Amendment_0001_-_E.1.A_PEO_IDIQ_Questions_with_Responses.docx

75FCMC18R0014 PEO IDIQ Page 21 of 23 Amendment 0001 Exhibit E.1.A

AMENDMENT 0001 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

SOLICITATION SECTION B

1) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014 PEO Solicitation and Exhibit E.3 Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): B.2 Task Order Awards Page Number: 6 Question: The IDIQ RFP says, "Subcontractors who are anticipated to have CR contracting arrangements, including non-commercial Time and Materials type contracts, shall also have an acceptable or adequate accounting system." Please define "non-commercial T&M".

CMS Response: See FAR Part 2 for the definition of “Commercial Items” – if the subcontract does not meet the definition then it is non-commercial. See also FAR Part 12 which discusses commercial T&M.

SOLICITATION SECTION G

2) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): G.7 SUBCONTRACT CONSENT Page Number: pg. 20 Question: Does CMS require that the Offeror complete and submit as a part of its proposal response the requirements under G.7 SUBCONTRACT CONSENT for all its proposed subcontractors, whether or not they are being proposed as a subcontractor on the Sample Task or either of the Site Verification Services Task Orders (per RFP Exhibit E.10 – Consent to Subcontract)?

And if the above information is required for each subcontractor for the IDIQ contract award, please specify where this information shall be included in the offeror’s proposal.

CMS Response: Consent to Subcontract is only applicable to the Site Verification Services Task Orders.

3) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014_PEO_Solicitation G.9 Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): G.9 SUBCONTRACTING PROGRAM FOR SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES Page Number: 21 Question: Can the Government confirm that G.9 is for Large Business only?

CMS Response: Section G.9 of the solicitation is for Large Businesses only.

SOLICITATION SECTION H

4) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): IDIQ Solicitation Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): H.13 Wage Determinations Page Number: 52 Question: This section states that Wage Determinations will be “incorporated at the task order level”. For the purposes of preparing a proposal, could you verify if offerors are responsible for preparing a matrix identifying those labor categories that are subject to the Service Contract Act?

CMS Response: The Offeror is required to identify any labor categories for the Sample Task Order that are subject to the Service Contract Act. In addition, if an Offeror is proposing on one or both of the Site Verification Services Task Orders, the Offeror is required to identify any labor categories that are subject to the Service Contract Act.

SOLICITATION SECTION I

5) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): I – Contract Clauses Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): I.1 FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998) Page Number: 55 of 116 Question: Section I.1 incorporates by reference FAR 52.230-3 Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices (Oct 2015). Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR 52.230-3 is updated to include (Deviation 2018-O0015) (May 2018). Please clarify.

CMS Response: This deviation is in accordance with the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) and is for applicable to the Department of Defense and not applicable to civilian agencies.

6) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section I.12 NOTIFICATION OF COMPETITION LIMITED TO ELIGIBLE 8(a) PARTICIPANTS (JAN 2017) Page Number: 61 Question: Can CMS please confirm that small business offers are limited to 8(a) firms only?

CMS Response: Small Business Offers are not limited to 8(a) firms only. This clause is for potential future 8(a) set-aside opportunities for future task orders.

SOLICITATION SECTION J

7) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15.3.2.D, Exhibit E.5: Past Performance Information Spreadsheet Page Number: Tab 1: Offeror Info Question: Instructions for completing Tab 1 of the spreadsheet in Exhibit E.5 state that for each relevance factor for each significant subcontractor:

“ Place an X under the respective requirement” and record “the percent of work being done by this significant subcontractor”.”

Please clarify whether the information required is related to our proposed utilization of subcontractors to perform tasks or to past performance information.

CMS Response: The information being required is related to the proposed utilization of significant subcontractors to perform the relevant requirement. Provide the percentage of work the proposed significant subcontractor is performing for the requirement.

8) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014_PEO_Solicitation Factor 2D Past Performance Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Softrams PEO 75FCMC18R0014 Exhibit_E.5__Past_Performance_Information_Spreadsheet Page Number: spreadsheet, first tab Question: The instructions state, “Percent of work being done by this significant subcontractor*, ex. 25%”. Can the Government confirm that this percentage is just an initial estimate, since this breakdown is usually defined at the Task Order level?

CMS Response: Yes, please provide the estimated percentage of work the subcontractor will perform.

