RFP_Q&A_(2)_01Nov19.pdf

Contractor Questions to the RFP Answers 8.) "Period of Performance under this contract shall be 60 months from date of award for completion of performance for Task Order(s). This statement implies that individual task orders must be completed on or before the end of the 60th month. Can the Government clarify if this is correct?

F002 Period of Performance has been updated. The IDIQ will have a 5-year ordering period with a 6-year period of performance.

17.) Supporting Documentation. Does the Government require the supporting documentation provided in its entirety or just the page that is applicable to supporting scoresheet?

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.

40.) Please confirm definition of OCONUS as outside the contiguous 48 states. UPDATE: See Section L, 1.0(j) For the purposes of this Solicitation, “OCONUS” excludes Hawaii, Alaska and the U.S. Territories.

42.) This states that “Offerors shall ensure the page numbers match for each technical element identified in Column I of the Self-Scoring Worksheet.”

Is the government’s intent for offerors to cite the page number of the supporting documentation in column I along with the type of documentation listed?

Can a single supporting document be referenced for multiple lines of the Technical Experience to validate experience?

Please see Section L paragraph 3.1.3: “Supporting documentation can be applied to more than one row on the Self-Scoring Worksheet". Yes, you can submit single supporting docs for multiple lines. Yes, cite the page number.

46.) Are there specific or special evaluation criteria for rating the experience and past performance of a prime offeror who utilizes parent or subsidiary company experience and past performance if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experience and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?

Past performance will not be evaluated. When proposing as a prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement, the prime must substantiate at least 51% of the total evaluated points, subcontractors cannot substantiate more than 49% of the total evaluated points. When proposing as a JVA, the SB protégé is required to substantiate at least 40% of the total evaluated points.

75.) Section L, Para 3.2.4 (16) and (17): Please explain the difference between Office Support and Program Support Administrative Assistants since it is not defined within the PWS or solicitation. Give examples if possible.

4a(16): Administrative Assistant(s) specialized in Office Support – similar to secretary but more responsibilities

4a(17): Administrative Assistant(s) specialized in Program Support – similar to program administrator.

84.) Can the government confirm that newly formed Joint Ventures must submit the JVA approval by SBA to the PCO before award and that the SBA Joint Venture Approval Notice and Approved JVAs should only be submitted with Volume I if already received by submission date?

Section L Para 2.2 (5) "SBA Joint Venture Approval Notice" will be updated.

92.) In accordance with 5. management 5h-fl, Offerors shall describe their experience in having developed and performed busines management stratgey for…Will the Government please define "developed and performed business management strategy"? What type of documentation must Offerors provide to show proof of experience in having developed and performed business management strategy?

See Section L, 3.2.5 and Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.

94.) Reference 5(f) Providing corrective action plans to fix concerns regarding employee performance and professionalism: Can the Government please advise if the corrective plan should be corporate based personnel or contract-specific personnel?

Either, as long as it meets the instructions in Section L, 3.2.5

99.) If an offeror meets the threshold of 2765 on the self-scoring sheet and is verified accurate during evalutins, would this be considered a guarentee of award to the offeror?

If the offeror substantiates the points and the Government validates in accordance to Section M, then yes. See Section M, 2.5.

101.) Can the Government please elaborate on the role and responsibilities of the Local Company Management Representative (Sec 2a of Self-Scoring Worksheet)?

Local company management representation verified by a print-out from MapQuest, or similar application, is company representation within driving distance between the local company management office and the address Building 840, 2510 Fifth Street WPAFB, OH 45433. The Government expects business and management of the contractors employees for inprocessing and other functions.

102.) Is the Local Company Management Representative a mandatory requirement to be awarded the IDIQ?

Failing to have Local Company Management Representation does not automatically diqualify an offeror for award, however they will not receive the points if they do not provide verification and receive Government validation.

104.) Post-IDIQ award, for task order proposals - will the government please confirm if prime contract holders will be required to follow a formal onboarding process and/or receive the government’s approval to utilize/include a teaming partner (that was not included as part of their team in the IDIQ proposal) on a task order proposal?

There will not be a formal onboarding process.

