SETA_V_Final_RFP_Q A.pdf

4 May 2015

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA.

NO

ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 RFP, Attachment 1, and Section L para 4.6

92 Paragraph 4.6. Fully Burdened Labor Rates (Attachment 1) states “The fully-burdened FFP hourly labor rates shall include all direct and indirect rates and factors applicable to future task orders under this contract.” We observed that at least one of the elements of our cost build-up (Overhead Rates) is not included in the Years 1 through 6 worksheets in Attachment 1. By DCMA/DCAA definitions, Overhead is a separate category from the other rate categories in the table. We assume that everyone will have the same issue. We modified Attachment 1 to add overhead and have attached it to this e-mail.

Are you planning on sending out a modified worksheet, or is it your intent that we modify it ourselves (as needed) to comply with Section L instructions to include all direct and indirect rates?

Attachment 1 has been modified to include OH and Other Direct Costs. Contractors may submit similar workbook but must identify the cost build up for its fully burdened labor rate.

2 RFP, Attachment 1, 3, and 6

Attachment 1 and 3 include Training Specialists at Skill codes Entry, I and II, but Training Specialists are not listed on attachment 6.

Is it an oversight to not have any Training Specialists as part of the TEP?

Yes. It is an oversight. Attachment 6 is revised to match Attachment 1 and Attachment 3

3 RFP, Section M 101 4.4 Paragraph 4.4 Section (ii) states that the pricing model (Attachment

6) “ includes labor categories, associated labor hours, and other direct costs, as predetermined by the Government.” We did not see any ODCs included in the pricing model and it appears that the model only uses labor and its associated indirect costs.

Please clarify Attachment 6 must be completed using data from Attachment 1. Attachment 1 was revised to include ODC and OH.

4 RFP, Section M 4.1 Paragraph 4.1.states that “the Government will use a Pricing Model / Total Evaluated Price (Attachment 6) to formulate TEP for all Offerors for comparison purposes per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). TEP, fully burdened rates for each labor category, and processing fees for CLINs 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0007 will be evaluated for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing.” We do not see anywhere on the model that allows us to specify processing fees.

Please clarify how/where you would like us to specify processing fees in our proposal.

CLINs 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0007 description have fill-ins for the processing fee. Offerors must fill-in this information as part of the "Model Contract" submission.

5 Section L 3.4.2 You state that offer shall submit no more than five (5) PPIs and then go on to say, "…each citation counts toward the 10 Citation Limit"

Please clarify if you want a maximum of 5 PPIs or 10 PPIs Only 5 PPIs required. Paragraph 3.4.2 revised.

6 Attachment 1 & Attachment 6

2. In attachment 1, On-Site Fully Burdened Labor Rates, you have 55 labor categories listed. In Attachment 6, you have only 51 labor categories listed and four of the labor categories are entered twice because you have identified them as both Hurlburt and Cannon.

From our examination, we have identified that the four missing labor categories on attachment six are Media Specialist Entry and all three Training Specialist positions, entry, Level I, and Level II.

Please clarify which of the two attachments is the comprehensive list of labor categories.

Attachment 6 revised to match Attachment 1 list of labor categories.

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (SETA) V

FA0021-15-R-0004

Questions and Answers RFP

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA.

NO

ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

7 Section L0004 84 1.7 and 1.8 There are some confusion about how the Model Contract and attachment are to be provided. Section 1.7(a) requires the signed model contract, sections A-J under separate cover. Section 1.8.1 requires the DD254 pages completed and signed. Section 1.8.2 requires attachments to the model contract, including DD 254 mentioned in 1.8.1.

Are offerors to include the attachments with the model contract as specified in 1.7?

Model Contract is broken down into Section A to M.

Contractors only need to submit Section A to J.

Section J provides listing of attachments, but does not require all attachments to be included in the model contract. Attachments to the Model Contract is specified in section L0004 paragraph 1.8.2.

8 Section L0003 2.4.2 Section L0003, paragraph 2.4.2 states that the proposal shall be submitted on a CD-ROM to be compatible with Microsoft Word (Word, Excel, PowerPoint).

As many of the attachments have been provided by the Government in .pdf format, can these attachments, as well as signed pages, be provided as .pdf in the electronic submission?

Yes. Attachments may be provided in pdf format

9 RFP Table L0003-

2.5 Proposal Organization/Volume Titles/No of Pages/Page Limitation - Volume II, Factor 1, Technical – Section 2.5: It is our understanding that Section 2.5 will be a total of seventeen (17) pages. Fifteen (15) pages for the Technical-Subfactor 1, Corporate Management Plan and two (2) pages for Table L0004-1, Team Structure Matrix. The total page count for Volume II is 37 pages.

