80JSC018R0007,_Amendment_4.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

BH4

Sophia Mo

The purpose of this amendment 4 is to 1) change the due date of the RFP on HHIMS2 Contract from 2:00PM (CST) February 28, 2018 to 2:00PM (CST) March 8, 2018 and 2) provide the answers to HHIMS2 RFP Q&A Part I; the answers to HHIMS2 RFP Q&A will be posted in the near future.

BH4

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058 Attn: Sophia Mo

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058 Attn: Sophia Mo

80JSC018R0007

See Block 16C.

12/21/2017

2/21/2018

HHIMS2 RFP Questions and Answers Part I (**Note: All changes are reflected in the attached revised RFP.)

General

1. Question: Can any of the work be done remotely from here, like the admin or mail services or does everything have to be done on site there?

Answer: While certain aspects of the HHIMS2 performance based requirement lends itself to remote support, it is incumbent upon the contractor to determine what those areas are, unless specifically required in the TOs.

2. Question: The FAR Council reported that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces requirements have been deleted from the FAR and the following clauses are no longer in effect: FAR 52.222-57, 52.222-58, 52.222-59, 52.222-60, or 52.222-61. Please confirm if this requirement will be removed.

Answer: The RFP is updated to delete clauses FAR 52.222-57, 52.222-58, 52.222-59, 52.222-60, and

52.222-61.

3. Question: The section numbers/titles in Section 1.7 and 1.8 don’t match up with the call-outs of the same sections in Section 5.11.2 and 5.11.4. Would the Government please clarify this as a typo and that we should be following the appropriate title headings?

Answer: The RFP is updated to correct the numbering errors.

4. Question: Would the Government please clarify the Offeror’s actions in filling out Section 1.8, Limitations of Funds?

Answer: As stated in the note within this clause, all “TBD” will be filled out by the Government after contract award, therefore no action is required from the Offeror.

5. Question: Section 5, Subparagraph 5.11.4, Page 5-16 states that the Offeror is required to complete

Model Contract Section 1.5 – Phase In, 1.8 – Fully Burdened Rates for Pricing TOs, and 1.9 – Limitations of Funds. However, the numbering does not match the referenced paragraphs in Section 1, which are paragraphs 1.4, 1.7 and 1.8. Please clarify which numbering is to be used in the Model Contract.

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 3.

6. Question: Will the Government please allow a two-week extension of the proposal due date? In order to provide a fully compliant proposal, we must first gain clarification on several relevant questions. An extension will allow Offerors adequate time to provide compliant proposals.

Answer: The proposal due date is extended from 2:00PM (CST) February 28, 2018 to 2:00PM (CST) March 8, 2018.

7. Question: Section 5, Page 5-19 Table item No. 104 and 105 are both labeled “Configuration

Management”. However, based upon the associated narrative description it appears that item No. 105 refers to “Documentation Management”. Please clarify.

Answer: The RFP is updated to correct referenced issue.

8. Question: Did the Government intend for Subtask 105 to be titled Documentation Management?

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 7.

9. Question: RFP Attachment 5-1, Sample Task Orders, Item 1, TO-1 Institutional Support. The table lists

No. 105, Rq. No. 5, as being titled “Configuration Management”, which is the same title as No. 104, Rq.No. 4. Please confirm the correct title for No. 105, Rq. No. 5, is “Documentation Management”.

10. Question: TO 1: No. 105, Rq. No. 5, Configuration Management (pg. 94): Both 104-4 and 105-5 are labeled Configuration Management. The Offeror wishes to inquire if 105-5 should be labeled

'Documentation Management' vice 'Configuration Management'?

11. Question: "All electronic file/workbook names included in the Offeror’s proposal shall begin with the appropriate workbook acronym, hyphen, followed by the first three letters of the Offeror’s company name. For example: Assume the Offeror’s company name is ABC Company and the Offeror have completed the IDIQ Pricing Templates workbook; the full workbook/file name would be “ABC – IDIQ

Pricing Templates.” Offerors shall use the template acronyms below in naming individual worksheets within the workbook." The Offeror wishes to confirm the correct way to name electronic files/workbooks. Also, please provide an example of how to name Word files for Volumes I-IV.

Answer: Please see Section 5.11.2 – Pricing Volume II, (d) Instructions for Preparing the EPM Pricing

Templates, 2. CD Price Proposal Organization, for Government’s requirement of naming electronic files/workbooks.