SOLICITATION SECTION K

9) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): K.5 FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications Page Number: 73 of 116 Question: Section K.5 includes FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications (Oct 2015). Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR 52.230-1 is updated to include (Deviation 2018-O0015) (May 2018). Please clarify.

CMS Response: This deviation is in accordance with the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) and is applicable to for the Department of Defense and not applicable to civilian agencies.

SOLICITATION SECTION L

10) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation, Section L.3

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): FAR 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS -- COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2017) - (4)

Page Number: 79 Question: 4 states, “… the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.” If the offeror does not submit a response to a performance requirement during this response, will that preclude them from pursuing the task order when it is released?

CMS Response: No, See Section M.4.

11) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): IDIQ RFP – PEO Solicitation, L

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L. – d) Offer Expiration Date Page Number: Cover and 80 of 116 Question: What number should the offeror set as the "validity days"? The cover does not specify and says "N/A".

CMS Response: In accordance with L.14 VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION, Section G.1 “The Offeror shall make a clear statement that its offer is valid for at least 365 days beyond the due date.” The SF-30 reflects that the SF-33 is revised to incorporate 365 days in the blank provided under line 12 as opposed to “n/a”.

12) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation, Section L.4

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.4 FAR 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

Page Number: 82 Question: L.4 FAR 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984), states “ The Government anticipates the award of a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract to multiple vendors in addition to the award of two Fixed Price Task Orders (see FAR 16.2) resulting from this solicitation.” Does the Government anticipate all task orders under this IDIQ will be awarded as Fixed Price Task Orders?

CMS Response: No, as stated in Section B.2, CMS anticipates cost reimbursement and fixed price task orders.

13) Section: RFP Section L.6 and M.4

Title and Number: L.6 B) and M.4 Basis for Contract Award

Page Number: 82, 111

Question: Will some future Task Orders be set-aside based on socio-economic groups (8a, WOSB, etc.)?

CMS Response: There is potential that future task orders may be set-aside for small businesses or set-aside for a specific socio-economic small business category. Before competing each task order a determination will be made as to whether the ask order will be competed among all IDIQ contractor holders (unrestricted basis) or on a restricted basis (all small businesses IDIQ holders or a specific socio-economic category of small business(s) are eligible to compete.

14) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.8 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Page Number: pg. 84 Question: In light of the Thanksgiving holiday, would the Government please consider an extension until 11/30?

CMS Response: Amendment 00001 to this solicitation has extended the response due date to December 11, 2018 – see page 2 of Amendment 00001.

15) (Proposal Due Date) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP L.8

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): RFP L.8, Proposal Due Date and Submission of Proposals Page Number: Page 100 of 116 Question: As the prior questions address fundamental issues impacting eligibility of offerors and ability to comply with the past performance submission requirements, we request an extension of the proposal due date of November 27, 2018 to a date that is one month following the receipt of responses to these questions.

CMS Response: Amendment 00001 to this solicitation has extended the response due date to December 11, 2018 – see page 2 of Amendment 00001.

SECTION L.13

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

16) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number: Section L, D) PAGE SIZE and E) TABLES, CHARTS, GRAPHS, AND FIGURES Page Number: 88-89 Question: In these two sections the Government guidance for text size “…shall be no less than Times New Roman 11 point…” and “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text size shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 8 point font.” Does this mean that the Government wants all proposal text to be in Times New Roman, or can we use other traditional and generally-accepted fonts such as Arial and Arial Narrow provided they are no smaller than Times New Roman 11 and 8 point for text and for graphics?

CMS Response: Only Times New Roman text shall be used, as stated.

17) Section: SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS. (A) Page Number: 87 Question: Will CMS consider accepting items requiring submission in electronic format via USB/Flash Drives vs. compact disc (CD)?

CMS Response: No, due to security requirements CMS cannot accept USB/Flash Drives.

18) Section: RFP

Title and Number: L.13.A. ORGANIZATION, COPIES, AND PAGE LIMIT Page Number: 87 Question: Would the government confirm that the cover page for each volume is not included in the page count?

CMS Response: The cover page for each volume is not included in the page count.

19) Section: L, Instructions RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L. 13 Instructions, A) ORGANIZATION, COPIES, AND PAGE LIMIT Page Number: 87 Question: Please verify that past performance contract references are to be submitted on CD only and are not to be included in the hard copy submission of the technical proposal.