Please confirm that our understanding is correct. Yes. This is correct.

(1) Are the Table L0004 Column Titles correct? (1) Column titles are correct. Section L is revised to clarify terminologies.

(2) If Table L0004 Column Titles are correct, to which one does "Prime Contributors" in the first sentence of Section L para 3.4.2 refer?

(2) Section L0004 paragraph 3.4.2 is revised to clarify.

(3) Please confirm that by "Prime Contractor" that you mean the Offeror, and that only the offeror should be listed in "Prime Contractor" column. (Another interpretation would be that we should include the Primary contractor for that specific PWS Section/function).

(3) Yes. "Prime Contractor" is the Offeror.

(4) Please confirm that only teammates besides the offeror should be listed in the "Other supporting Contractor(s) Name" column.

(4) Yes. Teammates/Partners/Subcontractors proposed to perform 20% or more shall be listed under "Other supporting Contractor(s)" column.

10 Section L0004 90, 86-

Para 3.4.2 and Table L0004-1

We believe there is some ambiguity with the use of terms, "Prime Contractor," Primary Contributors," Prime Contributors," and "Other Supporting Contractor(s) Name." in the Team Structure Matrix and is some of the instructions, and we'd like to make sure we are using the correct definitions and fill the table out correctly.

The first sentence in Para 3.4.2 refers to "Prime Contributors" in the "Team Structure Matrix." The term Prime Contributors does not appear in the "Team Structure Matrix.

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA.

NO

ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

(1) Please clarify how many separate PPIFs in total that we are allowed for our entire team which includes the Prime, Primary Contributors, and others who may not be primary contributors by definition, but are on the team.

(1) 5 maximum PPIFs in total is allowed for the entire team (at least 2 from Prime). Paragraph 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 revised to clarify.

(2) Please clarify what you mean by "citation," specifically how a Citation differs from PPI and PPIF

(2) Citation is the same as PPI. PPIF refers to the recommended form to complete PPI submission.

(3) If all 5 of our PPIFs only cite 1 TO in each instance, does this mean that we can submit another 5 PPIFs (to get to a total of the 10 citation limit) for up to 5 other teammates, some who may not considered Prime Contributors, or is the USG really looking for a total of only 5 PPIFs? Asked another way, can we submit as many PPIFs as we need (with 2 coming from the Offeror) as long as we do not exceed 10 citations?

(3) Maximum 5 PPIs (using PPIF) only for the entire team. Paragraph 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 revised.

(4) We believe 5 PPIFs may be overly restrictive for teams that build a team based on the initial draft Solicitation.

(4) Because Past/Present Performance is evaluated as Pass/Fail and government access to additional Past/Present Performance data through other sources, we believe 5 PPIs are sufficient to help our evaluation team arrive with a Pass/Fail rating.

12 Solicitation 82 L0004, para 1.0(a)

Reference above is part of Volume I outline. What is to be included for this item in the outline?

Rationale: There are not instructions as to what to include under (a) Volume I Organization.

(a) Volume I Organization is the title for this section of 1.0. There is no separate requirement for 1.0(a).

Section L revised to clarify.

13 Solicitation 83 1.5 Reference states to provide all Teaming Arrangements and Letters of Intent, whereas the Volume I outline on page 82 states “Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent”.

Is it the Government’s requirement that bidders include full copies of Teaming Agreements (contractual document establishing teaming) as well as Letters of Intent of all teaming partners and subcontractors? Rationale: A Teaming Agreement may be 15-20 pages in itself;

whereas, the letter of intent is one page and states type of teaming arrangement and exclusivity.

Paragraphs 1.5 and 2.4 of Section L0004 revised to read "…Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent…" Letters of Intent will be acceptable.

We believe there is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "PPIs," "PPIFs" and "Citations" and in para 3.4.3 they all appear to be used interchangeably. Para 3.4.2 says that offer shall submit no more than 5PPIs for all Prime Contributors. Later on it says there is a 10 citation limit. The NOTE in Para 3.4.2 explains that "Offerors may choose to cite individual and specific projects performed under one non-order (TO / DO / BOA / BPA) effort with multiple Citations; however; each Citation counts toward the 10 Citation limit, and each Citations combined will count as only one PPI." Para 3.4.3 gives an example saying "a Citation identified in the Contract Number block FA0021-14-D-8888 references only TO 0007; however, the offeror includes information/work effort in the "Description of Effort" block for performance covering three (3) TOs (0007, 0015, and 0031, to include follow-on efforts). In this example, although only one (1) Order (TO 0007) is referenced by the offeror in the "Contract Number" block, the "Description of Effort" block includes effort from three (3) Orders;

therefore, the one (1) Citation shall count as only one PPI because work effort from three (3) Orders is discussed in the "Description of Effort" on one PPIF." We believe the two paragraphs are contradictory. Our interpretation from Para 3.4.2 was that if you referred to three TOs in an IDIQ contract that it would count as 1 of the 5 allowed PPIs, but it would count as 3 of the allowed 10 citations.