12. Question: RFP section 6.2 Evaluation Factors, paragraph 6.2.1 Technical Acceptability – Volume I, subparagraph (b) Technical Understanding, definitions of ratings of “Acceptable” and

“Unacceptable”. Reference definition for “Acceptable” states, in part: “where ALL subfactors are individually rated acceptable”, and reference definition for “Unacceptable” states, in part: “where ANY subfactors are individually rated unacceptable”. As no subfactors have been defined in the RFP, please clarify and define Technical Acceptability subfactors for proposal evaluation purposes.

Answer: The subfactors under Technical Acceptability are:

(a) Management Approach

(b) Technical Approach

(c) Contract Phase-In Approach

(d) Contract Safety and Health Approach

Note: The RFP paragraph 6.2.1 has been revised to include Contract Phase-In.

13. Question: Section 5 Subparagraph 5.10.2 (b), Page 5-5 mentions hardcopy proposal deliveries. However, only Electronic delivery is specified in Table 5.10.2-1, page 5-6. Please clarify if a hardcopy(s) is required and if so, how many copies per volume.

Answer: Paragraph (b) of Section 5.10.2 Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies and Due

Dates, is changed to remove reference to hardcopies.

FROM:

Proposal Arrangement: Offerors shall arrange their proposals as set forth below in Table 5.10.2-1.

Proposal sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume. For hardcopies, multiple volumes may be submitted in the same binder, if each volume is tabbed and labeled, unless otherwise stated in this section. For electronic copies, each volume shall be placed in its own electronic folder.

TO:

Proposal Arrangement: Offerors shall arrange their proposals as set forth below in Table 5.10.2-1. For electronic copies, each volume shall be placed in its own electronic folder.

14. Question: Section 5.11.3 (b) references 8(a) joint ventures. This acquisition is identified as SDVOB.

These certifications are done by the VA. Must the JV be certificated by the VA through the VIP before award.

Answer: This procurement is an SDVOSB set-aside and 8a companies are not eligible for award on this procurement unless they are also an SDVOSB. The RFP is revised to reflect the changes.

15. Question: Table 5.11.1-1 implies there are 18 FTE’s based on the standard yearly billable hours of 1860 and the Seniority Category by EFT table implies 19.5 FTE’s. Which table should we use?

Answer: Please use the information provided in Table 5.11.1-1. The information mentioned in Seniority

Category by FTE is for Offeror’s reference on the incumbent’s Seniority Category.

16. Question: Section 5, Subparagraph 5.11.3.C, Page 5-15 states: “…shall each provide information on up to five past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints).” However, per Table 5.10.2-1, Page 5-6 there are no page limitation constraints listed for Volume III, Responsibility Considerations. Please clarify.

Answer: The RFP is updated to delete “(subject to the page limitation constraints).”

17. Question: Section 4.3.2.1.2 references section 2.2 “The contractor shall generate monthly performance metrics for each area in section 2.2 to measure performance….” Section 2.2 is on page 207 and is the

FAR 52.2041- Approval of contract. What is the correct section reference for 2.2?

Answer: The SOW Section 4.3.2.1.2 reference is updated from 2.2 to 4.3.2.

18. Question: Section 5.11.3 states “If an 8(a) joint venture is proposed…” As this is an SDVOB acquisition are 8(a) companies allowed to bid?

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 14.

19. Question: Section 5.11.4 Model Contract requires 1.5 Phase in, 1.8 Fully Burdened Rates for Pricing

TOs and 1.9 Limitation of Funds to be completed by the Offerors. Should 1.5 Phase in be section 1.4

Phase in and should 1.8 be section 1.7?

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 3.

20. Question: In section 5.10.2(b) the RFP states “For hardcopies, multiple volumes may be submitted in the same binder, if each volume is tabbed and labeled, unless otherwise stated in this section.” Does the

Government Require hardcopies?

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 13.

21. Question: In section 5.10.2(b) the RFP states “Proposal Sections excluded from the page limit shall be placed at the end of each volume.” Does this include the cover page and the cross reference list?

Answer: The referenced sentence will be deleted from the RFP.

22. Question: Section 5.11.4 Model Contract requires 1.5 Phase in, 1.8 Fully Burdened Rates for Pricing

TOs and 1.9 Limitation of Funds to be completed by the Offerors. Should 1.5 Phase in be section 1.4

Phase in and should 1.8 be section 1.7?

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 3.

23. Question: Section 5.11.4 Model Contract requires 1.9 Limitation of Funds to be completed by the

Offerors. What in section 1.8 Limitation of funds should be completed by the Offeror? Instructions state that all “TBD” will be completed by the Government upon award.