CMS Response: Exhibit E.5, Past Performance Information Spreadsheet, is to be submitted in electronic format (CD) only. Past Performance Questionnaires will be submitted directly to CMS and PPIRS/CPARS will be retrieved by CMS. Any other references should be provided as required by the solicitation.

20) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13.D Page Size Page Number: 88 Question: Text says: The text size shall be no less than Times New Roman 11 point. Are we correct in assuming that Arial or another sans serif font can be used for headings as long as it is larger than TNR 11 pt?

CMS Response: No.

21) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13 Proposal Instructions, E) Tables, Charts, Graphs, and Figures Page Number: 89 Question: 2. Can the figure/table caption be the same font type and font size as that of the figure/table specification?

CMS Response: The figure/table caption is a part of the figure/ table and would therefore fall under the font type and font size specifications for the figure/table.

22) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13 Proposal Instructions Page Number: 87-89 Question: The production of hard copy proposals adds a significant cost and resource burden to small business Offerors. Will the Government remove the hard copy production requirements and allow Offerors to submit all proposals as soft copies via e-mail.

CMS Response: CMS will reduce the number of hard copies by changing the following:

23) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13 Proposal Instructions, A) Organization, Copies, and Page Limit Page Number: 87 Question: Will Volume V, Site Verification Services Task Order(s), A and B be included as one (1) volume?

CMS Response: If the Offeror is proposing on one of the Site Verification Services Task Orders, Volume V shall include either A or B. If the Offeror is proposing on both of the Site Verification Services Task Orders, Volume V shall include A and B.

24) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Section L.13, H)

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Electronic Media Offers and Submission Page Number: 90 Question: Seventh bullet point states the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft Office 2013 and Attachment J.5 and J.6, Section L.19 state all spreadsheets will be in Office 2013 excel format. Please clarify if the spreadsheets for the task orders have to be in Office 2013 excel format.

CMS Response: The Task Order RFPs Section L.19, Section 3, states “All spreadsheets will be in Office 2013 excel format, be fully functional, and unlocked.”

SECTION L.14

VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

25) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Section L.14

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): VOLUME I – Contract Documentation Page Number: 90 Question: L.14 states that “Small Businesses are required to complete Sections A -G”. The Matrix in this Section states that Sections C and D are to be completed by the Prime only. Are Small Businesses to complete Sections A, B E, F and G?

CMS Response: If the Small Business Offeror is the Prime Offeror, the Small Business Offeror shall complete sections A-G. If the Small Business Offeror is a Subcontractor, the Small Business shall complete sections A, B, E, F, and G.

26) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.14. Volume I - Contract Documentation Page Number: 90 Question: Could CMS confirm that on the IDIQ level, the only documentation that the Prime contractor should include for subcontractors within Volume I is ‘Exhibit_E.3__Subcontractor_Proposal_Information_Checklist’? If not, could CMS provide a list of documentation that prime contractors need to include for subcontractors?

CMS Response: Yes, for Volume I, the Prime Offeror is only responsible for providing Exhibit E.3 for the proposed significant subcontractors. Each significant subcontractor is responsible for providing their own Volume I in their submission.

27) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.14 Contract Documentation, Section G, G.4 Joint Ventures of Teaming Arrangements

Page Number: 94 Question: “In accordance with the above provision, an agreement shall be submitted at time of proposal.” Please confirm the Gov’t is only requesting copies of Teaming Agreement(s) between Small Business Offerors and their Small Business teaming partners rather than the all Teaming Agreements, including large and small business partners.

CMS Response: Yes, the instructions at L.14, G.4, are based on FAR 52.207-6, which is applicable to offers from small business concerns and small business teaming arrangement or Joint Ventures.

28) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014_PEO_Solicitation L.14 VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): G.4 Joint Ventures or Teaming Arrangements (Applicable Small Businesses Only) Page Number: 94 Question: Do small businesses need to submit a copy of the teaming agreements with their small business partners with their proposal?

CMS Response: Yes, in accordance with FAR 52.207-6, as stated under L.14, G.4, “In accordance with the above provision, an agreement shall be submitted at time of proposal.”

