Attachment J.4 Q&A to draft RFP posting.pdf

Office of Acquisition and Grants Management

Attachment J.4 Q&A to draft RFP posting

Question and answers in response to Notice ID 693JJ324R000004-DRAFT for the

“Build America Bureau Financial Advisory Services”

01/03/2024

Question 1: Is this the follow up Draft-Solicitation to the Sources Sought released in July 2023 titled: Technical Expertise and Support Services for an Airport Credit Assistance and Project Delivery Program for the Build America Bureau for Office of Acquisition Management - 693JJ3-23-SS-0015/? It is not, no edits made.

Response: This is not in response to sources sought notice 693JJ3-23-SS-0015.

Question 2: Is there an update on the release date?

Response: 01/03/2024

Question 3: We request that the Minimum Education for Program Manager and Project Manager be an Undergraduate Degree (potentially with additional years of experience compared to those with Masters) so that we can propose individuals with the most relevant experience to the Bureau. A few highly qualified Program Managers and Project Managers with deep knowledge and over ten years of direct experience do not have master’s degrees; therefore, this requirement limits the pool of resources we can propose to serve the Bureau.

Response: The education requirements for both Program Manager and Project Manager have been updated to include bachelor’s degree with 12 years of relevant experience.

Question 4: Please could you amend item (d) to refer to “financial advisors” or “professionals” rather than “attorneys” which is not relevant to this scope of work.

Response: This has been updated to “financial advisors”.

Question 5: Please could you amend item (f)(a) to change reference to “attorney-client privilege” to “client confidentiality” or other similar term.

Response: This has been corrected to remove the word “attorney”.

Question 6: Please can you clarify the organizational conflict of interest requirements, specifically the final sentence of item no. 3 on page 29 of 67: “(i.e., Key Personnel and Bureau Team Members may not represent the Bureau on Bureau Matter A if those same individuals concurrently represent Applicant A (or its affiliate) in connection with any matter)” [Emphasis added] Please can you clarify that “any matter” is solely related to Bureau related matters (i.e., TIFIA /RRIF loans) and is not intended to capture broader non-TIFIA/RRIF consulting services.

For example, if Key Personal A is providing advice to Applicant A with regard to a capital project that includes no financing, that is not intended to be captured under “any matter.”

Response: Language stands as written; contractor needs to obtain CO consent.

Question 7: Section F.4 and C6.2 includes a requirement for Monthly Progress Reports and Section F.5 references Quarterly Progress Reports.

Please can you align the reporting periods.

Response: Section F5 has been updated to show “monthly” reports.

Question 8: Item C on page 57 of 67 requires information on team members experience including “size of financing vehicle”. Please can you confirm that this is the of the amount of each financing source for the appliable transaction?

Response: This is the dollar amount of each financing source.

Question 9: In attachment J.1, The contract is for a period of 5 years, but Attachment J. includes entries for 8 years. Please can you confirm if you require pricing for 8 years and how this relates to the contract period?

Response: Section J.1 has been updated to clarify this.

Question 10: In attachment J.3, Please can you confirm what value we should use for “Total prime contract amount – Base Year”.

Response: References to “base year” have been removed. For the purposes of the total prime contract amount in attachment J.3, vendors may use the total estimated IDIQ value of $9,750,000.00. Vendors may also use a different amount if you provide an explanation of why you selected that amount.

Question 11: In attachment J.3, please can you provide the names and contact details of small and disadvantaged business that the Bureau has either worked with historically or that have expressed interest in participating on proposal teams.

Response: Historically it has been possible for firms to find small and disadvantaged businesses to meet these requirements.

Question 12: In attachment J.3, Based on information published on USASpending.gov, over the last 5 years, the Bureau has issued 40 task orders with a median value of ~$135k, and an average of 4.5-awards per prime contractor.

The DOT subcontracting goals includes at least four separate categories (VOSB (SDVOSB is a sub-category of VOSB), HUBZone, SDB, and WOSB) that amount to at least 16% of the contract awards.

