RFP Q&A (3)_14Nov19.pdf

Contractor Questions to the RFP Answers 107.) Even if all members of a joint venture (JV) have a Facility Clearance (FCL), this does not grant the JV a FCL since the JV is a separate corporate entity. A JV (or any company) without an FCL would be ineligible for awards that required access to classified information. If a JV lacked an FCL, the Government would need to sponsor the JV for a facility clearance since it is a separate entity than the members. Sponsorship is approximately a one-year process. Why would the Government make an FCL a pass/fail requirement for all offerors except joint ventures?

See Section L 3.1.2 (b) 2 and 3.2.1a and Section M 3.3.1a updated in Amendment 3 dated 13 Nov 19.

132.) Regarding Section L, 4a(13) Public Health Specialist(s), can the government clarify or provide examples of labor categories or job titles that qualify as a public health specialist in terms of this solicitation, for example, environmental health technicians, biostatistician, nutritionist, health educator, etc.?

Examples include Biostatistician, Epidemiologist, Public Health Specialist, Public Health Technician

133.) If a Team meets the Gov't minimum point score, that team will be able to bid on all forthcoming subsequent task order opportunities, even if that team did not have specific prior experience filling a given specific specialty, e.g., recruiting a toxicologist or a flight surgeon involved in research, for example. Is this interpretation correct?

Yes.

134.) As a further clarification to Question 99, Does the Government intend to award to ALL offerors who meet the 2765 points and meet the intent of section M.2.5? The Government’s original intent was to make five awards. If the Government elects to increase the numbers of awards by lowering the evaluation to a minimum point threshold, it will not reward those offerors that spent the additional effort to provide a 100% solution. It is the industry’s impression that a maximum score will be needed to be one of the five awardees.

If the offeror substantiates the points and the Government validates in accordance to Section M, then yes. See Section M, 2.5. The Government's original intent was "up to 5 awards", that is no longer the intent.

135.) As a further clarification to Question 122, the subcontractor is not always able to access the prime contract award. Will the Government consider the subcontract award document with the prime contract number displayed as an acceptable alternative to the prime contract award document for projects performed as a subcontractor?

Yes, as long as the subcontractor work was done in support of a Federal Government contract.

136.) As a further clarification to Section L 3.1.3, rather than inserting all supporting documentation into a single large file, will the Government accept Volume II supporting documentation as separate PDF files on the electronic DVD submittal, with the scoring criteria number clearly labeled at the start of the file name?

Yes

137.) Special Notice, Page 1: Special Notice says there are changes in L, Paragraph 2.2 (3), (5) and (8). However the amended solicitation has no entry (8) and only goes up to (6). Is there an entry (8)?

Section L, Paragraph 2.2 (8) was removed in the amendment. That is the change.

There is no longer an entry for (8)

138.) RFP Amendment 1_ Section L, Instructions to Offerors, para 1.0 (j): For OCONUS, did the Government intend to say “include” rather than “exclude”?

For the purposes of this solicitation will the government include as OCONUS Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Territories and Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and U.S. territories and possessions?

"Excludes" is the correct terminology for this requirement.

139) Amendment 1 version of the self-scoring worksheet I have noticed the following that you might want to correct:

1. Cell L49 has an incomplete formula that causes an error condition in cells L58 and L60 once the checkbox is selected in cell D49 and data is entered into cell I49

2. Your Prime & Sub percentages in cells L61 and L62 appear to be based on the number of rows that have “P”, “S”, or “PS”. Based on how Section L is worded, it should be based on point totals with the denominator base number coming from cell G58

3. Your Prime & Sub percentages don’t add up to 100%

Self-scoring worksheet has been corrected and was posted to FBO, and moved to Beta.Sam, dated 07 Nov 19. The correct EXCEL document states 07 Nov 19 in the top, right of the document when opened.

RFP - Questions & Answers - 11/14/19

140) In the section below, how do you want us to address areas where we are using our teammates substantiation documentation on the self-scoring spreadsheet? Would we still use a “P” for work they were prime on?

3.1.2 Self-Scoring Worksheet

4 . In Column H , the Offeror shall mark “P” indicating the substantiation submitted for the corresponding ID is work performed as the Prime Contractor, the Offeror shall mark “S” indicating the substantiation submitted for the corresponding ID is work performed as the Sub-Contractor, and the Offeror shall mark “PS” indicating that the substantiation submitted for the corresponding ID contains both work performed as the Prime Contractor as well as work performed as the Sub-Contractor.

