8-24-2012 _Consolidiated Q_As_-REVISED.pdf

DATE: 23 August 2012

MEMORANDUM TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

SUBJECT: Consolidated Questions & Answer Set (DOL121RP21504) – REVISED

Q1. Will the government exclude a cover page and submittal letter from the page limitations?

Government Response: Yes.

Q2. Page 23 of the RFP states that submissions will evaluate the qualifications of consultants. Would the government like to see the resumes of the non-key consultants included as an appendix to Volume 1 in order to evaluate those qualifications?

Government Response: The solicitation does not specifically require resumes for non-key personnel. It is the offerors’ discretion as to the type information submitted with proposals. However, only those items submitted in accordance with the instructions to offerors section and evaluation criteria of the RFP will be given consideration for award purposes.

Q3. Is CLIN X011 listed twice in Table B.1 of the RFP (pg. 6) intentionally? If so, could the government please explain?

Government Response: I believe this has been addressed via Amendment 0002 revision.

Q4. Section 1.2.7 of the PWS (Pg. 8) states "The contractor shall also provide logistical and administrative support for the evaluations". Should we price items such as supplies for conducting workshops along with in-country transportation/security/administrative support?

Government Response: Government Response: As noted in Section 3.1 (page 11) “The Contractor shall provide all logistical and administrative support for their work, including international and local travel arrangements.” All of the items and costs identified in this question would fall into these categories and should be priced per the Section B CLIN structure

Prices should be in accordance with the Price Tables B.1 and B.2 for each contract line item (CLIN) identified for each performance year.

Q5. Appendix A of the PWS (Pg. 23) states that 7 projects are to be evaluated during the first 12 months following award; however, the table in Section 1.2.7 of the PWS (Page 8) lists 11 countries – will one project evaluation consist of more than one country - such as the five (5) countries listed in the table under Central America?

Government Response: Same as response 3.

Q6. Directly under the table in section 1.2.7 (Pg. 8 PWS) is the following statement: “Other evaluations may beaded in 2013 and in subsequent years at the discretion of the government and in agreement of the Contractor, subject to funds available or additional funds provided to cover increased contract costs.”

Appendix A of the PWS (Pg. 23) states that 20 evaluations are to be conducted per year in subsequent years. Does this mean we are pricing 20 evaluations per year for all Option Years?

Government Response: Same as response 3.

Q7. CLINs X005 - X011 in Section B (Price/Cost Schedule) of the RFP list the number of countries requiring evaluation. If we refer to the evaluation table B.2 of the RFP we find that the number of countries in each region does not match-up to the number of countries listed under each CLIN. How did the Government arrive at the total number of countries requiring evaluation?

Government Response: Same as response 3.

Q8. Under additional information/instruction to offerors Section (b), Submission of offers (Pg. 21 of the RFP), instructions state that “…sum total per region should be inserted in the Price Schedule (B.1) in both the Unit Price column and the extended amount column.” Where can we find the Extended Amount Column in the Project Schedule (table B.1)

Q9. On page 1 of the RFP its states that questions are due to Brenda White with a cc to Lloyd Sabino.

Should offerors also address proposals to Brenda White and Lloyd Sabino?

Government Response: Proposals should be addressed to the Contracting Officer, Brenda White

Could you please confirm that the cover page, list of acronyms, and table of contents are not counted toward the ten (10) page limit in the Technical/Management Approach mentioned on page 22 of the RFP?

Q10. The Evaluation Criteria on page 23 of the RFP lists four subfactors to be included in the Technical/Management Approach: Organizational and Staff Qualifications (subfactor 1); Proposed technical approach and timeline (subfactor 2); staffing plan, organizational partnerships and subcontracts, and management and oversight plan (subfactor 3); and quality control plan (subfactor 4). Given the amount of information required, we respectfully request that the page limit for the Technical/Management Approach be increased to fifteen (15) pages to allow offerors sufficient space to be fully responsive.

Government Response: This request is acceptable to the Contracting Officer, only for the complete technical volume, which shall not exceed a total of 15 pages (Reference solicitation page 22 of 37). This page limit includes attachments and exhibits but excludes the cover page and submittal letter as referenced in Q1.

Q11. We have carefully reviewed the Q&As posted this week, it is our understanding that, for Table B.1 CLINs 005-011, the essential information is the cost-per-country contained in Table B.2 which is summarized on Table B.2 to create a total cost per region and carries forward as the amount in Table B.1 Task Requirements Price Table. It is our understanding that we would not then factor in the estimated number of evaluations per region per year in these calculations. Could you please confirm that this understanding is correct?

Q12. We are concerned that the information provided does not seem sufficient to develop realistic fixed prices by country. The staffing and LOE for any evaluation is usually aligned with the size, duration, complexity, geographic reach and single or multi-country coverage of the project to be evaluated.

Larger, more complex projects would naturally require a greater level of effort and/or additional data collection than smaller projects. However, the PWS does not provide information on the ILAB project portfolio to be evaluated over the 5-year period, other than the chart on page 8 that identifies types of evaluations (mid-term or final) by region for the first year of the contract.