SECTION L.15

VOLUME II – IDIQ TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 – DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY NARRATIVES

29) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.14, Factor 1, C (Small Businesses) Page Number: 97-98 Question: Please confirm labor category descriptions are to be provided separately from the Performance Requirement submission.

CMS Response: The top four labor category descriptions are required to be submitted with and for each performance requirement under Demonstrated Capability Narratives as stated in the solicitation.

30) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.15 VOLUME II - IDIQ TECHNICAL PROPOSAL; TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 - DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY NARRATIVES Page Number: 96 Question: “The Offeror shall include the top four labor categories they consider critical to that requirement…” Can CMS please confirm that the top four labor categories exclude management team labor categories?

CMS Response: The determination of the top four labor categories is at the discretion of the Offeror.

31) Section: RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 - DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY NARRATIVES Page Number: 96 Question: The government states that we must include “Choice of PEO Requirements – Exhibit E.4” in Volume 2. Would the government allow us to reformat as a table in MS Word as part of the Volume 2?

CMS Response: Yes, however, it must be an excel attachment under Volume I.

32) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15 VOLUME II – IDIQ TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 – DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY NARRATIVES, B) Large Businesses Page Number: 96 Question: Can significant subcontractors’ technical capabilities be included as part of this section’s response? The Past Performance Factor suggests “yes.”

CMS Response: If an Offeror is utilizing a subcontractor to successfully accomplish a performance requirement, then the demonstrated capability narrative should include this information. The purpose of Volume II, IDIQ Technical Proposal, is to provide the Government the ability to evaluate the technical experience and capability of the Offeror to perform the PEO IDIQ performance requirements.

33) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): PEO Solicitation, Section L.15 Volume II - IDIQ Technical Proposal, Technical Factor 1 – Demonstrated Capability Narratives, Section B, Large Businesses, 2nd paragraph Page Number: Top of page 97 under chart Question: The RFP states: “Large Businesses may also provide their technical capabilities for anticipated small business requirements. However, CMS will only evaluate a Large Business’ submitted proposed technical capabilities for the anticipated small business requirement(s) if CMS determines, the Large Business is eligible for award of a MA IDIQ and after evaluations, there are not enough demonstrated capable small businesses to perform on one or more of the anticipated small business requirements.”

If a Large Business is awarded a MA IDIQ, but did not submit/propose a technical capability for a specific small business Performance Requirement during the IDIQ solicitation, would that preclude the Large Business from bidding on the originally designated small business Performance Requirement should CMS subsequently open it for Large Business participation post-award of the IDIQ contract?

CMS Response: No; however, CMS must determine, through technical evaluation, that there is sufficient competition for all performance requirements in the IDIQ SOW. If CMS does not receive technically capable offers for a performance requirement, the performance requirement may have to be removed from consideration under the PEO IDIQ.

34) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15.; Technical Factor 1; (C) – Small Businesses Page Number: 97 Question: “…a small business shall propose to a minimum of two of the performance requirements that are identified as anticipated small business at this time (see below).” As the Offeror’s narrative identifying the performance requirements that the Offeror is providing a proposal response to is not specifically excluded from page count, please confirm the narrative describing the Offeror’s selection of performance requirements that the Offeror is proposing as well as the narrative reference to Exhibit E.4 are excluded from page count.

CMS Response: IAW Technical Factor 1 (A) The Offeror shall provide the Choice of PEO Requirements - Exhibit E.4, which is not included in the page count. There is no page limit for Volume I. Page limits for the Demonstrated Capability Narratives are as stated in the solicitation.

35) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014 PEO Solicitation

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Technical Factor 1 – Demonstrated Capability Narratives, Item B Large Business Page Number: 97 Question: CMS indicates that award-eligible Large Businesses will be evaluated on demonstrated capabilities for small business task areas if eligible small businesses are not available. Given that the Large Businesses reviewed are already eligible for an award, how will this evaluation be used and how might it affect the awards?

CMS Response: CMS must determine, through technical evaluation, that there is sufficient competition for all performance requirements in the IDIQ SOW. If not, CMS may have to remove a performance requirement. An Offeror awarded a PEO MA IDIQ does not necessitate they are technically capable of providing all requirements.

36) Section: RFP L.15 Volume II – IDIQ Technical Proposal, Submission Format for Small Business, Paragraph 2

Page Number: 98 Question: The Provider Enrollment State Oversight Services requirement has a designation for “**8(a) Only”. Will a submission of a small business that is not currently 8a qualified be considered? What if the small business is HUB Zone certified?