RFP - Questions & Answers - 11/01/19

105.) RFP Solicitation Section L.3.2.5f states “5f: Provided corrective action plans to fix concerns regarding employee performance and professionalism. The Offeror shall submit both: a redacted concern from a Government office, removing all personal identification information; and a Government-approved redacted corrective action plan from the Offeror, removing all personal identification information,” in order to score 200 points on the self-scoring worksheet per section M.3.3.5f. If a company has never had a situation where the government sent a concern regarding employee performance or professionalism, how can an offeror claim these points? As currently written, a company that has not experienced personnel performance or professionalism issues is being penalized. Would the government consider deleting the points from M.3.3.5f as well as deducting it from the “required minimum score of 2765”?

Section L has been updated

106.) Will the Government allow a prime contractor to also be a subcontractor on another team for this effort?

Yes

108.)RFP States “2.1.3 Contract award(s) will be made to the offeror(s) proposing the highest technically rated proposals.” And also states “2.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award a contract to all qualified offerors who meet an Acceptable rating for the Technical Experience Factor and all solicitation requirements.”

Please clarify is only the highest rated proposals receive award or if any qualified offeror who meets and “Acceptable” rating will receive an award?

Section M, Paragraph 2.1.3 has been updated. Also, reference Section M, 3.1.

109.)The RFP States “The Offeror shall submit a Facility Clearance report based on prime offeror or JV cage code verifying that an active FCL exists.” Is providing an CAGE code sufficient to provide an active FCL exists?

No.

110.) The RFP States “Supporting documentation can include any of the following: contract award document, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, invoice, CDRLs, or redacted payroll rosters or CPARS. A Multiple Award (MA)”

Questions:

1) Are these the only forms of available substantiation or is there flexibility in providing “substantiating documentation” such as providing the Human Resources Manual in 5(m)?

2) What information should be “redacted” and what information should be evident in redacted payroll rosters?

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.The offeror shall make the determination on what information should be redacted

111.) Is proof of liability insurance required at the award of the Task Order level or the award of the IDIQ level? Do Joint Ventures entities need to show proof of liability insurance or just the individual companies?

See Clause H.5 Liability Insurance. Required at the To level.

112.) Is hand-delivery of a proposal an option? Yes, see section L for the address.

113.) Reference: 5 (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) “developing and performing business management strategy for…”: Can the Government please provide a definition of “developing and performing business management strategy” for each of the management areas in 5 (h) (i) (j) (k) (l)?

Please see Section L, paragraphs 3.2.5.h – 3.2.5.l.

114.) Reference: 5 (h) (i) (j) (k) (l), Can the Government provide acceptable areas of support that would meet the service requirement of “Medical Service”, “Research Laboratory Service”, “IT Service”, “Biomedical Service” and “Educational Service”.?

Please see Section L, paragraphs 3.2.5.h – 3.2.5.l.

115.) Reference: Self-Scoring Sheet, General Across all requirements. Will the Government allow the same Past Performance reference to be used to fulfill and claim points for multiple self-evaluation requirements?

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.

116.) Across all requirements. As new requirements may emerge, will the Government allow the on-ramping of subcontractors with relevant Current and/or Past Performance to fulfill the requirements?

There will not be a formal on-ramping process.

117.) Reference: Self-Scoring Sheet, Section 3 Requirements (c) and (f) state “Recruited and placed 5 or more qualified personnel at more than one geographical location” and “Managed 5 or more qualified personnel at more than one geographical location” respectively. When a relevant contract PWS specifies objectives rather than a number of FTEs as contract line items, will the Government accept either an applicable invoice or payroll register indicating the assigned contract number as additional supporting proof of the points claim?

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.

118.) Reference: Self-Scoring Sheet, Section 4 Requirement (6) Specialty Physicians Specialized in Patient Care. Will the Government accept utilization of a Specialty Physician specializing in Education to also fulfill this requirement if the PWS stipulates that said Physician must be credentialed and privileged to serve as a Health Care Provider (HCP) to provide services as a physician providing patient care and consultation on-board Air Force installations and at Air Force medical clinics?

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.

119.) Self-Scoring Sheet, Section 4 Requirements (12) Toxicologists and (18) Public Health Specialists. Will the Government accept utilization of either a Biologist, Chemist, or an Industrial Hygienist to fulfill each of these requirements as they research/investigate/quantify the effects of toxins and drugs on cell and tissue cultures, and given that the work involves the collection, analysis and interpretation of data to reach conclusions related to occupational safety and health? If so, may the Self-Scoring Sheet be revised to show (12) Toxicologists/Biologists/Chemists/Industrial Hygienists and (18) Public Health Specialists to include Toxicologists/Biologists/Chemists/Industrial Hygienists?