Answer: Please see answer to General Question 4.

24. Question: Please confirm that the Government requires up to 5 past performances from the proposed program manager.

Answer: Yes, the Government requires the proposed program manager to provide information on up to five past contracts.

25. Question: May an Executive Summary be added to each volume that does not count against pay limitations.

Answer: An Executive Summary will count against the page limitation.

26. Question: Section 2.7 Task Order Procedure and Section 2.12 appear to be in conflict with one another.

Reporting of costs and hours, monthly, seems to be a cost-plus or a Time & Materials (T&M) Task Order requirement, rather than a firm fixed price (FFP) Task Order requirement. Would the Government please clarify that the HHIMS2 Task Orders are to be Firm Fixed Price with payments based upon the completion of approved milestones for each Task Order, or are the Task Orders to be Time and Materials with Fixed Price rates, payable monthly based on completion of hours worked?

Answer: Section 2.7 Task Order Procedure is revised to remove part (i) and please see Section 2.12 for the payment type for this procurement.

27. Question: The RFP states “personal security clearances” but there is no DD254 attached to the RFP. Are security clearances required, and if so, to what level? Are clearances requires to start and employee or may waiver be granted until a final determination is made?

Answer: DD254 is not required. Please see Section 2.8 JPI 52.204-91 Security/Badging Requirements for Foreign National Visitors and Employees/Representatives of Foreign Contractors (May 2013) and

Section 2.10 JPI 52.242-92 Identification of Employees (May 2013) for further information on security clearance.

28. Question: The RFP request a cross reference list. Are table on contents and cross reference list counted in the page count of the volume? Specifically, Volume I has a 50 page count limit. The table of contents and cross reference table could exceed 15 pages. Are these pages counted in the 50 page limit for the volume?

Answer: Please see Section 5.5 NFS 1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations for the Government’s requirements.

29. Question: The proposal instructions indicate printed copy format but Table 5.10.2-1 indicates electronic production. Please confirm that the proposal is to be delivered in electronic format on 2 CDs only. Please clarify requirements regarding individual files for each volume as Volume II will have both Excel and

Word file types. Volume II instructions include the naming convention for certain files. Please clarify any naming convention to be used for electronic files for each volume.

Answer: Please see General Question 13, as no hard copies are required. Table 5.10.2-1 is revised to detail that Volume II will have Word and Excel file Types. Other than the files referenced (Volume II), no other standard naming convention is required.

30. Question: Please confirm that the $9.9M total funding for HHIMS 2 includes non-labor resources.

Answer: The maximum value including non-labor resources is $9.9M.

31. Question: Section 5, Subparagraph 5.11.3.A.(10), Page 5-14 states that Offerors include how they will meet compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and for the purposes of this RFP defines this as “costs of contract performance incurred for personnel”. Will the Government consider updating this requirement from a “labor cost” calculation to an “amount paid” based on the SBA’s recent ruling on the Limitations on Subcontracting as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act?

Answer: The Government will be using 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 125.6 What are the

Prime Contractor’s Limitations on Subcontracting instead of the FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on

Subcontracting. The RFP is updated to reflect the change.

32. Question: Can the Government explain the discrepancy in the NASA Standard Labor Categories, Direct labor rates ranges, and number seniority categories and the number of fulltime employees with in the seniority categories. There are 13.5 FTEs in the greater to 15 years of experience category. However, no

SLC guideline requires 15 years of experience. Can the Government provide information as to why so many current FTEs on the contract have 15 years or more experience? Is there any requirement within the HMMS2 contract which requires 15 years or more experience to perform?

Answer: Attachment 5-2 – Standard Labor Category Definitions is provided as a guideline and to assist

Offerors when putting proposal together. This attachment will not be part of the contract. As such, there is no contractual requirement for 15 years or more of experience to perform.

Wage Determination

1. Question: Please identify the positons that are subject to the 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor

Standards.

Answer: FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards is waived from this procurement.

Additionally, the following clauses are deleted from the RFP: FAR 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of

Qualified Workers; FAR 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires; FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards—Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and

Option Contracts); FAR 52.222-44, air Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards—Price

Adjustment; FAR 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658; and FAR 52.222-62, Paid

Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706.

2. Question: Please provide a copy of the applicable Wage Determination.

Answer: A wage determination is not applicable for this procurement.

3. Question: Would the Government please clarify if all workers (Exempt and Non-Exempt) are required to be given the ability to accrue up to 56 hours of sick leave per executive order 13658 and if this contract is a service contract with a defined Wage Determination? Will a Wage Determination be released for this procurement?

