FA2521-22-R-0011 Attachment_L-01 Govt Responses to RFP Questions.pdf

Source Selection Sensitive Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

No. Question Answer RPF Section/Exhibit/

Attachment Page/Paragraph Other(specify)

Inconsistant Time Periods.

Starting with Option Line Item 9001 thru 9411, will the Government please clarify the Delivery Schedule (Period of Performance dates) and the Quantity, i.e. 3 months, 6 months or 12 months.

The 10th year of the contract is broken out into two parts, the first is for a six month period of performance and second part is for the six month option to extend services. CLINs 9001 thru 9011 is only for a six month period of performance.

CLIN 9013 is 3 months only for phase-out during the last six months of period of performance. CLINs 9401 thru 9411 is for the six month Option to extend services.

CLINs 9005 and 9405 should each be for a period of performance of 6 months instead of 12 months. Solicitaiton Section B

Attachment L-01 Question and Answer Template

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

Will the Government confirm that only subcontractors that exceed those thresholds ($15M or 10% contract performance) are required to submit cost/pricing data at the same level of detail and in the same format as the prime’s cost proposal.

There are no percentages or dollar amounts that need to be exceeded to be considered a subcontractor. Section L paragraph 4.2.7 references that Subcontractor Information is required for all subcontractors performing under a cost CLIN and shall be submitted in accordance with Section L paragraphs 4.2.7 and 4.2.7.1.

Attachment L-02 L.4.2.7.1 Subcontractor Analysis

On worksheet "CLIN X002" Total Price Row 10 is not capturing Row 9 Sub cost. Will the Government confirm this is correct?

The formula is incorrect and should be in Row 10 Column B =SUM(B8:B9). The cost workbook will be corrected and an amendment will be posted. Attachment L-03

Will the Government confirm that tables, charts, graphs and figures displayed on 11x17s count as 1 page.

11 x 17 pages in accordance with 1.4.1.5. will be considered as one page for the purposes of page count.

Attachment L-02 L-1.4.1.5. Tables, Charts, Graphs and Figures

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

CLINs 9005 and 9405:

Delivery Schedule reflects 6 months, but the QTY states 12 Months. Will the Government clarify if CLINs 9005 and 9405 is 6 months or 12 months in Section F and Section B?

Answered in Question 1 above.

We will correct Sections B and F in the RFP.

Section F and Section B

All worksheet labeled CLIN 'XXXX', All 6 Month Extensions are reference CLIN "9401".

Will the Government correct to reflect each appropriate CLIN?

Yes, the Government will correct to reflect the appropriate CLIN in the cost workbook.

Attachment_L- 03_ABOS_Cost_Price_ Workbook.xlsx

Workload clarification.

The estimated hours listed for 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.6, 6.8 are accounted for under the "1300 WO / Annually" listed on page 6.

Attachment 19_ABOS_Workload_In dicators.pdf

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

Please confirm the performance year period as the referenced period in Section L 4.2.6.1 does not align with Section F stated Deliveries of Performance.

In Section L paragraph 4.2.6.1.

Rate table the performance year period should be (1 Jan - 31 Dec) instead of (1 Dec - 30 Nov) for the first 9 year ordering periods and the 10th year will be broken into two six month periods and be the same as Section F Deliveries Period of Performance. This will be corrected. Section L 4.2.6.1 Rate Table

Section L, paragraph 3.1 states: "Each offeror shall submit up to four FACTS Sheets". The proposed limit for up to 4 most recent contracts for the prime or offeror’s team” is not sufficient. Because an offeror may have several team members it is recommended that a total of six past performance citations be allowed to meet the requirements of Section M Table 2.

This was answered in the responses the Government provided in the Draft RFP Question and Answers posted to sam.gov under this solicitation under Question 18.

The response given was "An Offeror is not required to submit a FACTS sheet for each team member. It is up to the Offeror to submit FACTS sheets for recent and relevant contracts IAW the criteria established in Sections L and M." Section L Page 9/Para 3.4

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

Will the government please define the percentage of the contract that must performed by a team member in order to be considered a subcontractor? Answered in Question 2 above.

