Gov't Responses to Industry RFP Change Matrix - 29 Oct 10.docx

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS & RFP CHANGE MATRIX – 29 Oct 10 SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001, Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV (CAAS IV)

The Government’s spread sheet for computing the total evaluated price includes labor rates weighted against a total of 1000 hours. The spread sheet also includes plug numbers for material and travel which are summed with the labor cost to generate the total evaluated price for each site, location, and contract year. The plug-in dollar amounts for material/travel are very high relative to the dollar amounts that will result from the weighted labor hour cost. This results in an unbalanced cost/price factor where the evaluated price is not reflective of the actual performance of the contract. The approach greatly overemphasizes the value of the material/travel and underemphasizes the labor dollars in the Government’s evaluation of price.

We recommend that the Government reduce the material/travel numbers to be more reflective of the actual contract performance. For example, from our experience the material/travel for one full time person (1 FTE) would be roughly $10-15K per year. As such, for a .5 FTE (~1000 hours), a representative amount for material/travel would be $5K to $7.5K, instead of the $35K to $50K as currently is shown in the spreadsheet.

We reviewed impact to pricing table with current numbers and a variety of rates. In doing so, the Government determined that making the multiplier for travel and materials equivalent in nature to the labor is appropriate (i.e., based on 1000%) and puts the needed emphasis on labor. The multipliers have been adjusted accordingly to 130 for material and 870 for travel.

In RFP paragraph M-1.1, the Government identifies the competition as a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) in accordance with FAR Part 15 and AFFARS 5315.101-1. In the final RFP, the draft RFP paragraph was removed (M-3.1.6) that describes the tradeoff portion of the evaluation, i.e., under what circumstances the Government may exercise discretion to choose a higher priced Offeror. This change would appear to make the evaluation inconsistent with the FAR and AFFARS and make the competition Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable rather than a PPT.

Is this the Government’s intent? If not, does the Government reserve the right to make a best value tradeoff award to a higher priced Offeror and under what circumstances?

The Government will follow the evaluation methodology outlined in RFP Section M, paragraph M-3.1 and criteria for award in accordance with RFP Section M, paragraph M-1 (see in particular M-1.1 where it states (see underlined text), “This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and AFFARS Informational Guidance 5315.101-1, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), as further refined in this solicitation. “ and “The Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the minimum and/or target number of contracts in each of the aforementioned competition pools based upon Source Selection Authority (SSA) determination that it is in the Government's best interest.“)

Para M-3.1.1.4.2. states, “F&O Competition Pool. If the Government receives less than 10 proposals for evaluation in the SB Competition Pool, or less than 16 proposals remain after the Technical and Past Performance assessments, all proposals will be evaluated for Cost/Price. If any of the initial proposals is evaluated as unrealistically low (or unreasonably high) priced or has unrealistic costs, the proposal will be replaced with the next lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” or Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable” proposal with “Satisfactory” or higher Performance Confidence Assessment until there are a minimum of 10 proposals for cost/price evaluation or until all proposals have been evaluated for cost/price.”

It appears that they did not correct in the highlighted areas for a cut and paste from Para M-3.1.1.4.1. SB Competition Pool. Should this be to correct this to read “If the Government receives less than 10 proposals for evaluation in the F&O Competition Pool, or less than 10 proposals remain…”?

Done.

In Step 1, “Set Up Business Relationships,” we have been unsuccessful in our attempts to change “Offeror’s Name” to anything other than “PMI Contractors.”

Please provide directions on changing “Offeror’s Name.”

In “Set Up Business Relationships,” select any item(s) that do not pertain to your proposal (e.g., PMI Contractors) and delete. Select “New” and create inputs related to your proposal.

Question 2: The attached list is not included in the page count. However, only those items required for inclusion in the list will be considered.

L-8.1.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) and L-8.2 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

Section L-8.1.2.2 authorizes the use of PPISs in which the Offeror (or subcontractor) is a subcontractor on the referenced contract or task order. L-8.2 directs Offerors to send PPQs to the Points of Contact (POC) or Customer identified in the Offeror’s PPI sheet(s). In some cases, Offerors are competitively disadvantaged because the Customers are themselves potential competing Offerors on the CAAS IV acquisition and, therefore, the unbiased assessment of such Customers would be in question.

Question: If a sub-contractor and its Prime are on competing teams for this solicitation, can the sub send the PPQ(s) directly to the Government sponsor(s)? In such situations, we recommend that Offerors be allowed to bypass their Prime customer and direct the PPQs to the Government customer. We recommend the Government include the following language, which was recently published in an Air Force draft Request for Proposal:

“If the customer for any PPIS is a potential offeror (or critical subcontractor) for this solicitation, the offeror shall provide the POCs for the next higher level customer. Example, if Contractors X and Y are both potential offerors for this solicitation and Contractor X was a subcontractor to Contractor Y on workload performed for the government, then Contractor X shall provide both Contractor Y and the government POCs for each applicable PPIS.”

It is up to the Offeror’s discretion whether or not to submit their PPQ(s) directly to the Government when a subcontractor and it prime are competing for this solicitation.

The Government will not add the recommended language to the PPQ.

Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph A.2.

Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph A.2 on page 63 of the RFP calls for a list (with information and a brief description) for each underlying task/delivery order for ID/IQ contracts and BPAs used as past performance references. We are submitting an ID/IQ for past performance which currently has approximately 100 task orders, which will result in a very large amount of data.

a) Would the Air Force accept a list that contains some minimum number of relevant task orders on large ID/IQ contracts to permit an effective review? If so, what would constitute a minimum number to satisfy the Government’s evaluation needs?

b) Can we assume that these lists do not count against the 5-page limit of Section L-8.1?