CMS Response: No, HubZone certified small businesses that are not also 8(a) small businesses do not qualify for acquisitions that are set-aside under the 8(a) program.

TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

37) Section: L.13, Instructions RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L. 13 Instructions, Organization and Content of Past Performance Information Page Number: 100 Question: Please verify that subcontractors without relevant Federal Government past performance information may submit alternate evaluation documents (i.e., Letter of Recommendation) in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the Contracting Officer?

CMS Response: Past Performance Questionnaires may also be submitted for relevant past performance information that is not based on performing Government prime contracts. Alternate evaluation documents are also acceptable.

38) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): L.13, Instructions, RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE Page Number: 99 Question: The RFP states, “The Government will evaluate past performance through an integrated analysis that the Government identifies in the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record. The Government may also consider performance evaluations ratings that are non-relevant to get an overall picture of the Offeror’s past performance history.” Will non-relevant past performance submissions to CMS be given a rating? If so, how heavily will they be rated in the overall score?

CMS Response: CMS may take into consideration any and all past performance information.

39) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.14, Factor 2, E.2 (Past Performance Questionnaire) Page Number: 102 Question: Do Offerors have to submit past performance questionnaires for government contracts where they were subcontractors?

CMS Response: As stated in the solicitation, “Past Performance Information submitted, either Governmental or commercial, must be for the same business entity proposing to perform the PEO IDIQ requirements.”

40) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation (RFP) Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.15 Volume II – IDIQ Technical Proposal, Technical Factor 1, Demonstrated Capability Narratives, B Page Number: 96 Question: Are the tables containing the “top four labor categories considered critical to that requirement” included in the 6-page limit for each of the Performance Requirement areas? Where would CMS like this information to be included?

CMS Response: Yes, it is included with each performance requirement within the 6-page limit.

41) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation (RFP)

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.15 Volume II – IDIQ Technical Proposal, Submission Format for Large Business, #2 – Unrestricted Performance Requirements Page Number: 97 Question: In reference to the statement - “6-page limit per requirement (maximum 24 pages for this section),” - if a Large Business responds to one of the “small” designated performance requirements, are they allotted an additional 6-pages for the response?

CMS Response: The Maximum 24 pages is for B)2) Unrestricted Performance Requirements Section. Section B)3) Anticipated Small Business Performance Requirements provides the limit as shown below:

“ 3) Anticipated Small Business Performance Requirement(s), if applicable (see C)2 of this section) 6 page limit per requirement”

42) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15.(C); TF2 – Past Performance Page Number: 99 Question: “Offerors without relevant Federal government past performance information may ask customers to submit no more than three (3) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)…to the Contracting Officer (See Exhibit E.6)” Please confirm only Offerors without relevant Federal government past performance should have their customers submit Exhibit E.6 to the CO. Accordingly, Offerors with relevant Federal past performance should not have their customers submit Exhibit E.6.

CMS Response: If an Offeror has relevant Federal past performance that is reported through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, then an Offeror shall not have a federal customer submit a PPQ. If an offeror has relevant past performance information for performance under a non-government contract, a completed PPQ may serve as the past performance information.

43) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation (RFP)

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.15 Volume II – IDIQ Technical Proposal, Technical Factor 2 – Past Performance, Definitions Page Number: 99 Question: This section includes a table of Past Performance Relevancy ratings. Please confirm these are the ratings that the Government will use to assess each Offeror’s past performance contract references and are not ratings that the Offeror should use in the Past Performance Information Spreadsheet (Exhibit E.5, columns R-AE) to explain how the contract’s past performance information is relevant to the subject requirement.

CMS Response: The table of Past Performance Relevancy are definitions and not required on Exhibit E.5.

44) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 75FCMC18R0014_PEO_Solicitation TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE Page Number: 99-100 Question: The instructions state “In order for Offerors to understand the anticipated magnitude of effort relevant to the PEO IDIQ requirements, CMS is requesting: Large Businesses: Provide past performance on contracts valued greater than $5,000,000 (total value for five years or less). Small Businesses: Provide past performance on contracts valued greater than $500,000 (total value for five years or less)”. Which standard applies for Large Business significant subcontractors to Small Business Prime Offerors? In this circumstance, is the applicable past performance dollar value standard based on the size of the prime offeror or on the size of individual significant subcontractors? For example: a SB prime would submit past performances >$500,000 and their significant subcontractor (a LB) would submit past performances >$5,000,000.