The Self-Scoring Sheet will remain as is.

120.) Has the contracting officer made and documented a finding that past performance need not be an evaluation factor in this procurement?

And, if so, may we have a copy of that document?”

The contracting officer has made a determination that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor IAW FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii) for the IDIQ evaluation.

The contracting officer’s documentation is an internal government document not available for release.

121.) May an offeror using subcontracted Federal Technical Exeperience either of their own or a teaming partner to substantiate a technical score provided it can substantiate the experience through signed documents from that subcontracted experience’s prime contractor, payroll, or other information? Note:

Subcontractors typically do not get CPARs or Award Documentation signed with their information that would substantiate their past performance.

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation.

122.) Many of the responses to questions state “the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation”? Will the Government consider specifying which lines of the Technical Experience required a signed contract award? As a question, if the item being verified comes from subcontracted past performance, it is likely that the offeror will not have the signed award document since it goes to the Prime. Will the government consider alternative substantiating documents?

See Section L, 3.1.3 Supporting Documentation The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to provide substantiating documentation that is sufficient to validate the self-score. Additionally, the Government will require the signed front page of the contract award for validation. The government will not consider alternative substantianing documents.

123.) Page 81 of 155 of the RFP, paragraph 1.1 (b) Joint Venture Agreements – states “If the Offeror is proposing as Joint Ventures (JVs), including Mentor Protégé JVs, the JV agreement must be approved by the SBA before award.”

This statement, according to the SBA, is correct in contrast to the required documents on page 83 of 155 of the RFP, paragraph 2.2 Volume Organization

(5) SBA Joint Venture Approval Notice. Will the Government please clarify and/or correct this contradiction? The SBA is not willing to provide Offerors with a Joint Venture Approval Notice for the 711th Human Performance Wing Mission Support Services effort until the time of award. In the event that this is not addressed, Offerors may be considered non-compliant and unacceptable in our responses.

Section L has been updated.

124.) Per RFP 3.1.3, Vendors are allowed to apply supporting documentation “to more than one row” on the Self-Scoring Worksheet; and, per the DRFP Q&A Vendors are allowed to ‘include’ various types of supporting documentation, although the Government “will only evaluate until validation is determined”. As such, a vendor may choose to use one supporting document across numerous ‘rows’ on the Excel self-scoring Worksheet. Question: Will the government allow the vendors to submit all supporting documents in one (or more) consolidated “Attachments” proposal section, then simply cross-reference these page numbers and headings (in the “Attachments”) within the technical expertise section, and separately comply with requirements for ‘Column I' of the Excel file? This will reduce the need for vendors to duplicate the insertion of lengthy supporting documentation multiple times, across numerous ‘questions’ within their proposal.

Yes, as long as it is clear to the Government where to locate the information.

125.) Are vendors required to show a lease to prove we have a local office? A signed contingent offer letter sufficient 127.) Does the Government intend to limit on the number of acceptable Teams it will consider for this opportunity? If so, what is that number?

No.

128.) If there is a limit on the number of eligible participant teams (those meeting or exceeding the Government's minimum acceptability score, how will the Government determine that number, e.g., order of merit list from the highest to lowest acceptable total scores?

No limit.

129.) 1. Section L 2.2.4 Equal Opportunity: In the event an offeror does not have an active Notice of Compliance at the time of proposal submission and the Contracting Officer is required to submit a pre-award request to OFCCP on the offerror’s behalf, what verbiage (if any) should the offeror include in section (7) Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance (EEOC) Documentation of Volume I?

See FAR 22.805 & 48 CFR § 22.805 - If a company is not in the OFCCP Registry, the Government CO requests a pre-award clearance. Name, address, point of contact, and telephone number of the proposed contractor;

Name, address, point of contact, and telephone number of each proposed first-tier subcontractor with a proposed subcontract of $10 million or more

130.) 2. Are tables and figures permitted in Volume II? Yes 131.) 3. In regards to the electronic copy for Volume II, is it the government’s wish to have supporting documents embedded in the same .pdf as the summary responses, or have them separated (e.g. folders on the CD/DVD)?

Either is acceptable as long as it is clear to the Government where to locate the information.

Sheet1