Response_to_vendor_questions.pdf

Drug and Alcohol Compliance Program Review

RFP No.: DTFT6016R00003

Questions from interested vendors

Amendment 00002

Question 1: Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past?

If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

Government’s Response: This is not a new requirement for the Government. The current incumbent contractor is Cahill Swift, LLC. The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract number is DTFT60-11-D-00005.

Question 2: Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing these services. If so, could I please find out the contractor name and contract number?

Government’s Response: See response above (Question 1).

Question 3: Is the Labor Hour (LH) level of effort contract the same as a firm fixed price contract?

Government’s Response: No, Labor-Hour contracts are not the same as Fixed-Price contracts.

Please see FAR Subpart 16.2 – Fixed Price Contracts and FAR Subpart 16.602-Labor-Hour contracts. Also, with this amendment, the Government is removing the appearance of the language “level of effort” from the solicitation in significant areas.

Question 4: Page 40 of the RFP states “The Key Personnel under this Contract are identified below:” however the Key Personnel are not defined. Can you please define who should be considered the Key personnel for this contract?

Government’s Response: On Page 61 of the RFP, positions listed under Key Personnel are

Senior Project Manager (Audit Team Lead) and Project Technician (Audit Team Member). The non-key position is the one providing Administrative Support.

Question 5: The RFQ pricing spreadsheet states that there will be 109 trips per year, while the

RFQ states that there will be “24 on site audit trip weeks (audit events) per year”. Can you please clarify the difference between 109 trips per year and 24 trip weeks? Our interpretation of this is that 109 trips divided by 24 weeks equals 4.5 persons per trip week. Is this correct?

Government’s Response: No. The 109 trips are actually site visits done during the audit. The

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) performs an audit of the transit grantee and that usually consists of the transit grantee and their sub-recipients and contractors, which bumps the number up to 109. And the 24 audit weeks are the actual audit weeks performed. So, we schedule a week of audit work but within that week we see several sites.

Question 6: Section L.4.3. states “Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010. Data submitted in spreadsheet format

Drug and Alcohol Compliance Program Review

RFP No.: DTFT6016R00003

Questions from interested vendors

Amendment 00002 shall be readable by MS Office Excel 2010.” Does that mean that the text and graphics elements of the proposal shall not be converted to .PDF format for submission?

Government’s Response: That is correct.

Question 7: Should the proposals be sent in one email addressed to both the Contract Specialist and the Senior/Lead Contracting Officer, or should they be sent by separate emails, one addressed to Mrs. Nasrin and one addressed to Mrs. Cooke-Nwadibia? Also, does FTA prefer four individual volume attachments, or one compressed zip file containing four separate volumes? Will FTA be able to confirm receipt of the emails?

Government’s Response: The proposal should be sent in one email addressed to both the

Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer. The proposal should be submitted in four individual volume attachments. Potential Offerors should not send the files in one compressed zip file as it may not be accessible to one or more participants in the procurement. Confirmation emails will be sent to the offerors.

Question 8: FAR clause 52.222-25 – We request your advice on the check box requirement of

FAR 52.222-25. We do not employ 50 or more persons and so we are not subject to the provisions of 41 CFR Part 60-1 and 60-2 quoted below. We assume, therefore, that, regarding the checkbox for FAR clause 52-222-25 Affirmative Action Compliance, we should check the box for option (b), “It has not previously had contracts subject to the written affirmative action requirements of the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor.” Is this the correct interpretation?

Response: Yes