CMS Response: The anticipated magnitude of effort is for the Prime Offeror. The Prime Offeror’s size, either Large Business or Small Business, will determine which applies.

45) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Section L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): “Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance”/ “Organization and Content of Past Performance Information” Page Number: 100 Question: Please clarify whether the Offeror (and any Subcontractors) provide Past Performance references for contracts in which they were the Subcontractor, or must all references be for Prime contracts?

CMS Response: As stated, “Past Performance Information submitted, either Governmental or commercial, must be for the same business entity proposing to perform the PEO IDIQ requirements.”

46) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15 Volume II - IDIQ Technical Proposal, Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance, Organization and Content of Past Performance Information, bullet 2 Page Number: 100 of 116 Question: Please clarify if every "Significant Subcontractor" proposed must provide two relevant past performance information/documentation.

CMS Response: Yes.

47) Section: RFP: L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15, Technical Factor 2, Past Performance, Organization and Content of Past Performance Information, #1

Page Number: Page 100 of 116

Question: Section L.15, page 100 of the solicitation states that all offerors shall provide "A minimum of four, maximum of six, relevant past performance information/documentation (i.e CPARS, PPQ, Award Fee notification letter) for the Prime Offeror "and "Two relevant past performance information/documentation (i.e CPARS, PPQ, Award Fee notification letter) per Significant Subcontractor(s)." Will CMS please confirm that this means Prime offerors must submit 4-6 contracts and their appropriate documentation for past performance? And that each significant subcontractor must submit 2 contracts and the associated documentation?

CMS Response: That is correct.

48) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15.(C); TF2 – Past Performance; Definitions Page Number: 100 Question: “A subcontractor performing major or critical aspects of the requirement which have a direct impact on the contract’s performance is considered significant.” As all proposed subcontractors will have technical capabilities that directly impact contract performance, please clarify how the Gov’t intends to distinguish “significant subcontractors” from “non-significant subcontractors.”

CMS Response: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine their significant subcontractors based on the definition and provide the applicable information in the proposal.

49) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15.3.2.D , Exhibit E.5 Past Performance Information Spreadsheet, Exhibit E.5: Past Performance Information Spreadsheet Page Number: 101 Question: Instructions for completing the spreadsheet in Section L state that:

“ Where problems existed, clearly demonstrate what management actions were employed in overcoming the problems and the effect(s) those actions had rectifying the problem and improving performance.”

However, only limited space is provided to include such narrative in the spreadsheet such that descriptions of this type will make the spreadsheet difficult to read. Will CMS allow bidders to expand the column widths in the spreadsheet to accommodate descriptions? Alternatively, will CMS accept and include in the evaluation a table providing these narrative descriptions?

CMS Response: Yes, offerors can expand columns to accommodate text, but must still conform to the general document/ text requirements listed (i.e font, size, and margins) in the Solicitation.

50) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15. D) Past Performance Information Spreadsheet (Exhibit E.5)

Page Number: 101

Question: The instructions in the Excel file says things such as “describe” this and “explain”, but many of the columns are less than 15 letters wide. Is it acceptable to widen the columns? This will make the spreadsheet extremely wide, but if the columns are not expanded, then they will be unreadable. Please provide additional information.

CMS Response: Yes, offerors can expand columns to accommodate text, but must still conform to the general document/ text requirements listed (i.e font, size, and margins) in the Solicitation.

TECHNICAL FACTOR 5 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (LARGE BUSINESS ONLY)

51) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Section L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): “Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance”/ “Organization and Content of Past Performance Information” Page Number: 101 Question: This section indicates that an “Organization Structure Change History” section is necessary. Does CMS anticipate a specific timeframe of focus for the Organization Structure Change History (i.e., for the past 5, 10 years)?

CMS Response: This should cover the time period for the submitted past performance references so that there is no confusion when evaluating an Offeror’s past performance submission.

52) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Section L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): “Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance”/ “Past Performance Submission Format” Page Number: 102 Question: In the instructions for the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), the statement is made that the Offeror should distribute the PPQ to the Point of Contact listed in Exhibit E.6. However, Exhibit E.6 does not contain instructions for where to send the PPQ. To whom should the Offeror distribute the PPQ?

