QA_Recompete_Questions_completed.docx

1. Can you please confirm that this procurement is a total set-aside for HUBZone certified businesses?

Yes, this is a hubzone small business set aside competition.

2. Can you please tell me if the Mail-in Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3) needs to be received by the solicitation due date ( June 5, 2015)?

Yes, we must receive the Past Performance Questionnaires by the deadline of June 5, 2015 in order for them to be evaluated with the proposal.

3. FAC-C and DAWIA are certifications for government employees. Will BLS consider civilian counterparts to these certifications, such as CFCM? Will BLS accept education or years of experience in lieu of these certifications?

Please reference section 1.3.2 of the instructions to offerors. CFCM certification will be considered: “BLS will consider CFCM certification with a combination of education and experience in lieu of FAC-C and DAWIA certifications, however, preference will be given to those proposals with FAC-C Level III Certification in Contracting as well as higher level education degrees for all lead personnel.”

Note the reference to Program Manager Certifications has been removed.

4. Do you have an automated contract management system or similar automated system to support or access BLS procurements?

BLS uses the Department of Labor Acquisition Management System (AMS). This is a commercial off the shelf PRISM based system with minor DOL customizations. However, please note that at this time the document of record at DOL is considered to be the hard copy contract file and thus BLS does not view that AMS system access would be needed in conducting a review of the hard copy files. If DOL were to move to a framework where the file of record was electronic, the Contractor would be informed and provided with the access, training, etc., needed to conduct further contract reviews.

5. Are the post-award procurement packages intended to be reviewed while in-process, closed or both? If closed contracts are being reviewed, how far back?

All contracts will be reviewed post award, and the vast majority of contracts will be reviewed while active. Contracts reviewed will have been awarded during the previous two FY quarters, thus will likely still be undergoing contract administration or awaiting closeout. In few instances the contract to be reviewed may have been recently closed out, but considering the semiannual timing of the reviews we imagine this to be rare.

6. Do you foresee there will be more QAR’s to be completed than FTE’s allocated in the past?

No. BLS foresees the number of QARs to be the same, if not less than in previous contracts due to the semiannual instead of quarterly nature of the reviews.

7. Does BLS anticipate onsite performance during the duration of the project?

Onsite performance will be required during the review periods, and only during the actual review of the physical files and for the purposes of mentioned meetings and presentations of results. The Contractor is free to work on the subsequent reports in another location but may not remove files, or copy file documentation to be reviewed or referenced offsite. There is no need for the contractor to be onsite outside of semiannual review timeframes.

8. What is the labor category for these positions?

The Contractor should propose the labor categories and staffing they feel is needed to accomplish the objectives set forth in the performance work statement of the request for proposal.

9. When will this contract be awarded? Performance start date?

We intend to award this contract before 9/30/2015.

10. Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number DOL –BLS-15-R-00008 contain requirements different from the current contract? If so, please state the differences.

The main differences in the requirements of the historical versus existing contract are as follows:

· The previous contract requested quarterly post-award reviews for a larger sample size in lieu of semiannual reviews.

· The previous contract requested evaluation of 17 distinct contractual elements on all reviews in lieu of the 5-10 agreed upon areas of focus stated in this RFP.

· The previous contract did not require an in-person briefing on review findings.

11. What are the SCA labor categories currently being used for performing this work (labor categories used in wage adjustment modifications to the contract)?

Please see the response to question 8. Also, please note that this contract’s services are deemed professional in nature and not subject to the Service Contract Act. If the awarded offerer includes labor categories that are deemed applicable to the SCA, the SCA and corresponding minimum wage and wage determination clauses will be incorporated into the contract.

12. What equipment or materials are expected to be furnished by the Contractor?

All equipment needed to conduct the onsite portion of the review will be furnished by the Government. If the Contractor chooses to work on the report itself after reviewing the files in an offsite location, any equipment they need for that purpose would not be furnished by the Government since onsite Government furnished equipment and space is available. Please see section 4.0 of the solicitation’s PWS:

“Basic facilities such as work space and its associated operating equipment (phones, desks, utilities, computers, information technology, and consumable and general purpose office supplies) shall be provided while working in Government facilities.”

13. If there is an incumbent contractor, are the current requirements in the current contract’s PWS the same as this? If no, how do they differ?

The most recent contract in place for a similar BLS requirement was contract DOLF122J15998 awarded to vendor CACI Inc. Federal in July 2012. This contract expired in March of 2015. Please see the response to question 10 for additional information regarding the differences in this contract PWS.

14. Is the incumbent currently on-site supporting this requirement? Has the contract ended?

Please see the response to question 13. Note, as previously stated onsite contractor performance was only provided during the actual review periods, and not constantly for the life of the contract.