P = Prime for this solicitation and S = Subcontractor for this soliciation

141.) As I was reviewing the changes from Amendment 1 for one of my clients, I noticed that in the updated Attachment_5_-_Self_Eval_31_Oct_2019, that in Column I, row 41 for 5(e) if you enter anything for the location of the documentation, the Total Validated Score and the Proposal Rated Acceptance values go to #VALUE!. Looking at the formula in L58 for Total Validated Score it appears that it has an extra factor of "+I49"? Should we correct the formula or will the Government provide an updated Self-Eval sheet?

Self-scoring worksheet has been corrected and was posted to FBO, and moved to Beta.Sam, dated 07 Nov 19. The correct EXCEL document states 07 Nov 19 in the top, right of the document when opened.

142. As I was updating it today, I noticed the the Prime and SUB Percents were not calculating as identified in the RFP.

The RFP in paragraph 2.4 states, "2.4 Teaming. When proposing as a prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement, the Government will evaluate technical experience for prime offerors and subcontractor offerors, the prime offerors must account for at least 51% of the proposed experience (total evaluated points), subcontractors cannot account for more than 49% of the proposed experience ( total evaluated points). If the prime offeror is a joint venture (JV), the Government will evaluate technical experience for that JV’s members, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. §125.8(e). The SB protégé is required to complete at least 40% of the work (13CFR 125.8(c)) therefore shall account for 40% of the proposed experience (total evaluated points)."

The formula in the Attachment_5_-_Self_Eval_31_Oct_2019, is currently calculating percent based on the number of lines or categories that the prime is providing not the prime's evaluated points.

SUM(COUNTIFS(H9:H57,"P")/44)+COUNTIF(H9:H57, "ps")/88 for PRime and COUNTIF(H9:H57,"S")/44+COUNTIF(H9:H57,"ps")/88 for SUB.

Should this be a SUMIF function to sum Col G based on the Value of Col H divided by the total evaluated points?

Will you be providing an updated Attachment_5_-_Self_Eval?

Self-scoring worksheet has been corrected and was posted to FBO, and moved to Beta.Sam, dated 07 Nov 19. The correct EXCEL document states 07 Nov 19 in the top, right of the document when opened.

143.) Question #13 and #27 were not answered clearly in the Q&A. Is the JV required to have its own security clearance, in addition to all members of the JV?

See Section L 3.1.2 (b) 2 and 3.2.1a and Section M 3.3.1a updated in Amendment 3 dated 13 Nov 19.

144.) Q&A, #76 and Section L, Para 2.2.4(c)We are currently not in OFCCP.

Please clarify that contractors only need to provide Name, Address, POC and telephone number of the Prime and all First Tier Subcontractors in our proposal to be compliant?

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

145.) Page 81 of 155 of the RFP, Para 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 corrected.

146.) Section L, 4a(16) and 4a(17): Will the Government please describe the difference between Office Support and Program Support?

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.

147.) Requesting clarification in regards to Column H in Attachment 5 and the instructions in Paragraph 3.1.2 (b) 4 as amended.

1. For a mentor-protégé joint venture, can you clarify if P applies to the protégé member (managing member) and S applies to the mentor member, or vice versa?

2. How will the points be calculated across the prime and subcontractor share of work when PS is marked? Will the points be split 50/50 or will each entity be awarded the points?

3. Will the 40% of work be calculated based on the offeror’s score (40% of 2900 for example equals 1160 points), 40% of the minimum score (40% of 2765 equals 1106 points) or 40% of the total points available (40% of 3040 equals 1216 points)?

1. P = Protégé and S= mentor member

2. The points will be split 50/50

3. It will be calculated based on the offeror's score

148.) clarification question to Question 80’s response. Would contract supporting documentation as Adobe PDFs be acceptable?

Yes, but it needs to be searchable.

149.) For Specialty Physician Specialized Human Research, will placing an Optometrist qualify for this category? The Optometrist does have the physician credentials.

The requirement is for a physician. Physicians are licensed medical doctors that have attended medical school.

150.) For the Developing and Performing business management strategy for biomedical service requirements, can the Government provide specific examples of tasks that would fall under this requirement?

See Section L, paragraph 3.2.5K

151.) For the Developing and Performing business management strategy for biomedical service requirements, would placing biomedical personnel qualify?

See Section L, paragraph 3.2.5K

Sheet1