General question.

Not found in

RFP.

Will the Gov please clarify the Statement "Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant". Please define recent and relevant.

Does that mean (i.e. AIMS, ROS, CLOIS, etc.)?

In Section M paragraph 3.3.1, "Data from previous source selections be used if the data is recent and relevant." This can include any source selection data from any recent or relevant contract as defined in Section M paragraphs 3.4 and

3.5. Section M

Para 3.3.1. Other Sources of Information

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

Para 3.6 States: "More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort".

This seems like an unfair process and provides an advantage for the incumbent. Please define your standards for how the Government will grade more recent vs older citation if all citations submitted (5 years ) meet the requirements per Para 3.4?

Section M paragraph 3.6., "The Past Performance Confidence Assessment is based on recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluation." It is in the Government's best interests to assess confidence based on an Offeror's ability to perform the requirements of the solicitation; Past Performance is used to determine this confidence, and it is logical that more recent and more relevant past performance would be of greater interest than less recent or less relevant past performance. The total Performance Confidence Assessment will take all of these factors into consideration when assigning a rating. Section M

Para 3.4 Recency Definition and Para

3.6 Performance

Confidence Assessment

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

Section L Para 3.5 States:

"Offerors should exert their best effort to ensure that at least two POC per relevant contract submit a completed PPQ directly to the Government no later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals." What kind of evaluation rating will you give an offeror if only one PPQ POC provides a PPQ?

Will it be graded at only 50%? What is the standard this will be graded at?

Would an offeror be afforded the chance to provide another PPQ POC submission?

In Section L paragraph 3.5, ...Offerors shall not submit Past Performance Questionnaires to contract POCs for which they did not submit a FACTS Sheet." If the Government only receives one PPQ for one specific citation, then that will be the only PPQ evaluated for that specific citation. PPQ submissions are evaluated under Past Performance as part of the Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA); a fewer number of PPQs provide the Government less information for evaluation which could ultimately impact the PCA rating. Section L

Para 3.5 Past Performance Questionnaire

The plug amounts used for CLINs 9409 & 9410 in the TEP & applicable CLIN tabs do not match the amounts IAW Section B.

Please clarify the correct amounts to be used.

The amounts in the Section B are correct. CLIN 9409 should be $50K and CLIN 9410 should be $100K. This will be updated in the cost workbook.

Section B & Cost Price Workbook

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

The formula located in the rate column of the CLIN x006 escalates each year by 3%. Is this the required % of escalation or can this formula be altered to best represent the offerors' proposed escalation strategy? (I.e. Exempt wages vs SCA wages)

The rate column has been left blank and the formula was removed from CLIN X006. Cost Price Workbook

For the Mentor Protégé rating stucture; will the Government use the same standards as used for a Prime/Sub rating?

Per Section M Para 3.6, "Past performance of the offeror will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of a subcontractor." Section L Para

3.1 goes into greater detail concerning Mentor Protégé definition. Section M / Section L Para 3.6 / Para 3.1

For the FACT Sheet format in Attachement L-06 the alphabetical sequencing for Items A-I are incorrect.

The format shows two "Fs" in the sequencing. Will the Government please provide a corrected copy?

We will be correcting the FACT sheet and putting out an amended copy to industry.

Attachment L-06 FACTS Sheets Pages 2 and 3

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

Labor Hour Variance.

Beginning on the worksheets "1 Jan 24 - 31 Dec 24" through "1 Jan 32 - 30 Jun 32", It seems the Government wants the labor hour variances to be measured only against "Yr- 1". Please verify this is the Government's intention or does the Government prefer it to be measured on a year-to-year basis (ex.

Year 1 vs Year 2, Year 2 vs Year 3, etc.)?

It is the Government's intention for Offerors to measure any variance in labor hours against "Yr-1".

Attachment 4 L- 04_Staffing_Matrix.xlsx

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment L-01

ABOS Q&A