Answer: Please see answer to Wage Determination Question 1 and 2.

4. Question: Clause 53.333-41 identifies Service Contract Labor Standards as being applicable. Is there an

SCA wage determination applicable to this contract?

Answer: Please see answer to Wage Determination Question 1 and 2.

Past Performance

1. Question: Reference RFP Cover Letter: The RFP cover letter cites the acquisition structure as LPTA, with responsibility determination made, after selection of an apparent successful Offeror, pursuant to FAR

9.104-1. RFP paragraph 6.2.3.c is consistent with this approach, stating “The Offeror will be evaluated for a satisfactory past performance record.” However, the extent of past performance information requested by RFP paragraph 5.11.3.C implies that a more extensive and comparative assessment of past performance will be made following FAR 15.305(a). Please clarify the Government’s intent to evaluate past performance acceptability using the stated standards of FAR 9.104-1.

Answer: The Government will review past performance as part of the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility, as detailed in FAR 9.104-1 General Standards.

2. Question: Reference RFP Section 6.1: Reference states, “The Government intends to evaluate the lowest priced proposal first, and if it is determined to be acceptably priced and technically acceptable, then make award to that Offeror (emphasis added).” However, elsewhere in 6.1, the statement is made, “the award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting the acceptability standards for non-cost factors “(emphasis added). Please clarify the Government’s intent as to the role that subcontracting arrangement, OCI plan, and past performance have in source selection as compared to the their role in contract award.

Answer: Per RFP Section 6.2.3 Responsibility Considerations – Volume III, “Subcontractor

Arrangement Information, Organizational Conflict of Interest and Past Performance will be used in determining responsibility, however, these items may not constitute all Responsibility Considerations that will be addressed by the SLPT pursuant to FAR 9.104.” Please also note that RFP Section 6.1 has been revised to establish further clarity.

3. Question: Reference RFP Section 5.11.3.C: Reference section requires extensive past performance information on the proposed program manager. This position is not identified as key elsewhere in the proposal, and FAR 9.104-1 and FAR 9.104-3(b) do not contemplate an evaluation of a proposed program manager as part of the determination of a satisfactory performance record. Please clarify the

Government’s intent as to how past performance of the proposed program manager will be used in source selection and in making contract award.

Answer: In accordance with RFP Section 6.2.3(c), “The Offeror will be reviewed for a satisfactory past performance record.” The performance record of the prime, major subcontractor and the program manager will be considered.

4. Question: Reference RFP Section 5.11.3.C(b): Reference states “The submission shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Statement of Work, the prime, major subcontractors, proposed program manager, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort.” This level of detail, analysis, and rationale regarding past performance implies that a special standard for responsibility determination pursuant to FAR 9.104-2(a) has been set by the Contracting Officer. Please clarify whether a special standard has been set for responsibility determinations pursuant to FAR 9.104-2(a).

Answer: The Government will review pas performance as part of the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility, as detailed in FAR 9.104-1 General Standards.

5. Question: Section 6, Subparagraph 6.1, 2nd paragraph, Page 6-1 describes the Source Selection Process but addresses only two of the evaluation factors, technical and price. However, Section 6.2, Page 6-1-6-3 lists 4 evaluation factors and excludes Volume IV Model Contract. Will Volume III - Responsibility

Considerations be considered as part the selection process, and if so, how will it be included in the evaluation process?

Answer: The title for 6.2, is changed:

FROM: 6.2 Evaluation Factors

TO: 6.2 Evaluation Factors, Responsibility Considerations and Model Contract

Technical Acceptability and Price are the evaluation factors for selection. The successful Offeror would then need to be determined responsible to receive award (Please see FAR 9.104).

6. Question: Please confirm that the Government is allowing past performance examples from any entity on the Offeror’s team (prime, joint venture, major subcontractors, program manager, etc.), rather than requiring past performance examples from all members of the team. Please confirm the number of past performance examples to be provided in the proposal is limited to a total of 5.

Answer: The excerpt from 5.11.3 Responsibility Considerations – Volume III, Paragraph B addresses conditions and number of past performance contracts allowed: Provide information from organizations and companies for which your company has previously performed work, in order for the Government to obtain appraisals of past performance. Offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors

(subcontractors with an estimated average annual contract value equal to or greater than $500,000 over the period of performance, as defined in Section 5.9, Period Covered by Procurement) and the proposed program manager shall each provide information on up to five past contracts. References with

Government contracts are preferred, but not required. Offerors with no past performance experience shall also be stated.

