DTFH61-10-R-00028 Amendment 5.docx

Amendment 5 – DTFH61-10-R-00028 This amendment is issued to:

1. Extend the due date for submission of proposals.

2. Provide further clarification to questions raised.

3. Provide a rewritten paragraph M.3 for greater clarity.

EXTENSION of PROPOSAL DUE DATE

The due date for submission of proposals under RFP DTFH61-10-R-00028 is extended to October 26, 2010 by 3:30pm EST, as otherwise provided in Section L of the RFP. Thus, new proposals may be submitted until that time. This modifies both Block 9 on page 1 [Form SF 33] and paragraph L.1 on page 50 to read “October 26, 2010” vice September 30, 2010.

Any proposals already received by the FHWA have not been read and remain valid. No further action is required on behalf of the offeror. However, should they choose to do so, offerors may revise or withdraw their proposal until October 26, 2010 by 3:30pm EST.

CLARIFICATIONS TO EARLIER PUBLISHED Q&A

QUESTION: Attachment E (Cost Price Template) to Amendment 1 requires the proposer to break down labor fee estimates by 5 categories for each of Tasks A through K, including:

1. Direct Labor

1. Fringe Benefits

1. Overhead Rate

1. G&A Rate

1. Fee

This would not be a cumbersome process if a single firm with established audited multipliers were proposing without subcontractors. However, it could be complicated if:

1. both prime and subcontractor personnel are proposed for many of the individual tasks within Tasks A – K

1. the overhead structures for the prime and its multiple subcontractors are not comparable

1. subcontractors will propose “commercial” hourly rates, or rates not covered by previous audits

Is it the government’s intent that the proposer submit, for as many as all 11 of the tasks, an estimate that includes a separate summary of the five labor fee elements for the prime and each of the subcontractors proposed for that task? In a task area with potentially up to five contractors, this would involve a summary rolled up sheet and 6 separate estimates and o/h numbers; multiplied across the 11 task areas this could involve 50-55 linked sheets to get to a total. Or is there an alternative means through which the contractor’s (prime or sub) labor cost structure could be presented? Since we could easily provide audits or other documentation substantiating fully-loaded hourly rates, would it be possible to submit those rates on the 11 estimates and delete lines 3 - 6 from the form?

ANSWER: An example of an alternative would be to average out each line whereby the subcontractor and prime’s rates for these lines are averaged into one rate. These average rates could then be entered under lines 3, 4, 5 and 6.

QUESTION: Lines 3, 4, and 6 of estimated level of effort form include the word “generic” next to the corresponding labor multiplier element. What is this use of the word intended to convey?

ANSWER: A blended or average of cost for those lines.

QUESTION: Please provide clarification on how FFP task orders will be issued and what will be required in the contractor’s submission.

ANSWER: All potential task orders will be evaluated to determine whether they can be issued on a fixed price basis. If so, the task order RFP will so state and will have specific proposal instructions and evaluation factors. Typically contractors will be asked for a technical proposal that addresses approach and staffing together with their fixed price to accomplish the statement of work as proposed.

QUESTION: RFP Section L.7 52.216-1 Type of Contract states that the government intends to issue a hybrid IDIQ contract with both FFP and CPFF task orders. Please clarify that responses to this solicitation will be evaluated as CPFF.

ANSWER: Yes. It is the government’s intention to evaluate proposals based on cost reimbursement and cost realism principles. The description of a hybrid IDIQ contract is in reference to the government’s intent to subsequently issue CPFF and FFP task orders as appropriate under each IDIQ contract awarded.

QUESTION: For federal contracts, I know you can go in on a cost plus basis or a fixed price. If we opt to go with a fixed price basis, do we still have to provide information regarding G&A, overhead, etc.? We do have a negotiated indirect rate and federally approved purchasing procedures, but wanted to understand what our options are as we provide you pricing.

ANSWER: We have requested cost data as it is the government’s intent to evaluate costs and to perform a cost realism analysis during the evaluation process for these ID/IQ contracts. Fixed pricing will apply only at the task order level in response to that specific task order RFP.

QUESTION: Are the proposed rates cost estimates only or are they intended to be binding.

ANSWER: These rates are not binding, but must be good faith estimates. Our intention is to use these rates for proposal evaluation and source selection purposes. They will be used to perform a cost realism analysis, determine reasonableness, confirm your understanding of the requirements and to establish a contract ceiling amount. Further, they will be a point of reference over the life of the contract when we are evaluating task order proposals. Please note however, an offeror’s proposed escalation rates will be binding.

REVISION

For clarity, paragraph M.3 “Basis for Award” is deleted and replaced with the following:

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

In addition to the criteria listed above, cost realism and reasonableness will be considered in the award decision. The proposals will be analyzed to assess reasonableness. This means that the proposed cost in an offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.

The government will accept the offers that are considered to be the best value to the government. A best value analysis will be performed taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost and past performance analysis, and the perceived ability to perform timely, high quality, consistently reliable support services as provided herein.

In the determination of Best Value, the relative weight given to all evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, is more important than cost. However, offerors should note that as technical scores approach being essentially equivalent, cost would become more important in the selection decision.

NOTE: An award preference will be given to those responsible small businesses that provide quality proposals at fair prices by adding 5 points to their technical evaluation score.