QAs 4th set of clarification questions

4th Round of Questions and Answers for the GEITA11 Solicitation No. FA8903-12-R-8000:

1. Reference 3rd round of Government responses, Q&A # 11. We believe that this response, which averages the subcontractor handling fee in a JV allows for JVs to game their subcontractor handling fee and gain an unfair advantage over small businesses that are submitting a proposal. We feel the likely scenario is:

a. A unpopulated JV with a small and large business or two small businesses in it submits a proposal

b. In their proposal technical/contract volume they specify that only one of the partners in the JV will subcontract work

c. In their pricing proposal one of businesses (the small) submits a subcontractor handling fee, the other business submits a contractor handling fee of 0% or of a very low number. This would possible because one of the JV partners would not subcontract any work.

d. In this scenario with the current L attachments the TEP would have an average that would be skewed, an example is provided below

i. JV partner 1 submits a subcontractor handling fee of 3% on its L-4 and L-5

ii. JV partner 2 submits a subcontractor handling fee of 0% or a low rate of 1% on its L-4 and L-5

iii. The subcontractor handling fee for the TEP is then averaged on L-6 producing a fee of 1.5% (or 2%)for the TEP

iv. On the contract the L-4 and L-5 are applied and the JV partner is still able to charge a 3% handling fee, even though their fee on the TEP is lower

e. Because the TEP is the first evaluation point we feel that this approach provides an unfair advantage to JVs and allows them to game the TEP.

We feel that this pricing model approach creates an unleveled playing field which gives JVs a significant advantage. It allows JVs to propose a subcontractor handling fee on the TEP which they are not held to on the contract.

Even in the event that the partners rates are not extremely unreasonable (0% for example) or unbalanced it still provides JVs an advantage. In the case of a 2% fee and a 3% fee the average of the two would be 2.5% which would give the JV a pricing advantage. In addition the JV would not be held to that rate because the 3% rate would be in the L-4/L-5 and thus would go on record with the contract.

The original third round question and answer to Q&A #11 was as follows:

Reference RFP Section L, 5.4.2, and attachment L-6, Pricing Model, page 4/18.

Question: The Offeror is required in RFP Section L Section L, 5.4.2, to complete the pricing model worksheets (Attachment L-6) to calculate the Offeror’s total evaluated price. The spreadsheet as designed is for a prime and multiple teaming members. In the case of the Prime being an unpopulated Joint Venture (JV), consisting of two venturers, the spreadsheet is not useful as designed. Both members have equal standing in the JV. As designed, only one member of the JV will be able to submit indirect rates for ODC’s and Subcontracts (L-6, Pricing Model, page 4 of 18). Because we are unpopulated JV, each venturer will be providing direct labor using its own FFP fully burdened rates as well as its own indirect rates for ODCs and subcontracts. Will you redesign Attachment L-6 to allow for all JV members to provide their indirect rates for ODCs and subcontracts? If not, will you clarify in the instructions how an unpopulated JV is to prepare Attachment L-6 with respect to?

Answer: For purposes of computing the subcontracts and other direct cost on atch-L-6, the pricing model, only the prime’s (JV) indirect rate(s) will be used. In the event the unpopulated JV does not have its own indirect rate(s), the JV must use an average indirect rate comprised of the two JV member’s rates to compute the other direct cost and subcontracts costs in the pricing model.

In accordance with section-L, paragraph 5.5, the prime (JV) is required to have an approved accounting system to perform on CPFF type contracts. The JV must decide which venturer’s accounting system will be utilized and approved to perform as the prime.

The revised answer in response this question is as follows: For purposes of computing the subcontracts and other direct cost on atch-L-6, the pricing model, only the prime’s (JV) indirect rate(s) will be used. In the event the unpopulated JV does not have its own indirect rate(s), in accordance with section-L, paragraph 5.5, the prime (JV) must establish rates and submit one set of rates. Each venturer is not to submit it’s own indirect rates. Only one attachment L-4 and one attachment L-5 is allowed to be submitted using the rates established by the prime (JV). In addition the prime (JV) is required to have an approved accounting system to perform on CCPF type contracts. The JV must decide which venturer’s accounting system will be used. For the pricing model (Attachment L-6) the JV must use the same rates as proposed on attachments L-4 and L-5.

