Q&A_1-5-18.pdf

Q&A for Primavera Scheduling Services IDIQ (P6)

12/20/2017

1. Is the proposal to be delivered in SF330 format?

a. No. Contractors can define their own formats, as long as it all is under the page count requirements.

2. How many FTEs by role are required in each of the four different locations?

a. TOPR#001 requires one Lead Scheduler and two Schedulers, for a total of 3 employees.

b. TOPR#002 requires two Schedulers, for a total of 2 employees.

c. Both TOPR#001 and TOPR#002 have a few hours for BI Report Writer and

Primavera Specialist but these positions are offsite and not full‐time.

d. There is currently no Task Order for the other two locations. Offers must submit pricing for these locations because they are anticipated to be needed over the life of the IDIQ contract.

3. The RFP requires that resumes of proposed staff to be sent along with the proposal. How many FTEs are required for each role on the contract? This information will help us understand how many resumes to send along with the proposal.

a. See question #2 above.

4. RFP questions are due 1/5 and the proposal must be mailed by 1/10 and routed to the

Office of Acquisition who must stamp it as received by 1/12 by 2 pm. In order to properly evaluate and incorporate the response to questions, we respectfully request submission by email on or before 1/12 at 2 PM MST, and follow up with a hard copy submission of our proposal mailed via overnight carrier for delivery to the facility on

1/13.

a. The proposals are due at 2:00pm Denver local time on the date specified. There is no plan to change this date or time.

5. Will DOT FHWA provide P6 licenses for assigned on‐site schedulers?

a. Yes.

6. Page 36 of 69 states “The Contractor shall be responsible for IT* security for all systems operated by or connected to a DOT network, regardless of location.” According to the scope the Contractor will be working in the role as an advisor, providing expertise in

Primavera software configuration, implementation, trouble‐shooting, etc. Will DOT

FWHA consider removing the responsibility for all IT* security for all systems operated by or connected to a DOT network, regardless of location from the RFP?

a. No.

7. Since the nature of the work is Primavera project scheduling and reporting and not IT, would DOT FWHA consider changing the NAICS to 541611?

a. After review, we will not make a change.

8. Throughout the RFP, there are requirements related to transition of incumbent personnel. Are there incumbent personnel performing work at each site? If so, could you provide the name of the incumbent contractor and number of personnel assigned to each site?

a. Lakewood, CO Incumbent: ASL Management, 3113 Colgate Dr, Longmont CO

80503. Currently has (3) employees on‐site.

b. Vancouver, WA Incumbent: PRIME: Stenstrom Group Inc., 170 E. Fair Harbor

Land, Grapeview, WA 98546 SUB: Schedule and Information Services, PO Box

174, Stevenson WA

9. Pages 2, 3, and 4 (of 69) provide rate schedules for each location with the labor categories of Lead Scheduler and Scheduler. However, TOPR#001 and TOPR#002 state work will be performed in Lakewood, CO and Vancouver, WA, respectively, with the labor categories of Lead Scheduler, Scheduler 1 and Scheduler 2. Would DOT FWHA please confirm the work locations and labor categories for each task order?

a. Pages 2, 3, and 4 is for contractors to input their pricing for all 4 locations which might have Task Orders issued for them under this IDIQ contract over the next 5 years.

b. TOPR#001 & TOPR#002 are being offered with the IDIQ because there is a need for services at those two locations currently.

i. See question 2, above, for more information.

c. There is not a need for services at the other two locations (Washington DC and

Stirling, VA) at this time, but it is anticipated that there could be over the 5‐year life of this contract.

10. Will the Cover pages, Table of Contents, List of Acronyms, and divider tabs be excluded from the page count?

a. No.

11. Does Volume II need to be in its own three‐ring binder? So, one binder for Volume I and one binder for Volume 2…or all together?

a. Please package Volume 1 and Volume 2 seperately.

12. Is there a preferred format or template for resumes, or can those be in general long‐ form format?

a. Formatting is up to the contractor, however the entire proposal must still be within the page count.

13. Do resumes count as part of the 50 page cap on Volume I?

14. Do project examples count as part of the 50 page cap on Volume I?

15. Is there any chance that the due date for this proposal will be postponed?

a. Not currently

1/5/2017

16. Page 15, section paragraph. Section G.4 doesn’t include items (i) through (vi) as referenced in the text.

a. Amendment A001 corrects this. If technical direction is given that is contrary to the Scope of Work, the contractor shall notify the CO.

17. Page 16. Are the Contract Supervisor and Program Manager the same, non‐billable position?

a. Yes. The section is called “Contractor Supervision” but the position discussed is the Project Manager. The Project Manager is not billable, therefore the cost of contractor supervision is to be included in the hourly burdened rates.

18. Pages 34 and 35, H.14, regarding Section 508 Standards. Is it the FHWA’s intent that the project schedules be submitted with a text equivalent for every non‐text element on each project schedule?

a. This section is for documents that will be published in a professional, multi media manner, with interaction capability designed into the deliverable so that handicap and impaired can access the data. It is not for daily work and typical deliverables. There is a low likelihood of publishing in this manner under this IDIQ contract.

19. Page 59. Is the on‐site System Administrator a billable position?

a. Amendment A001 addresses this error. There is no position required called

System Administrator.

20. Page 66. Section M.1 (b) (2) is missing item (iii) as referenced in the text.

a. Amendment A001 addresses this error. This is no item (iii).

21. Will the TORP1 and TORP2 allow for any of the Schedulers to work remotely to support the work?

a. No. The schedulers are needed on‐site to interact with Government employees, make adjustments, be involved in discussions, etc. We have determined that off‐ site schedulers will not work for this requirement.

22. Is the expectation that the Schedulers will also play the role of System Administrators for the Primavera P6 environment in each region?

a. No. Schedulers will perform the duties as listed in section C.4. System Administrator is not a labor classification for this IDIQ.

23. The close date for the RFP is Friday, January 12th at 2PM MT. For offerors not located in the Denver metro area, this would mean that in order to meet the proposal deadline they will have to send their proposals by courier service no later than Thursday, January 11th . With the following business day after the RFP close date being Tuesday, January 16th (because the following Monday is a federal holiday in observance of MLK Day) no activities will likely be performed on the received proposals until at least Tuesday. To be helpful to all offerors and not inadvertently create an advantage for offerors local to the Denver metro area, will the FHWA be open to the following options: Shift the close day for the RFP to a day other than Friday or Tuesday i.e. Wednesday, January 17th? Shift the close date for the RFP to Friday, January 19th to allow for sufficient time from the close date for submission of questions for all questions to be responded to and for offerors to incorporate the responses from the government into their proposals.

a. The RFP deadline is not anticipated to change. The RFP was posted to FBO.gov on 12/5/2017 and opens on 1/12/2018, which is a week more than required by FAR already. This was done to give offerors extra time to prepare their RFP’s during the holiday season. Additionally, the Q&A deadline is 1/5/2018 and all answers are posted to www.fbo.gov, giving offerors a full week to revise proposals due to final Q&A submissions and still get them to Denver in plenty of time prior to the 1/12 deadline and Amendment A001 (which is minor in impact to proposals). Due to time restraints, the Government must open the RFP’s as soon as possible. There is no “advantage” for Denver local offerors, all offerors have the exact same amount of time to submit their proposals.