7. Question: Can the Government clarify how the past performance will be evaluated? The RFP states, “The Offeror will be evaluated for a satisfactory past performance record.” What does the Government consider “satisfactory past performance record?” If there is a prime and subcontractor how will the

Government evaluate the contracts at the prime level? How will the Government evaluate the contracts at the subcontract level? Will each contract from the sub and prime be consider and weighted the same? If not, how will the weighting be determined? What does “relevancy and recency” mean? How does

“satisfactory past performance record” relate to relevancy and recency? Can the Government explain how contract size, content, and complexity is used to determine “relevancy” or “satisfactory past performance?” What constitutes “satisfactory past performance” for a given contract citation provided by a prime or subcontractor?

Answer: FAR paragraphs below should be helpful in explaining the past performance review, which is considered under Responsibility Considerations under RFP paragraph 6.2.3 and the inherent subjectivity in determining the information required in assessing relevancy.

9.104-1 – General Standards.

c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3(b) and Subpart 42.15). A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in 9.104-2;

9.104-3 – Application of Standards.

b) Satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor that is or recently has been seriously deficient in contract performance shall be presumed to be nonresponsible, unless the contracting officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the contractor’s control, or that the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action. Past failure to apply sufficient tenacity and perseverance to perform acceptably is strong evidence of nonresponsibility. Failure to meet the quality requirements of the contract is a significant factor to consider in determining satisfactory performance. The contracting officer shall consider the number of contracts involved and the extent of deficient performance in each contract when making this determination. If the pending contract requires a subcontracting plan pursuant to

Subpart 19.7, The Small Business Subcontracting Program, the contracting officer shall also consider the prospective contractor’s compliance with subcontracting plans under recent contracts.

9.105-1 – Obtaining Information.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P35_5475 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/42.htm#P757_108704 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P32_4732 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/19.htm#P644_132549

c) In making the determination of responsibility, the contracting officer shall consider information available through FAPIIS (see 9.104-6), with regard to the offeror and any immediate owner, predecessor, or subsidiary identified for that offeror in FAPIIS, including information that is linked to FAPIIS such as from SAM, and PPIRS, as well as any other relevant past performance information on the offeror (see 9.104-1(c) and subpart 42.15). In addition, the contracting officer should use the following sources of information to support such determinations:……

8. Question: In the past performance section the RFP states, “The submission shall clearly detail what portion of the Statement of Work, the Prime, Major subcontractors, proposed program manager, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources) workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort.” Can the Government clarify this statement as to the relationship to past performance? Is this statement in the correct section?

Answer: The statement is in the correct section. Please also see answer to Past Performance Question 5.

Pricing

1. Question: Section 5.11.2(a) on page 5-9 states, "A price proposal that is suitable for evaluation shall:

Provide traceability to the technical/management proposal." Since Offerors are required to price their proposal using the mandated hours in Table 5.11.2-1 on page 5-11, is this requirement applicable and if so, what traceability information is required?

Answer: The referenced RFP bullet is deleted with this amendment.

2. Question: The Excel Pricing Model provided with the RFP seems to contain a formulaic error in row 57.

The formula multiplies the Cost in row 53 times the cost in row 56. It seems that it should add these two costs vice multiply (or multiply the rate in row 55 times row 56)?

Answer: The RFP is updated to correct the formula.

3. Question: Section 5.11.2(d)(2) on page 5-12 of the RFP states, "Each prime and major subcontractor is required to submit their EPM and any other price data, on CD only. Each CD provided is to have an external label indicating:

The name of the Offeror, The RFP number, and

The files/workbooks or range of files/workbooks contained on the CD.

Since the SRT tab reflects the overall IDIQ effort for the entire team we request that subcontractors be allowed to delete the SRT from their EPM. Alternatively, if subcontractors are required to populate the

SRT tab, are they permitted to modify the labor hours so that their hours only reflect the proposed allocation of effort to the subcontractors?

Answer: Section 5.11.2 Pricing – Volume II, (d) Instructions For Preparing the EPM Pricing Templates,

2. CD Price Proposed Organization is changed from “The Government intends to use a personal computer with Microsoft Excel to aid in the evaluation of the Price Proposal. Each prime and major subcontractor is required to submit their EPM and any other price data, on CD only.” to “The Government intends to use a personal computer with Microsoft Excel to aid in the evaluation of the Price Proposal. Each prime is required to submit all templates in the EPM and any other price data, on CD only. All subcontractors are http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P55_11862 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P23_3292 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/42.htm#P757_108704 required to submit only templates TC(a), TC(b), and TC(c). These templates are to be submitted on a

CD.”

