order. Multiple contracts and/or task orders shall not be listed as a single project. The project will not be considered if it included multiple contracts and/or orders. At least one project must be submitted for the prime Offeror. At least one project must be in support of an organization with multiple directorates, divisions, and offices. The specific contract, task order, or call order number shall be provided. Note-if only a IDIQ contract number or BPA number is provided these will not be considered for corporate experience." | ||||
| For a newly formed joint venture that was established specifically to support this program, please confirm that the Government will consider the projects previously performed by the individual members of that joint venture to address Evaluation Factor 2 - Corporate Experience. | 109 | Evaluation Factor 2 - Corporate Experience, paragraph two: Offerors shall present up to three (3) relevant contracts/projects, performed within the past five (5) years for clients (including federal, state, and local governments and commercial clients) as the prime or subcontractor, which demonstrate experience comparable to the PWS requirements. A “project” is defined as a single award contract, task order, IDIQ contract task order, or a BPA call order. Multiple contracts and/or task orders shall not be listed as a single project. The project will not be considered if it included multiple contracts and/or orders. At least one project must be submitted for the prime Offeror. At least one project must be in support of an organization with multiple directorates, divisions, and offices. The specific contract, task order, or call order number shall be provided. Note-if only a IDIQ contract number or BPA number is provided these will not be considered for corporate experience. | The experience of the Offeror’s parent company, subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint venture agreements (except for approved SBA Protegee’ Mentor Agreements) will not be considered for the Government to make an accurate confidence assessment of the prime Offeror’s and proposed subcontractor’s corporate experience. | |
| The RFP does not make any clear reference to how a joint venture (as Offeror) will be considered for Evaluation Factor 2 - Corporate Experience. Please confirm that for a newly formed joint venture, the Government will consider the projects performed by the members of that joint venture. And, if such joint venture members performed projects as members of other joint ventures, will the government consider the member’s past performance on other JV projects and should the UEI for the projects reflect the prior joint venture or the member? | 109-111 | L.7, Evaluation Factor 2 – Corporate Experience | The evaluation will be based on the Joint Venture Company and not the parent, sibling, etc | |
| Please provide Section L instruction for Letter of Commitment. | 110 | It is noted that only the corporate experience of the prime Offeror and proposed subcontractors (who have submitted a signed letter of commitment) will be considered. | Offerors must provide their own | |
| Please clarify whose UEI should be provided for projects previously performed by the individual members of the offerors joint ventures that performed projects as members of other joint ventures. Should the UEI represent the prior joint venture or the member? | 110 | “Corporate Experience Mandatory Information” line three | The UEI should represent the offeror's firm submitting the proposal and no parents, sibling, etc | |
| For Factor 2 - Corporate Experience, would FEMA consider accepting experience from the Offeror as a partner in a Joint Venture (JV), provided the Offeror clearly details only its portion of the work performed (and not the broader JV work)? Historically, experience specifically attributed to the Offeror as a JV partner—when clearly described—has been considered evidence of corporate experience in other FEMA procurements. This approach would benefit FEMA by allowing Offerors to present a deeper representation of their relevant experience, thereby providing FEMA with more comprehensive information to make the selection decisions. | 110-111 | Section L.7, Evaluation Factor 2 - Corporate Experience, last paragraph of p110 and first paragraph of p111 | The Offeror has a Joint Venture must provide the Joint Venture Corporate Experience. | |
| Can additional key personnel be designated by using one or more of the existing labor categories? Key personnel are typically aligned to prescribed labor categories, not by adding an additional labor category to the pricing worksheet and arbitrarily increasing the hours upon which the proposed pricing is based. | 111 | L.7, Evaluation Factor 3 - Key Personnel, paragraph 1 | Yes | |
| Factor 3 indicates that the only required key personnel is the Program Manager, but additional key personnel can be proposed. Can you please clarify how Factor 3 will be evaluated if additional key personnel are proposed in addition to the program manager? | 111 | L.7, Evaluation Factor 3 - Key Personnel | The Offeror shall demonstrate the benefits of any proposed additional Key Personnel. | |
| Because joint ventures are separate legal entities, would the Government clarify the final sentence of the first paragraph at pg.111 of the RFP that FEMA will consider the corporate experience of members of a new joint venture? | 111 | L.7, Evaluation Factor 2 – Corporate Experience, Paragraph 1 | FEMA will only consider expereince from the actual joint venture. | |
| The final sentence of the first paragraph at p.111 of the RFP states that “FEMA will only consider the work of the legal entity that provided the service for corporate experience.” As the members of joint ventures are typically separate legal entities, please confirm that FEMA will consider the corporate experience of the individual members of a newly formed joint venture established for the purpose of supporting this program? | 111 | First paragraph, last sentence | FEMA will only consider expereince from the actual joint venture. | |
| For newly formed joint ventures, please confirm that the Government will consider the references of projects performed by the individual members of that joint venture to address Evaluation Factor 4 - Past Performance. | 112 | Evaluation 4 – Past Performance, first and paragraphs | The evaluation will be based on the Joint Venture Company and not the parent, sibling, etc | |
| The RFP does not make any clear reference to how a joint venture (as Offeror) will be considered for Evaluation Factor 4 - Past Performance. Please confirm that for a newly formed joint venture, the Government will consider the references for the projects performed by the members of that joint venture. | 112-113 | L.7, Evaluation Factor 4 – Past Performance | The evaluation will be based on the Joint Venture Company and not the parent, sibling, etc | |