15. Is the resulting contract a firm fixed price or labor hour?

Please refer to the combined synopsis/solicitation and 1.5.3 on page 10 of the instructions to offerors. Offerors shall provide pricing that is firm fixed price. BLS contemplates an award of a firm fixed price purchase order contract for this solicitation.

16. General Instructions

a. Paragraph 5.1 Cover Letter, 7th bullet item: This bullet item asks for vendor’s to provide their “FSSI BPA Number” on the first page of their offer. What is the “FSSI BPA” referenced and is a BPA required to bid on this opportunity?

Please disregard this requirement for the cover letter, it was erroneously included.

b. Paragraph 5.1 Cover Letter, 10th bullet item: There is no text following the 10th bullet. Should something have been included?

No.

c. Paragraph 5.2.6: The paragraph states that responses shall consist of three parts: Volume I – Technical Capability Proposal; Volume II – Managerial Approach Proposal; and Volume III – Price Proposal. However, the volume table depicted in paragraph 6.0 indicates that Volume II is Past Performance. Will the government please resolve this conflict?

Paragraph 5.2.6 should read Volume I – Technical Capability Proposal; Volume II – Past Performance; and Volume III – Price Proposal.

17. Evaluation Factors

a. Paragraph 1.2: In this paragraph, the government lists the evaluation factors and sub factors for the solicitation and states they are listed in descending order of importance. However, there is no “relative” order of importance is provided. For example, is Technical Capability significantly more important than Past Performance? Are the two sub factors under Technical Capability of the same importance, or is one more important than the other? Will the government provide additional information concerning order of importance?

The factors are listed in descending order of importance, so Factor I is more important that Factor II and Factor II is more important that Factor III. The subfactors for the technical capability are of the same importance. When combined, non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

b. Paragraph 1.3.2, 3rd sub paragraph: The last sentence requires that personnel identified in the technical approach must be current employees of the offeror. Most small businesses do not have the resources to hire employees without a contract in place. Will the government consider relaxing the requirement to allow offerors to include contingent hires supported by a letter of commitment from the contractor?

BLS is willing to consider offers of contingent hires supported by a letter of commitment from the contractor.

c. Paragraph 1.3.2, last sub paragraph: Uniform mandatory contracting officer certifications applicable to all agencies of the government are relatively new (May 7, 2014 letter). Consequently, there are many former government contracting officers with a wealth of relevant experience that could more than adequately fulfill the PWS requirements that do not have the newly mandated certifications. Moreover, some agencies did not require certification or formal continuing education prior to implementation of the “refresh” program October 1, 2014. Will the government consider education and experience in lieu of certifications?

BLS will consider certifications under the old FAC-C certification (see 2009 requirements). For those former Federal contracting officers who were grandfathered into the 2009 FAC-C program, evidence must be shown that sufficient experience, warrant levels, education, and training are sufficient to be comparable to FAC-C certification requirements. BLS is also willing to consider private sector certifications, see response to question 3. It is not expected that continuous learning points and re-certification would be maintained after Government employment ceased.

d. Paragraph 1.4.12 – 1.4.13 and 1.4.15: Clearly it may be problematical for relatively new small businesses to provide the detailed corporate record of past performance envisioned by the government. In those cases were an offeror will be relying on personal performance, what documentation will the government accept to demonstrate relevant past performance information and experience for proposed key personnel?

As stated in the sections referenced past performance questionnaires may be completed for key personnel’s work with another company. If no past performance is available the offeror will be rated as “unknown confidence”. Please see sections 1.4.12 and 1.4.13 in the instructions to offerors:

1.4.12 If an Offeror has no single project that encompasses all types of the required experience, the Offeror may show relevant experience through personnel who are proposed to work on the contract that have had the required experience with another company.

1.4.13 Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. For Offerors with no relevant performance record, the Government may consider relevant performance information regarding key personnel.

18. Performance Work Statement Quality Assurance Reporting

a. Paragraph 1.3, Acquisition Regulations: In addition to the FAR and DOLAR, can the government identify “other” DOL regulations (such as the DLMS) that are applicable to the proposed scope of work? Are there SOPs, operating guides, etc., that can be made available to vendors to help define the scope of the work?

The Department of Labor Manual Series (DLMS) will be utilized. Additional operating guidelines or procedures would consist primarily of adherence to document formatting and template requirements, not procurement policy. Any required templates or instructions would be provided at the time of award and if this element was to be considered a focal point of review, but would not be seen as significantly impacting the scope of work.

b. Paragraph 2.1: Does the government anticipate that the contractor staff will primarily work onsite?

Review of files must occur onsite. The remainder of the contractual responsibilities may occur offsite at the if the Contractor so chooses as long as procurement sensitive information is not physically or electronically removed from BLS.

c. Paragraph 2.5, Program Management: Does the government anticipate receiving periodic progress or status reports? There are none included in the deliverable table. In addition, while we understand this is a fixed price contract, there are no cost/funds reports called out. Are any required?