See response to Question #8.

Will the Government clarify if they are looking for a full compliance matrix that lists all the RFP requirements on one side of the table and the location in the proposal (if applicable) where that requirement is addressed? Or is the Government looking only to ensure that specific Section L instructions and Section M evaluation factors have been addressed as per the example table?

Please prepare your matrix in accordance with the table at RFP Section L, paragraph L-7.2.

Will the Government exempt Subfactor 5 (SB Plan) from the page count for the Technical Volume as was the original intention when the SB Plan was to be included as part of the cost/price proposal?

See response to Question #2.

RFP Amendment 1 will include instructions for submittal at the beginning of Section K that requires this information to be submitted as part of Volume III, Cost/Price.

For ease of reading/evaluation, will the Government allow tables and graphics to contain Arial or similar font?

See response to Question #1.

E-mail received that this subfactor is not included in the Technical Volume page count, should this be an “Appendix” of the Technical Volume?

An “Appendix” is not required, but may be used at each Offeror’s discretion.

Question: Please confirm that the correct reference should be PWS paragraph 1.4.8.

The correct reference is PWS paragraph 1.4.8. RFP Amendment 1 will include this change.

Question 3A: Will the Government please clarify if Organizational Change History is required for only the prime, or for all companies for whom we submit past performance?

Question 3B: If the requirement applies to subcontractor past performance, will the Government please allocate additional pages to meet this requirement?

See response to Question #17.

The page count for the Organizational Change History will remain at two pages.

Question: Please confirm that the correct reference should be H-1 (b) 2?

You are correct. RFP Amendment 1 will reflect this change.

Question: Will the Government please clarify which NAICS code(s) apply to small businesses performing on large business teams?

Only the Prime’s NAICS is considered.

Question: Will the Government exempt any required SF294s required under this section from the 5-page limitation set for this tab?

See response to Question #2.

RFP Section B CLINs X001 (FFP LOE Term) CLINs changed to reflect that (see response to question #12), “The rates in Exhibit A, Table B-1, will be the maximum allowable rates for all FFP LOE Term Task Orders.”

X002 (FFP) CLINs updated to reflect that: “The maximum allowable rates in Exhibit A, Table B-1, will be used as the basis for negotiations on all FFP Task Orders.”

X003 (Cost Reimbursable Travel) CLINs updated to reflect that, “The travel handling rates in Exhibit A, Table B-1, will be the maximum allowable travel handling rates for all Task Orders.”

X004 (Cost Reimbursable Material) CLINs updated to reflect that, “The material handling rates in Exhibit A, Table B-1, will be the maximum allowable material handling rates for all Task Orders.”

X004 (Cost Reimbursable Material) CLINs updated to reflect a PWS reference of PWS Appendix D, paragraph 1.4.8 vs. paragraph 1.3.8.

X005 (Cost Plus Fixed Fee Term) CLINs updated to reflect that, “The maximum allowable rates in Exhibit A, Table B-1, will be used as the basis for negotiations on all CPFF Term Task Orders.”

Other miscellaneous administrative changes for consistency among the CLINs.

Changed reference in H-1 (a) 3) ii) to (b) 2) vs. (b) ii)

Adjusted as follows for Incorporated by Reference section: REMOVED: 52.227-14 ADDED: 252.227-7013 252.227-7014 252.227-7015 252.227-7016 252.227-7026 252.227-7027 252.227-7030 252.227-7037

· Beginning of Section K, added, “Any information requiring submittal to the Government as part of Section K shall be submitted in accordance with RFP Section L, paragraph L-9.2.2 as part of Volume III, Cost/Price and labeled as “Section K Information – Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors.””

· Paragraph L-9.2.2, changed to read (see underlined text), “Complete all required representations, certifications and other statements of offerors, and indicate if any information is contained in Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA).

· Table at paragraph L-5.3.3, added, “(See L-7.4.1.5)” to the page Limit for the Technical Volume.

· Paragraph L-5.3.5, added (see underlined text), “The organizational chart, acronym list, cross reference matrix, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Technical Subfactor 5), and overview section (for exceptions) will not be included in the page count.”

· Paragraph L-7.4.1.5, added at the end, “[Note: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not be included in Volume 1, Technical page count limitation per the table at paragraph L-5.3.3.]”

· See responses to Questions #8 and #16. Changed instructions for Contract Number to read (see underlined text), “Enter FFP, CPFF, ID/IQ, LH, etc. **If ID/IQ or BPA, offerors shall provide a separate list (outside of the tool and not included in the 5-page limitation for the PPI) showing each of the task/delivery order(s) performed under the ID/IQ contract or BPA, in addition to the period of performance, dollar value, place(s) of performance and a brief description (not to exceed 500 characters) for each underlying task/delivery order deemed appropriate to demonstrate recency and relevancy in accordance with L-8.1.2.4 & L-8.1.2.5. The limitations in L-5.3.1 apply to this list.”

· POC & Key Individuals Tab under Key individuals, stated “Chick New,” so changed to, “Click New.”

Changed multipliers for material handling rate to 130 and for travel handling rate to 870 to make those multipliers consistent with the process for development of the labor multipliers and to give labor the appropriate emphasis. Updated Table B-1 is reposted with this change 29 Oct 10.