LRSW SEI 28 Sep RFP questions and responses update.pdf

Questions/Responses regarding the 28 Sep LRSW SE&I RFP solicitation:

Sec L-1

1. Page 5, paragraph 9 identifies the full-time equivalents by LRSW 3020 appropriation, by 45 LCG 3400 appropriation, and 30 LCG 3400 appropriation. However, in paragraph 10, the government estimate does not distinguish between 3400 and 3020. Does the government intend to provide separate estimates for LRSW 3020, 45 LCG 3400, and 30 LCG 3400?

The Government will not be providing separate estimates under paragraph 10.

2. Page 5, paragraph 9 identified 105.8 FTE equivalents. Does the Government estimate (Reference L-1, page 6, paragraph 10) assume 105.8 FTEs for the base year and 104.8 FTEs for all subsequent option years?

Yes

3. Reference Page 7, subfactor 7, paragraph 1): With regard to the 20% small business requirement, referenced SMC H033 refers to “a minimum, at 20% of total number of FTEs for the contract.” Yet in this paragraph “the percent of total small business subcontracted dollars shall be no less than the 20% subcontracted small business FTE dollars on contract.” Please clarify.

SMC H033 is correct Section L-1 page 7 subfactor 7, has been corrected to read as follows: “. . .

the percent of total small business subcontracted shall be no less than 20% of the number of FTEs on contract .” However, SMC-H033 paragraph c was also changed to be consistent with this requirement.

4. In Attachment 3, Past Performance Information, the 1st paragraph states: “Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program being described. … Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program submitted. Limit the number of past efforts submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraph III (c), of Section L of this solicitation.”

a. Was the reference intended to be to paragraph V.(g).5).D in Section L-1?

Yes, L-1 Attachment 3 has been updated to reference V.(g).5).D

b. The form provided is inconsistent with the margins and type size allowed in paragraphs V.(g).3) and 4) of L-1. Must the provided form be used or can a contractor form providing the same information and conforming with L-1 formatting instructions be used?

The form has been updated to conform with L-1 formatting instructions; however the offeror may use its own form if it complies with L-1 formatting.

5. In Attachment 3, Past Performance Information, Paragraph H states: “For each of the applicable task areas under Mission Capability in Section M, illustrate/explain how your experience on this program applies to that task area.” We can find no “Mission Capability” section nor any “task areas” in Section M. Was the reference intended to be to the eight function areas in the PWS?

Yes L-1 Attachment 3 paragraph H has been corrected as follows:

For each of the applicable eight task areas in the PWS, illustrate/explain how your experience on this program applies to that task area.

6. Attachment 5, sheet 1 refers to PWS 1.2.1.5.6.1 and 1.2.1.5.6.2 . There are no corresponding PWS paragraphs. Please clarify.

Change reference PWS paragraphs 1.2.1.5.6.1 and 1.2.1.5.6.2 to 1.2.1.5.5.1 and 1.2.1.5.5.2 respectively.

7. RFP Section M, pages 6-8 includes Attachment 2, Past Performance Evaluation Sheet Questionnaire. We are unable to identify any specific RFP instructions or evaluation criteria regarding this questionnaire. Please explain how this questionnaire will be used during the evaluation and if Offerors have any responsibility for sending it to contract references.

Offerors have no responsibility for sending the questionnaire to contract references. Each of the responses to the questions in the questionnaire will be rated relative to the legend identified with the questionnaire. The definitions of the legend terms have been provided with the questionnaire.

8. RFP Section M, page 1 states: “Initially, the government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable.” Please explain how an Offeror with a technical proposal evaluated as “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable” will be handled during the price evaluation and performance confidence assessment.

Sec M002 paragraph 2.B has been updated to remove “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable”. Unacceptable technical proposals will not be further considered.

9. RFP Section H007, page 34 identifies 8 key positions that Offerors must provide candidate resumes. It is our understanding that most, if not all, of these positions are currently staffed by a SETA contractor. Given the Government’s insistence at the pre-proposal conference that LRSW SE&I is a new requirement and not a follow-on to an existing SETA contract, we respectfully request that the minimum key positions identified in Section H007 be deleted and that Offerors provide their own assessment of key positions to accomplish the LRSW SE&I requirements. In the alternative, if the Government insists on identifying currently staffed positions as key, we respectfully request that position descriptions and qualification criteria be provided by the Government for each designated key position and included in the Section M evaluation criteria for Subfactor 2.

The Government is only providing a list of the minimum named key positions. The offerors are to assess the specific qualifications/experience associated with these position titles based on their own personnel systems requirements for such jobs, which will vary from offeror to offeror.

10. RFP Section L, page 5 states: “For proposal purposes for each of the ten years, the Government estimated Full Time Equivalents (FTE)s are as follows:” Since the Government has not specified workload data in the PWS, we assume that Offeror’s are required to propose the FTE’s identified in the Government estimate. Further, RFP Section M, page 3 states: “The probable cost is determined by adjusting the offeror's proposed CLIN costs including all options, and fee, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels.” We assume that Offeror’s proposing other than the Government estimated FTE will be adjusted to the Government estimated FTE level for proposal evaluation purposes. Please confirm the validity of our assumptions.

The assumptions are not valid. The FTE counts in the RFP were provided to give offerors a basis for considering the magnitude of the efforts needed at each location. The intent is not to adjust the offeror’s FTE count to match the Government’s FTE estimate but to evaluate the proposal cost realism, Gov’t OCI mitigation MPC impacts, pricing errors, FPRA discrepancies, etc in the offeror’s proposed effort.

11. RFP Section L, page 10 states: “Typing shall not be less than 12 point except data in tables may be 10 point.” Please confirm that data in exhibits other than tables (e.g., charts and process diagrams) may also use 10 point font.

Data in charts, process diagrams and spreadsheets may also use 10 point font.