2. The government response to Question #134, stated that a forthcoming RFP amendment would incorporate the indicated formatting change. Amendment 2 did not incorporate this change, therefore, a conflict exists between the formatting instructions in Section L, para 2.3.11.1(h) and the response to question # 134. Please advise which set of instructions we should follow and when we may expect the forthcoming amendment.

Answer: Comply with amendment 0002, page 13 of 24, paragraph 36.

3. Reference 3rd round of Government responses, Q&A #1. The Government’s response to Question #1, specifically the statement “The government’s intent is not to eliminate firms solely on the basis of the TEP as part of the first step as explained in the answer to question #79” implies a nuance that contradicts the Government’s previous answer to #79 and Section M evaluation criteria. Both these sources state that in step 1 of the evaluation, the government will: a) assess proposes TEP for accuracy and completeness; b) rank offers from lowest to highest; and c) select lowest 18 for further evaluation – in essence “eliminate firms on the basis of the TEP”. Your answer says this is NOT the government’s intent. Please explain how accomplishment of steps a, b) and c) above will NOT result in elimination of firms on the basis of the TEP.

Answer: As stated in the response to Q&A #1, 3rd Round, “Only 18 offerors will be selected for evaluation in Step 2, unless after evaluation of the initial 18 lowest proposals, there is insufficient awardable number of proposals to meet the government’s minimum capacity/capability requirements”.

4. Reference 3rd round of Government responses, Q&A # 17. The Government response to Question # 17 is in two parts. The second part, specifically the statement “The labor rate would apply to the individual task order only” contradicts the first. The second part seems to allow the prime to propose a team member at the task order level even though the team member did not submit a rate for that labor category in the basic contract. Is that the Government’s intent? Are you saying that after contract award the prime can add team members without regard to the rates already on the contract?

Answer: No, the intent is that if by chance there is a rate for a specific labor category that is not covered in the basic contract, it would be negotiated at the task order level. However, based on the way the rates are categorize occurrence of situation is determined to be minimal.

5. In looking over the latest set of Q&A, I was thinking about the financial information previously submitted. Our company, XXXX was form in XXXX and then merged with a 13 year old company in January. Last month, I only submitted information for XXXX since its inception, but now I am wondering if I should also submit financial information from the company we merged with in January to provide more of a financial history? The reason I didn't original submit that financial information is that corporation no longer exists after the merger – XXX XXXX is the surviving corporation and will be the corporation who will be audited.

Would it be beneficial for you to also have the previous companies' financial information - or just confusing? Also, if we only submitted the information hard copy, would it be beneficial to submit the electronic copy now as well?

Answer: You are required to submit financial information on the company as of the date of proposal; therefore you are required to include any financial data on the company that you merged with. Electronic copies are required per section L, paragraph 5.6.

6. In Amendment 0002, the government revised Section L, para. 5.6 Finance Documents, subparagraph (b) by adding the Prime and Team Members financial documents should be emailed to afcee.geita11@us.af.mil no later than 66 days after the release date of the solicitation. A team member has expressed concern about sending unsecured files containing sensitive financial information to a generic mailbox. The Team Member has a way of sending sensitive files as secured attachments but it would require the recipient to go to a Cisco website, register and obtain a key to open the attachment. Is this something the government is willing to do? If not, is there another option? Hard copies were already hand delivered on March 9th.

Answer: This e-mail address was developed specifically for the GEITA11 team. It is restricted for only certain team members to access. The government has firewalls to prevent unauthorized access to any information received at this email address.

7. Since Amendment 2 changed the Section L definition of Offeror to, “the Prime contractor and all named team members submitting a single proposal in response to this solicitation,” please clarify how that change affects the requirements of Section L 5.5 and 5.6 and Section M 2.2.1. Do the Accounting System and Financial Documents requirements in those sections still apply only to the Prime Contractor and to Team Members performing 20% or more of the proposed contract effort? Or do all of these requirements apply to the Prime Contractor and all named team members in our proposal?

Answer: Section-L, paragraph 5.5 only applies to the prime. Section-L, paragraph 5.6 applies to the prime and team members performing 20% or more. Section-M, paragraph 2.2.1 only applies to the prime.

8. Do to the volume of questions and our follow on question on how to deal with subcontractor handling fees we would like to request and extension of 2 weeks for the GEITA11 proposal.

Answer: Do to the volume of Q&As, the proposal due date was already extended from 9 April 2012 to 30 April 2012. Therefore, the proposal due date of 30 April 2012 will not be extended any further.