We respectfully request additional details on the expected size, duration and complexity of the OTLA and OCFT projects per country/region to be evaluated over the contract period, in order to allow offerors to provide adequate pricing for these requirements.

Government Response: Same as response 3.

Q13. At the top of page 19 of the RFP, under Factor 2 Social Economic Status, it states: “All other than small businesses shall submit copies of their approved subcontracting plans and latest annual subcontracting report (Standard Form 295).” Since SF 295 is no longer used, having been replaced by the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), can you please confirm that offerors can submit a printout of their Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) which is the report which has replaced the SF 295?

Government Response: esRS records are acceptable.

Q14. On page 22 of the RFP, the Offeror is requested to submit 4 contract references. May the Offeror also provide contract reference(s) for major subcontractor(s) provided that the total number of contract references for prime and subs combined does not exceed 4?

Government Response: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(2)(iii), evaluation of past performance information will take into account information regarding “ predecessor companies, key personnel, who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.”

Q15. In the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in the Scope of Work described in pages 3-10, there is no Task 4 specified. However on page 6 “Provide monitoring and evaluation-related training to ILAB staff” is bolded. Could you please confirm that Task 4 is to “Provide monitoring and evaluation-related training to ILAB staff”?

Government Response: Same as response 3.

Q16. On page 20 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), it states: “The lead Monitoring and Evaluation Expert(s) will be responsible for executing all work related to the development of comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plans and other monitoring and evaluation and performance measurement-related tasks.” We have two related questions:

a. Can you please confirm that offerors should present the full team of the individuals who would be required to perform all of the work?

b. Given that this represents a large number of individuals with a range of expertise, which would be difficult to demonstrate within the required page limits, we respectfully request that you allow offerors to present a matrix of short-term technical assistance personnel either within the body of the technical proposal (if the page limit is increased) or as annex to the technical proposal (if the page limit is not increased).

Government Response: It is up to the offeror to submit their technical volume so as to adequately address both the technical and management approach as required by the instructions to offerors and evaluation sections of the solicitation. In doing so, offerors must ensure the technical/management volume does not exceed the page limits as specified in Q1 and Q10 above.

Offerors should ensure technical proposals clearly identify responsibilities of individuals with substantive role in these tasks. The offerer may present a matrix of personnel in the text, which may be supplemented with an annex of full CV’s of the personnel.

Q17. Who is the incumbent contractor for DOL121RP21504/Monitoring, Evaluation, & Training? I am looking for the name of the contractor, contract # and total value of the contract.

We do not have anyone providing monitoring and evaluation training services at this time.

The ICF IDIQ number for technical evaluations is: DOLJ089K28130

The FY2010 task order which contains both CMEP and implementation evaluations is:

DOLB109K31094 (Contractor, ICF International).

The FY2011 task order which is for implementation evaluations only is DOLB119K32401

(Contractor, ICF International) – similar work

The GEM Cooperative Agreement: ILO-GEM-22510-11-75-k (Organization: International

Labor Organization’s International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC))

Q18. Page 4: CLIN X003 – Task 3 – should refer to Para 1.2.5 (not 1.2.4) of PWS: CLIN X004 – Task 4

– should refer to Para 1.2.6 (not 1.2.4) of PWS. Please confirm.

Q19. Page 6: Section B – Price/Cost Schedule – in Table B.1, CLIN X011 is listed twice. Please clarify.

Q20. Under Section B – Table B.1, for the Regional CLINs (X005 – X011), estimated number of countries are listed; i.e. X005 – ASIA – 41 TOTAL. However, Table B.2 only lists 28 countries (13 bolded) for Asia. Please clarify.

Q21. Page 7: B.2 – Task 5 Rate Table – Lump Sum price per Country Evaluation/Region Totals (CLINS X005 thru X011) includes the following statement in parenthesis: “Prices exclusive of any cost associated with estimated travel expenses, reimbursable under ODC line item X004”. CLIN X004 does not include any ODCs. Please explain/clarify.

Q22. Page 21: Under b) Submission of Offers; please confirm that the Total Region Amount from B.2 Rate Table should be inserted in the Price Schedule (B.1) in both the unit price column and the extended amount column means Base Year and Option Years columns.

Q23. Page 22: Under Section/Volume III – Contract Data it is stated “Contract Data Volume shall include completed Schedule B.1 Price Schedule, Socio-Economic Status information, Subcontracting Plan information, Representations & Certifications…” There is no reference to B.2 - Task 5 Rate Table.

However, page 22 section (b) states “Offerors are to complete the Country Rate Table in Section B.2 by inserting proposed technical evaluation amounts for each country per region.” Please clarify whether Table B.2. is required to be submitted.

Government Response: YES

Q24. Will DOL ILAB extend the deadline to allow more time between when the answers to the questions will be released and the due date of the proposal?

ADDITIONAL NOTE: The amount to be entered in Table B.2 for each country is the cost to conduct one (1) evaluation for that country.