We are committed to working with small and disadvantaged businesses to provide experience and development opportunities but need to balance this with our ability to provide exceptional client service and comply with our professional standards and quality requirements.

Based on our experience, the DOT subcontracting goals provide two primary challenges:

1) The scope of services is very specialized and there are limited resources nationally with the necessary skills and experience to deliver the scope of services, particularly when the Bureau will contract with some of these experienced entities directly

2) Each task order requires a small, focused team which makes it challenging to have multiple sub-contractors participate on a team

Would the Bureau be willing to allow firms to propose a single percentage for Total planned subcontracts to Small Business concerns, and not require firms to also set goals by Small Business category?

Response: Firms should set goals by small business category to the extent it is possible.

If it is not possible, firms should complete the rationale for establishing a lower goal section of the subcontracting plan (i.e. sections 1.1 through 1.5). If, considering the factors in FAR 19.705-2(b), there are only limited subcontracting possibilities or subcontracting possibilities don’t exist, firms should provide an explanation and justification explaining.

Question 13: Does the Bureau have any underwriting policies and procedures to provide consistent governance over each task category.

Response: Additional guidance will be provided after task order award.

Question 14: Page 8 – Task Area B- Is there a specific procurement process required with regard to the selection of a qualified appraiser.

Response: There is not a specific procurement process required with regard to the selection of a qualified appraiser.

Question 15: Page 8 – Financial Modeling – Is there a standardized format/application in which borrowers/sponsors will be providing their financial model?

Response: There is not a standardized format/application in which borrowers/sponsors will be providing their financial model.

Question 16: Page 9 – Creditworthiness – Assume this includes financial analysis of any guarantors related to the borrower/project?

Response: Yes.

Question 17: Page 14 – Place of Performance - Analysis of financials in specific cases may require analysis at the borrower/counterparties’ location due to nature of information.

Response: This is unlikely, but if it came up it would be designated at the task order level.

Question 18: Only 8 LCATs are proposed in the attachment J.1. This could lead to some delivery risk.

Response: It has been determined that only the requested 8 LCATs will be needed.

Question 19: Would USDOT consider a NAICS code that aligns more closely with the services requested? Specifically, NAICS code 523940 seems more appropriate for the financial advisory activities requested under the RFP.

Response: It has been decided to stay with NAICS code 541519.

Question 20: Where the Bureau requires minimum education of a Master’s degree (Program and Project Manager), it might want to consider being specific as to the field of study and/or allow for the Master’s degree to be substituted by specified years of related work experience, say 15 years. This provides the flexibility is proposing the ideal candidate for the position(s).

Response: See Question 3 response.

Question 21: Under Financial Modeling (Task Area C), it might make sense to require validation and determination of the reasonableness of input assumptions against industry norms, in addition to validation of the formal model structure and logic.

Response: No change to scope.

Question 22: We recommend not requiring Offerors to commit to specific workshare percentages/dollar amounts with Small Business and other specific categories of subcontractors at the IDIQ level, as it is difficult to commit to a number without specific defined scope. We are committed to using minority and other specific categories of subcontractors and help support the Bureau in meeting it goals. We would be able to better commit to the requirements at a Task Order level, where the scope and magnitude of the effort is better defined.

Response: The percentage/dollar amounts in the plan are only goals. The Government understands that they will only become more specific at a task order level, however, an overall subcontracting plan is required for the IDIQ. If it isn’t possible to include a goal for a specific subcontractor category, please provide a justification and explanation in the appropriate section of the form and/or included with your proposal.

Question 23: For the rates of different labor categories, would you consider a range of rates? We would like to have the best resources available to the Bureau in various LCATs. However, rate for some categories, e.g. Subject Matter Expert, can vary significantly based on the amount and areas of experience. Alternately, the Bureau could present a sample scope of work, against which rates for various LCATs could be proposed.

Response: The proposed rate should be the maximum rate. The Government assumes that most firms would provide a discount to their IDIQ rates on task orders as appropriate and based on the work required.