Responses to Offeror Questions 3 (Jan 25 2021).pdf

Responses to Offeror Questions

AHRQ‐21‐10008

January 25, 2021

1. Attachment A of RFP shows that offerors should list the proposed labor hours multiplied by the

Loaded Rate to get a labor total and then the T&M Ceiling. It then shows how the Award Fee should be added to that total. However, Attachment C indicates that the Total Billing Rate includes Fee. Is the “Loaded Rate” in Attachment A the same as the “Total Billing Rate” in Attachment C. If so, how should Offerors reflect the potential differentiation between a guaranteed base fee and an incentive award fee?

AHRQ Responses: Yes, loaded rate in A = billing rate in C. Fee in the loaded rate is fixed fee for each labor hour. The award fee is a separate fee in addition to the fixed fee as part of the loaded labor hour.

2. We notice that there is no Fringe Rate applied to the Direct Labor Rate in the build‐up form in

Attachment C. Is this an oversight? If not, how are Offerors expected to reflect an accurate buildup of rates without Fringe rates applied?

AHRQ Responses: As indicated in the instructions in L.9 offerors may adjust the table to reflect their accounting structure and applicable indirect charges that make up the fully loaded rate.

3. Attachment C lists only OH and G&A. If the company uses 3‐tier indirect rate structure Fringe Benefit, OH, G&A; can we add additional columns to the attachment C?

AHRQ Responses: Please see response to question #2.

4. Attachment A does not include any option to include Material handling Overhead or Fee to include on Materials. Is it the Government’s intent that we should not charge any type of fee or indirects on Materials?

AHRQ Responses: Please see response to question #2.

5. In our experience, direct labor hours and rates under a time and materials (T&M) contract typically incorporate wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit. We have never experienced a scenario where an award fee is added to or incorporated into T&M rates. Can you please confirm that the award fee is still applicable here?

AHRQ Responses: Yes. This will be T&M that includes a small fixed fee within the loaded labor rates and a separate award fee. Also refer to L.9 ****Fee section on total proposed fee related to the split between fixed fee (as part of the fully loaded labor rates) and the proposed award fee.

6. The Government has requested offerors to propose an award fee for this proposal in conjunction with a T&M loaded hourly rate. Since a T&M contract hourly rate already includes all profit and Fee along with any applicable cost burdens in that loaded hourly rate ‐ therefore, award fee is not proposed in addition to a T&M loaded hourly rate. Can the Government clarify its intent and objective for contract performance and contract type for this proposal? Is it the Government's intent to instead structure a T&M type contract to help minimize any administrative and management burdens for the Government OR a Fixed price incentive fee type contract if the Government's objective is to have a performance based contract? Please clarify and update RFP sections accordingly.

AHRQ Responses: Please see response to question 5.

7. Based on the changes in the RFP Amendment 2, the Government changed the contract type from Cost plus award Fee contract type to T&M contract with Award Fee. Since it is not typical to propose an award fee in addition to a T&M loaded hourly rate and the RFP still includes a lot of requirements pertaining to a cost plus type contract, we wanted to understand the Government’s intent. Can the Government clarify if it is the Government's intent to establish either a cost plus award fee type contract OR a T&M type contract – and update RFP language accordingly?

8. If the Government's intent is to structure a T&M type contract, then the Contractor will have the responsibility to perform work under the proposed rates. Can the Government then clarify why offerors need to provide Indirect rate agreement or related supporting information since such information is not typically requested for a T&M proposal and typically requested for a cost plus proposal?

9. For a T&M contract type, since the prime offeror has privity of contract with the Government, it takes on full and direct responsibility for all its subcontractors. Therefore, in a T&M contract type construct, the subcontractor's rates will fit underneath the Prime offeror's contractor's rates and labor categories. Can the Government then clarify why offerors need to provide subcontractor sealed packages and such related supporting information since that is not typically requested for a T&M proposal and typically requested only for a cost plus proposal?

AHRQ Responses: The government must analyze the fully loaded rates however offerors are not required to submit sealed subcontractor cost information. The government prefers the prime offeror’s business proposal include all required cost information for any proposed partners and/or subcontractors.

However sealed cost information may be submitted separately if subcontractors are unwilling to share cost buildup information with their partners. See L.9 and M.3.

10. Page 6, paragraph B.2, TIME & MATERIALS, FAR16.601 Time‐and‐materials (T&M) contracts, part (b) defines T&M contracts as one that provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of ‐ (1) Direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit.

Since profit is already included in the requested Hourly Rate Table in Section B.2, can the Government please detail their intention to move from a Cost Type contract and reference the applicable FAR clause that will enable us to submit a FAR compliant response to the changes stated in Amendment 2.

11. Would you please extend the proposal due date to February 5th to allow subcontractors adequate time to prepare their sealed cost information for submission?

AHRQ Responses: See response to question 9. Separate sealed subcontract submissions are not required. They are allowed.

12. Amendment 2 included significant changes to the RFP, will the Government provide an extension to the due of January 29, 2021?

AHRQ Responses: Please see RFP Amendment 03.

13. Section L.9 provides instruction explicitly for the first 5 pages of the Business Proposal. These instructions do not provide a page for a table of contents. Do we assume correctly that AHRQ does not desire a table of contents for the Business Proposal?

AHRQ Responses: A table of contents for the business proposal is not required but recommended.

14. Section L.9 provides instruction for the first 5 pages of the Business Proposal. The instructions for Page 3 require that we complete the “table of contract items and prices contained in Section B.” Section B spans over three pages of the RFP with several tables and we are unclear how we are expected to provide the responses within “Page 3” alone. Could you please clarify these instructions?

15. Amendment #1 increased the page count limit for the Technical Proposal to 50 pages, not including appendices. However, we noticed that on p. 100, the first sentence of the first paragraph of section L.7 still references the 45 page limit. As well, the underlined “NOTE” at the top of p. 101 also references the 45 page limit. Should these both read “50 pages”?

16. The page limit for the Technical Proposal was previously increased to 50 pages, however, the narrative in Section L.7 still indicates 45 pages. Could that be corrected?

17. Section L.9 provides instruction for the first 5 pages of the Business Proposal. With this amount of information expected, do we correctly assume that the 1.5 line spacing only applies to the Technical Volume?

AHRQ Responses: Other than the first set of pages (as indicated in L.9) the

Business Proposal does not have page limits or formatting requirements.

18. Some tables are better presented in landscape orientation. Are there any restrictions regarding page orientation for our submissions?

AHRQ Responses: No.

19. In Section B.2 of the RFP, the Government has indicated that Materials will have a 'Not to Exceed' Amount. For evaluation purposes, will the Government provide a 'Not to Exceed' plug amount for all offerors to propose? This will ensure an equitable pricing evaluation for materials across all offerors and during contract execution such cost reimbursable costs can be invoiced on an actual cost incurred basis.

AHRQ Responses: No. This is dependent upon approach.

20. Is it acceptable for a JV offeror to submit 1 sanitized price proposal and 2 separate sealed package price proposals from each of the JV members?

AHRQ Responses: No. This question is inconsistent with the terms of a Joint Venture. The Government plans to contract with one entity to fulfil this requirement and offerors proposals should reflect that. Also see L.9 and M.3.

21. Since the Government changed the contract type from a cost plus type to a T&M contract type, will the Government therefore update the RFP Attachment E, Limitations on subcontracting format to reflect total labor price per year instead of labor costs and G&A as currently shown?

AHRQ Responses: Please refer to FAR and CFR related to the requirements for the limitation on subcontracting.