11 Section L0004 90 Para 3.4.2- 3.4.3

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA.

NO

ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

14 Solicitation 84 1.7(a) Reference states to include Section A thru J. Are these sections also required to be inserted in the bound hardcopy version and electronic version? Rationale: Since there are no fill-in section except for SF 33, would inserting a signed copy of SF33 satisfy the Government’s requirement for the bound hardcopy and electronic version?

Please include Section A through J. Section B, CLIN Descriptions requires offerors to fill-in rates; FAR Clause 52.219-28, have fill-in; Please review other FAR clauses for offeror to fill-in.

15 Solicitation 84 1.8 Requirement states to provide a “signed copy of the Reps and Certs , Section K.” Since there is no signature block in Section K, is it the Government’s requirement that bidders insert a signature block and signature on the last page of Section K and/or SAM. Or does the signed SF 33 satisfy the signature requirement?

Signed SF 33 satisfy the signature requirement.

16 Solicitation 84 1.8.2(a) & (b)

The referenced attachments do not exist in the final RFP, please advise.

Paragraph 1.8.2 revised to reflect correct attachments.

17 Solicitation 84 1.8.2 (c) Request the Government Clarify what is required to be attached, are you looking for a copy of the bidder’s response to Volume II, Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan?

If not, please advise and clarify.

18 Solicitation 84 1.8.1 and 1.8.2

To comply with the Volume outline on Page 82, should there be a new paragraph “1.9 Attachments to the Model Contract” inserted before paragraphs 1.8.1 and 1.8.2, and the previous paragraph numbers changed to 1.9.1 and 1.9.2.

Yes. Paragraph reference revised.

19 Solicitation 80 and

Table L0003-1

Is it the Government’s requirement that the entire Volume I be provided in its entirety, unbound, to include cover pages, TOCs and section dividers? Rationale: Page 84, paragraph 1.7 references the Model Contract as Section A thru J with attachments which leads bidders to believe the Government is seeking something other than the full Volume I in an unbound version as defined in Table L0003-1 on page 80.

Table L0003-1 revised to remove "Unbound" language.

NO. REFERENCE PG.

NO.

PARA.

NO

ISSUE / COMMENT QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

20 Attachment 1 Government’s formulas is not consistent with standard fully burdened labor rate build practices. It is missing the build of Overhead (OH) into the formula. While we could build this into the G&A column, G&A and OH are two separate rates. If the Government wishes to use their method for the build, they must recognize that it is outside normal practices and will not be reflected in the text of the Bidder’s Price Volumes. Typical equations are: Base Rate, Fringe = Base Rate * Fringe Rate; Overhead = (Base Rate + Fringe) * Overhead Rate; G&A = (Base Rate + Fringe + Overhead) * G&A Rate; Profit = (Base Rate + Fringe + Overhead + G&A) * Profit Rate.

Attachment 1 revised. See Section L0004 paragraph 4.6.

21 Attachment Please define FCCOM in column H and N. It appears that you may be using FCCOM as a “G&A” charge, but are applying it to Profit. Please reference above calculations.

If the Government is going to mandate how a Bidder’s price is built, additional clarification is required before proceeding.

Please refer to Section L0004 paragraph 4.6.

Attachment 1 or similar workbook is accepted provided at a minimum, the offeror submits the information identified in Attachment 1. However, the government revised Attachment 1 for clarification.

22 Solicitation 85 2.4 Reference states to provide all Teaming Arrangements and Letters of Intent, whereas the Volume I outline on page 82 states “Teaming Arrangements”. Is it the Government’s requirement that bidders include full copies of Teaming Agreements (contractual document establishing teaming) as well as Letters of Intent of all teaming partners and subcontractors? Rationale: A Teaming Agreement may be 15-20 pages in itself; whereas, the letter of intent is one page and states type of teaming arrangement and exclusivity.

Paragraphs 1.5 and 2.4 of Section L0004 revised to read "…Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent…" Letters of Intent will be acceptable.

Sheet1