Because the semiannual review periods are very short and require much interaction between the Government and the Contractor there is not seen to be a need for progress or status reports. No cost/funds reports are required or deemed necessary.

It is anticipated that the Contractor would bill and be paid twice annually in accordance with the semiannual reviews.

d. Paragraph 2.6, Contractor workforce qualifications, second sub paragraph: See our question at 2.c above.

See response to 17 c.

e. Paragraph 2.7, Key Personnel: If a PM is provided to interface with the government, does he/she need to meet the FAC-C/DAWIA Level I certification requirement?

No. However, the Government would reiterate that the PM and senior acquisition staff may be the same individual unless deemed insufficient by the offeror.

f. Paragraph 2.9: Since this is a fixed price contract, why does the government require a schedule for all assigned contractor staff to include planned leave?

The request for a schedule has been removed.

g. Paragraph 3.1.1: Are specific time periods established for the semi-annual reviews? If so will the government provide the schedule? Does the government have data concerning the average time to conduct a contract review? In addition, what is meant by the term proportional? Does the government have a predetermined sample size for each review period (i.e., 10% of the files selected) or will the sample size vary for each review period? Without some understanding of the work effort, offerors will have a difficult time developing a fixed price bid for the work.

Each review will cover two quarters of a Fiscal year. Specific timing of the reviews will be coordinated based on the offeror and Government’s schedules.

Please see the deliverable timetable included in the RFP regarding government estimates of time needed to conduct each review. The Government has allotted 30 business days (approximately six weeks) to conduct the review and develop the draft report for each review period. Based on previous internal performance of similar requirements the Government views this as a generous timeframe.

The range of files per review period is stated as follows in section 3.1.1 “The number of files reviewed for each semiannual review shall be proportional to the number of files awarded during that period ranging from no less than 50 files reviewed to no more than 100 files reviewed.” The term proportional is used because the specific number of files will vary within this range for each review. Traditionally BLS awards fewer files in the first two quarters of the Fiscal years due to Government continuing resolutions of the budget restricting contract spending. Reviews covering the first two quarters of the Fiscal year would tend towards the lower parameter stated while reviews of the second two quarters of the Fiscal year would tend towards the higher parameter stated.

h. Paragraph 3.4, second sub paragraph: Limiting the semiannual report to ten pages could be problematic. Is the imposed limit based on experience? If the contractor exceeds the limit, what are the consequences?

The limit is based on past experience with similar reviews. Note, this limit is exclusive of any attachments, pivot tables, breakouts of results, etc. If the contractor feels that the report requires additional coverage beyond the limits provided this should be discussed with the COR and agreed to in advance.

i. Deliverables and Timeframe, third bullet: Can the government provide a more definitive description of the number of contract files and sample size for this first review? Apparently there is a misplaced word in the last sentence.

As stated in this section the Contractor shall review 10% of the sample provided for the review period and prepare the first draft report off of that to come to agreement with the Government on format and content of the report. Based on the parameters provided for each review period (between 50-100 files as stated in the RFP) this initial draft would be based on a review of between 5-10 contract files.

j. Paragraph 3.5, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), PRS table: In the second block under the Performance Standard column, the government refers to a Task Management Plan. Is this a plan developed by the contractor? If so, when is it due and are updates required? Is contractor format acceptable?

Offerors should disregard reference to a task management plan. Deliverables are due in accordance with the deliverable timetable included in the RFP:

Note, upon award of this contract the due dates stated below will be replaced with actual dates for reference.

Contractor Within 30 business days of deliverable 2

Subsequent semiannual reviews will follow the same above schedule excluding deliverables 1, 3, 4, and 5 Thus draft reviews will be due to the Government within 30 days of being provided with the files for all subsequent reviews.

k. Paragraph 3.5, PRS Table: In the fourth block under the Performance Objective column, the government refers to a study plan. Is this a plan developed by the contractor? If so, what is its purpose, when is it due, and are updates required? Is contractor format acceptable?

Please disregard the term “study plan”. Report deliverables should be in accordance with the format, quality, etc., agreed to with the COR per the outlined plan for the first review.

19. General Questions

a. Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent contractor currently providing the services outlined in the PWS? If so, what is the contractor’s current level of effort? Will the government identify the contractor and the contract number?

Please see the response to question 13. Note, level of effort is considered proprietary information and cannot be shared. However the contract award noted in question 13 was awarded for a total of $107,158 for the life of the contract. This contract included a period of performance with options from 7/1/12- 3/31/15 (9 mo base period with two one year option periods).

b. Will the government require agent agreements for the contractor personnel supporting the work envisioned in the PWS? If so, at what point does the government anticipate requiring delivery of the agreements?

Agent agreements will be required for all contractors with access to procurement sensitive data and must be signed and returned prior to receiving access to BLS procurement files.