| Under EVALUATION FACTOR 5 - PRICE/COST, the RFP states that Offerors shall not deviate from the labor categories, level of effort, labor mix, and ODCs specified in Attachment C. However, the ODCs are not prepopulated in each Attachment C, showing calculation errors (#REF!). Can the Government please update these attachments with the correct ODC plug numbers? | RFP Page 113 and Attachment C | Rows 211 of each Attachment C | Removed the ODC line. It appears historically this was all rolled into the Labor. | |
| Please provide details of location in the proposal for Proposal Validity statement. | 113 | Proposal validity must be for six months from the closing date. | Cover page. Information is added to page 113 under Business Proposal Instructions | |
| Page 114 of the RFP states; “Offerors shall complete Sections B.5 and B.6 of the solicitation and the Price/Cost worksheet provided as Attachment C for each Sector they are competing. Offerors shall not deviate from the labor categories, level of effort, labor mix, and ODCs specified in Attachment C except for proposing additional Key | 114 | Evaluation Factor 5- Price/Cost | Removed the ODC line. It appears historically this was all rolled into the Labor. | |
| Personnel positions which shall be proposed based on 1,880 hours per year. Please note that the evaluated price will not be used as the Contract maximum amount.” | 114 | Factor 5: Cost/Price Analysis | It will not be used Maximum amount is stated in Section B.3 | |
| If a single offeror pursues two or three sectors and its offers are evaluated highly, how will FEMA determine which Sector to award the offeror? | 115 | L.9 | It will depend on their ranking in said sector | |
| L.9 states that the Sector must be identified in the transmittal e-mail. Will offerors be considered only for the Sector identified in the transmittal subject? | 115 | L.9 | Yes, the vendor must bid on each sector seperately and indicate clearly on which Sector is being bid on. To ensure that the correct bid is placed with the correct Sector it is important that the offeror places the Sector in the subject line and do not submit all the Sectors within the same email. Example: Email will read Sector B and only information pretaining to Sector B will be within the email. | |
| M.2 states that “The Offeror selected for sector A award will be removed from consideration for Sectors B and C.”. If an Offeror submits ONLY for Sector C, please confirm that they would not be considered for a Sector A or B award, which could preclude selection for Sector C. | 116 | M.2 | Yes, the offeror would only be considered for the Sector they are bidding on. That is why it is important to follow the instructions in Section L.9 and ensure the offeror indicates what Sector they are bidding on. Any Offeror who neglects to add which Sector they are biddiing on will automatically be considered an unsuccessful offer. | |
| Page 120 of the RFP states; “The total evaluated price will be the total amount proposed using the Cost/Price Worksheet inclusive of options provided as Attachment C plus the extrapolated price to extend services for up to 6 additional months pursuant to FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.” | 120 | Correct | ||
| It appears any position added to the labor category worksheet will be included in the total amount proposed. This places any company who direct charges cost at a disadvantage to those who place the same overall costs into an indirect rate structure. This will force companies to violate their Cost Accounting Standards to be competitive within the RFP structure. | 120 | Any additional proposed labor categories will be included in the total evaluated proposed cost of the IDIQ if offerors intend on using them for future task orders. | ||
| Please explain how companies are to account for Program Management Office (PMO), ex. Payroll, Accounting, Contract Management positions. These positions are not considered “Key” but are required for a company to perform operations requested in this RFP. | 120 | Offeror’s may add any labor categories that are allowable pursuant to FAR 31.201-2 to the price worksheet as unique labor categories that will be included in the total evaluated price. However, it is noted that some functions such as payroll and accounting may qualify as indirect cost in accordance with FAR 31.203. | ||
| The past performance requirement of “Benefit-Cost analysis (BCA) helpline assistance (Task 6)” is prohibitively narrow and does not allow for free and open competition on this RFP. Will the Government consider utilizing “Benefit-Cost analysis (BCA) experience (Task 6)” instead? | Attachment D Past Performance Questionnaire, page 1 of 4 | 6th bullet on 1st page. | The contractor shall maintain and enhance the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) helpline. Provide responses to programmatic questions related to BCA. The BCA helpline assistance is a scope element across all sectors. Attachment D references Task 6 of the PWS and this task remains as stated. | |
| The fourth bullet of the Program Manager requirements states that the Program Manager shall have project management certifications such as PMI, PMP or FAC-P/PM. Would the Government consider removing this requirement as this requirement arbitrarily limits the candidate pool, removing candidates who have direct program management experience in the hazard mitigation field exceeding all other requirements? | Attachment+ Performance Work Statement | page 8; 3.2 Key Personnel | No it is required | |
| The fourth bullet of the Program Manager requirements states that the Program Manager shall have project management certifications such as PMI, PMP or FAC-P/PM. Would the Government consider making this requirement preferred as opposed to required, and allow offerors to demonstrate their candidates experience that far exceed the requirements of the PMI, PMP or FAC-P/PM? | Attachment+ Performance Work Statement | page 8; 3.2 Key Personnel | No it is required | |
| The LCAT for Accountant includes First, Mid, and Master where all other LCATs include First, Mid, and Senior. Is the intent for Accountant to read First, Mid, and Senior with 10-20 years of experience (rather than Master with 20+ years of experience)? | NA | Attachment C - Cost Pricing Worksheets (All) | The Acct is 20+ | |
| Is Attachment D - Past Performance Questionnaire to be submitted with the proposal(s) or is this included just as a sample of what the COR may ask our references? | NA | Attachment D - Past Performance Questionnaire | Must be submitted for consideration | |
| The RFP does not provide guidance on how to estimate ODC costs for Attachment C. Should respondents enter a value for ODCs? If so, how are respondents to develop the ODC estimate? Will FEMA give respondents an ODC number to incorporate in the cost? | NA | Attachment C - Cost Pricing Worksheets (All) | The ODC has been removed. It looks like historically it has been added to the Labor. | |
| Please confirm the required font guidance for the Cover Page is no smaller than 9 pt. | yes | |||
| Please confirm the Resume(s) is excluded from the total page count of 20 pages. | yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .