9Q0HDLA38001 RFP QandA from VESST Vendors Amd 4.docx

November 12, 2010 Questions received by Vendors on RFP for Value Engineering and Sourcing Support Tool This Q&A applies to order RFP 9Q0HDLA38001

Question 1. Reference Page 106 Section L paragraph 1.5-1.5.3. Paragraph 1.5 requires each proposal Volume to include an introduction, a table of contents and to be indexed/tabbed with a cross reference to each evaluation criteria item.

Paragraph 1.5.1 does not list a TOC or Introduction Paragraph 1.5.2 shows Introduction, TOC, etc Paragraph 1.5.3 shows Introduction, pricing overview, etc but does not require TOC

Does each Volume require all items shown in paragraph 1.5 or should volumes be structured as shown in 1.5.1 – 1.5.3?

Does the TOC have to precede the Introduction as shown in para 1.5 and 1.5.2 or is it acceptable to have the introduction follow the TOC?

GSA/DLA Response: See revised RFP for clarification of this requirement.

Question 2. Reference Question 20 from Pre-Proposal Conference: “Are the NSNs to be priced separately?” GSA/DLA Response: “Yes. NSNs shall be priced individually and a total shall be provided. See Revised Section B of the RFP.”

Section B of the RFP does not reflect pricing of 2 separate NSNs and a total. Should the contractor duplicate the Table Shown for Delivery Order 001 to show separate NSN pricing?

GSA/DLA Response: See revised RFP for clarification of this requirement.

Question 3. Amendment 2 to the subject RFP deleted FAR Clauses 52.232-2 and 52.232-16. The top of Page 78 has the following noted in red for the change!

Please note that there was a typo error and it reads as follows:

52.232-2 and 62.232-16 deleted (Amendment 2) Please make a correction to show the following:

52.232-2 and 52.232-16 deleted (Amendment 2).

GSA/DLA Response: See revised RFP for correction of this requirement.

Question 3. BASIC CONTRACT

1. The original Section B instructed offerors to propose labor categories and rates for the basic contract and four option years. The rates were total firm-fixed hourly rates/prices and proposed skill levels. The assumption was that offerors were to provide fully-burdened rates and all the labor categories necessary to perform the PBSOW. Our company is very familiar with this approach having competed on scores of IDIQ’s fashioned in the same manner. However, Amendment 3 instructs offerors to propose total firm-fixed hourly rates (unburdened) and proposed skill levels. This raises the questions how are the proposed rates being viewed as firm-fixed hourly rates when they are stripped of any burdens? Proposed rates will likely just mirror the SCA rates (which don’t apply to every labor category needed in this effort) and once the burdens are re-applied will drastically change for the out-years? Are unburdened rates the actual rates you will be evaluating offerors on?

DELIVERY ORDER 0001

1. The original Section B instructed offerors to propose labor categories and rates for the first DO. The rates were total firm-fixed hourly rates/prices and proposed skill levels. The assumption was that offerors were to provide fully-burdened rates and all the labor categories necessary to perform the DO PBSOW. Here again, this is a very familiar pricing approach. However, Amendment 3 instructed offerors to propose total firm-fixed hourly rates (unburdened) and proposed skill levels, etc. In addition, offerors are instructed to identify the basis for rates proposed and elements that make up the individual categories of costs for Labor OH, ODC, G&A and profit. Our experience leaves us wondering why contractors are being asked to submit sensitive cost and pricing data in a firm-fixed price competitive acquisition environment. Our company is under the impression that the FAR steers contracting officers away from requiring this level of detail when prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition or when a commercial item is being acquired. In this case, the acquisition is both competitive and commercial, yet we are still being asked to submit detailed pricing information. We’ve bid numerous multiple-award IDIQ requirements in the past and have never been asked to provide more than the minimum amount of information necessary to evaluate for reasonableness of the price and/or to determine cost realism. Is it the Government’s intent to evaluate our proposed profit, G&A and OH rates in this competitive acquisition?

2. What level of detail are you requesting to identify the basis for the various rates?

SECTION M

1. Is an Amendment 4 forthcoming that changes Section M so we know how this additional cost and pricing information will be used during the source selection process? The way it’s currently written it’s difficult to determine how this additional cost and pricing information will be evaluated to determine the successful offerors.

GSA/DLA Response: See revised RFP for clarification of this requirement. In addition, it should be noted that the Government intends to examine hourly rates to ensure that they are fair, reasonable and realistic, and thus, the specific pricing information required for Delivery Order 001 is to assist the Government in making this determination. The Government is unable to determine prior to receipt of proposals what type of competitive environment will exist and must be prepared to fully evaluate pricing based on initial proposal submissions. The Government is requesting unburdened rates so that a fair assessment can be made for all offeror’s proposed pricing and the profit, G&A and overhead is requested so that the Government can get an accurate depiction of how an offeror will propose on future delivery orders. Please note that this is a best value procurement.

image1.png