CMS Response: The POC referenced here is the POC at the organization/company/agency where the PPQ will be filled out. Offeror’s should address the PPQ to the specific POC for the organization/company/agency.

53) Section: RFP: L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.15, Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance, E) Past Performance Information

Page Number: Page 102 of 116

Question: If the offeror includes Award Fee determination information is it’s past performance assessment, will the Government clarify if the instructions at page 102, Item E, sub item 3 require the offeror to submit a copy of the letter with its proposal in additional to providing the contact number, phone number and email address of the individual that can be contacted to obtain this information?

CMS Response: Correct.

54) Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE Page Number: 100 Question: The solicitation requires that the “evaluation that was completed within three years of the solicitation release date.” Can the Government clarify this statement is for both the evaluation AND for the work period assessed. Or, will the Government accept a CPARs submitted in 2016 from a period assessed of 06/18/2013 - 05/16/2014. In this particular case, the PoP of the work continued through 2016, but more recent CPARS have not been completed.

CMS Response: The work period assessed should be within the three year time period.

55) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation (RFP)

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.15 Volume II – IDIQ Technical Proposal, Technical Factor 5 – Small Business Participation Plan (Large Business Only) Page Number: 104-105 Question: Can CMS provide a template for the Small Business Participation Plan?

CMS Response: No.

56) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): L.15, Volume II Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan eSRS reports

Page Number: 105, 1st para.

Question: Please clarify the eSRS reports that are required/acceptable with submission; reports that are filed on September 30 are comprehensive and are inclusive of all contracts; individual contract reports are submitted every six months. Since the requirements state the eSRS reports must be from a minimum of two different contracts/task orders, will the six-month reports for individual contracts be acceptable?

CMS Response: Offerors should provide the Sept 30 Individual Subcontract Report for each contract.

SECTION L.16

VOLUME III - MA IDIQ SAMPLE TASK ORDER BUSINESS PROPOSAL

57) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014_PEO_Solicitation

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.16 Volume III - MA IDIQ Sample Task Order Business Proposal, paragraph 5 "A similar narrative and spreadsheet is required for any subcontractor that proposes (this information may be provided in either a sealed package sent separately to CMS or be a part of the prime’s proposal submission)."

Page Number: 105 of 116 Question: Please clarify if the intention is that any subcontractor proposed as part of the Sample Task Order must include all of the information requested within Exhibit E.8.

CMS Response: That is correct, with the exception of the Compensation Plan information.

58) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation (RFP)

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.16 Volume III – MA IDIQ Sample Task Order Business Proposal, Sample Task Order Business Proposal (Business Narrative and Spreadsheet) Page Number: 105 Question: Is there a page limit for the Sample Task Order Business Proposal narrative?

CMS Response: No.

59) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): L.16 – Volume III – MA IDIQ SAMPLE TASK ORDER BUSINESS PROPOSAL

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): (1) Total Fully Burdened Labor Rates Page Number: 106 Question: Can a Prime apply its G&A and fee to its subcontractor’s fully burdened labor rates/cost, which include the subcontractor’s fee?

CMS Response: The Offeror should apply its rates in accordance with its disclosed accounting practices or if the offeror is not currently working under Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) covered contracts its current business practices.

60) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): L.16 – Volume III – MA IDIQ SAMPLE TASK ORDER BUSINESS PROPOSAL

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): (1) Total Fully Burdened Labor Rates Page Number: 106 Question: Is there an authorized escalation rate the contractor may not exceed and to which published index does it relate?

CMS Response: No.

61) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.16.4 Page Number: 107 Question: Requiring all team members to submit a business proposal for the Sample Task Order would add unnecessary burdens on team members who are not participating in the Sample Task Order response. Please confirm that, if the proposed IDIQ subcontractor has not been allocated any hours in the Sample Task Order response, they are not required to submit a $0 value spreadsheet.

CMS Response: If an Offeror is not proposing to use a subcontractor for the sample task order then it is not necessary.

62) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.16.4 Subcontractors Page Number: 107 Question: If the Offeror can accomplish the requirements of the sample Task Order by itself, please confirm that subcontractors that are teamed with the Offeror on the Base IDIQ proposal but not used on the sample Task Order proposal will not need to submit price/cost information?