4. Question: Please clarify the potential discrepancy between Section 1.7 stating no profit for NLRs and the

SRT file containing a row for accounting profit on NLRs.

Answer: The profit row applicable to NLRs is deleted in the SRT file.

5. Question: Section 5.11.2 prescribes that the pricing instructions apply to major subcontractors but the

SRT tab of the pricing template doesn’t seem applicable to the major subcontractor and the SAI tab specifically states prime contractor only. Would the Government please clarify the expected price deliverables for major and minor subcontractors?

Answer: Please see answer to Pricing Question 3.

6. Question: According to the RFP, the Government intends to pay invoices on a firm-fixed price basis, built on milestones instead of labor hours, and is requesting that the Offeror to propose and provide supporting rationale (BOE) for its own labor hour estimate, consistent with its TO technical approaches.

In addition, the RFP states that the Government Resource Estimate (GRE) is the only basis for the total evaluated price. This pricing approach reduces the opportunity for innovation and potential cost savings to the Government in proposing the TO technical approaches. It also is in conflict with the requirement to provide traceability to the technical/management proposal, as the pricing of the BOE enables the technical work to be tied to the cost.

Would the Government please consider allowing the Offeror to show a build-up of total price per sample

Task Order based on the Offeror’s unique technical solution regarding labor and non-labor resources, in addition to pricing the specified resources?

Answer: Please see Pricing Question 1. Also, the Government will maintain the existing evaluation of price, in accordance with RFP 6.2.2 Price – Volume II.

7. Question: "No profit shall be applied to the cost of materials, equipment or other non-labor costs." Asks for the Offeror’s Profit Percentage to be applied to Non-Labor Resources (NLRs). The instructions in this model state “If an Offeror proposes any burdens and profit, they shall be identified and calculated in this section of the template”. The Offeror wishes to inquire whether profit is allowed to be applied on NLRs.

Answer: Please see answer to Pricing Question 4.

8. Question: The RFP states “No profit shall be applied to the cost of materials, equipment, or non-labor costs.” Are G&A or Material and Handling costs allowed to be added to the cost of materials, equipment, or non-labor costs?

Answer: Yes, G&A or Material and Handling costs are allowed to be added to the cost of materials, equipment, or non-labor costs.

9. Question: The Excel Pricing Model is required to be submitted by the prime and all major subcontractors and inter-divisional organizations. Please clarify if the SRT tab is required to be submitted by the Prime only, or the prime and the major subcontractor/minor subcontractor/inter-divisional organizations. If required by a major subcontractor/inter-divisional organization, should the hours, rates and non-labor resources in the SRT template reflect only the portion of the statement of work being provided by the subcontractor/organization?

Answer: Please see answer to Pricing Question 3.

10. Question: On the SRT tab, row 57 is multiplying the amounts of lines 53 & 56 instead of adding it.

Please provide a revised template to correct this calculation.

Answer: Please see answer to Pricing Question 2.

11. Question: Section 5.11.1 states “The hours identified in table 5.11.1-1 are estimated direct labor hours only for one year and do not include contract support or management hours. These hours are only provided as a reference. Each Offeror shall propose and provide supporting rationale for the specific labor and non-labor resources it will require to successfully perform each of the RFP TOs using the proposed technical approach.” However, the instructions in the SRT template state “An Offeror shall not change, eliminate or modify these hours when preparing its proposal.”

Can the Offeror adjust the hours in the SRT template to reflect our technical approach to the statement of work requirements? If not, how is the Offeror to provide our supporting rational for the labor resources we require?

Answer: Each Offeror shall propose and provide supporting rationale for the specific labor and non-labor resources, are required to successfully perform each of the RFP TOs, and price the SRT template by using the specified resource hours stated in Table 5.11.1-1 (Note: an Offeror shall not change, eliminate or modify the specified resource hours).

12. Question: Section 6, Subparagraph 6.2.4, Page 6-3 states that the model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes. However, Subparagraph 6.2.2, Page 6-2 states: “In the event the rates proposed in

Section 1 of the model contract differ from the rates used in developing the proposed price, the rates in

Section 1 will take precedence for evaluation purposes.” Please clarify.

Answer: The RFP is updated as follows:

FROM:

The model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes.

TO:

The model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes, except for the rate information that may apply (See Subparagraph 6.2.2).