CMS Response: If an Offeror is not proposing to use a subcontractor for the sample task order then it is not necessary.

63) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014 PEO Solicitation and Exhibit E.8

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Volume III – MA IDIQ Sample Task Order Business Proposal – Compensation L.16 (6) Page Number: 108 Question: Please confirm that subcontractors are not required to complete the Compensation Plan tab in Exhibit E.8, of the Sample Task Order.

CMS Response: Subcontractors are not required to complete the Compensation Tab in Exhibit E.8, of the Sample Task Order.

SOLICITATION SECTION M

64) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section M.4 Basis for Contract Award, RFP Title and Provider Enrollment and Oversight.

Page Number: 111 Question: The RFP states that “once an Offeror is awarded a MA IDIQ it is not restricted as to which task order it may or may not propose on.” Does this mean that there will no longer be size (large versus small) restrictions at the task order level?

CMS Response: Task Orders will be competed on either an unrestricted basis (all offerors may compete) or restricted basis (all small businesses IDIQ holders or a specific socio-economic category of small business(s)) are eligible to compete.

65) Section: M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): M.4 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD, Para. 8 Page Number: 111 Question: Small business must respond to a minimum of 2 performance requirements - Will the number of performance requirements responded to be factored into the evaluation criteria? If so, will Small Businesses responding to a higher number of requirements be ranked/evaluated higher than other Small Businesses responding to less?

CMS Response: As stated, “Offerors who demonstrate the ability and willingness to be able to compete on multiple task orders may be considered favorable due to perceived increase in competition for future task orders.”

66) Section (i.e., RFP, SOW): M-6 – Volume II MA IDIQ Technical Evaluation Factors Page Numbers: 111 Question: Please identify the non-cost/price evaluation factors that will be evaluated toward demonstrating the technical capability/solution, as well as any order of importance within the non-cost/price evaluation factors that will comprise the ratings.

CMS Response: Please see Solicitation section M.6.

67) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Section M.6.1

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): M.6.1 Technical Factor 1 – Demonstrated Capability Statement Page Number: 112 Question: Can CMS provide clarification as to the adjectival ratings required on the Capability Narratives for Large and Small business in order to be considered for award. For example within the draft materials, it was noted that Large businesses had to be rated “Acceptable” for all unrestricted requirements; Small must be “acceptable” on a minimum of two of the anticipated small business requirements to be considered for award.

CMS Response: Technical Factor 1 will be evaluated using adjectival ratings.

68) Section: M.6, Evaluation Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): M.6.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE Page Number: 113 Question: The RFP states, “The CO reserves the right to limit its review of past performance information to what he/she has been determined to be relevant. The Offeror is advised that the Contracting Officer, using sound business judgment, may consider CMS contract past performance more relevant than Federal contract past performance which is more relevant than State Agencies, Local Government or Commercial Customer performance assessments.” This statement appears to be in direct contrast with the objective of a fair evaluation of relevancy. Would a bidder with CMS contracts receive preference over a bidder with no CMS experience?

CMS Response: This statement is advising Offerors as to what CMS may consider most relevant. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s performance on an individual basis and will assess the Offeror’s entire past performance in aggregate. The determination for the past performance factor is the Government’s assessment, based upon the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror will successfully perform on the technical requirements of this acquisition as proposed.

69) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): PEO Solicitation, Section M.8, Volume IV Conflict of Interest Evaluation Factors for Awards Page Number: 115 Question: Since CMS does not intend to award the Sample Task Order, we assume offerors are not required to submit a conflict of interest mitigation plan for the Sample Task Order? Please confirm.

CMS Response: Correct. Conflicts of interest will be evaluated at the IDIQ level and also at the task order level prior to the award of any task orders. CMS is not requiring Offeror’s submit conflict of interest information for the sample task order.

70) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): PEO Solicitation, Section M.8, Volume IV Conflict of Interest Evaluation Factors for Awards Page Number: 115 Question: If offerors are required to submit a mitigation plan for sample task orders for which no award will be made, will an offeror’s conflict for the sample task order, which is not mitigated to the satisfaction of the government or waived, preclude the offeror from award of a Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (MA IDIQ) contract even though the offeror could perform other task orders without conflict?

CMS Response: CMS is not requiring Offeror’s submit conflict of interest information for the sample task order.