HCaTS_Draft_RFP_Industry_Questions_(05192015)_(1).pdf

Question Answer Category / Topic

If the offeror possesses a Top Secret Facility Clearance, can they claim the points for

Secret and Top Secret since they exceed the 'Secret' Facility Clearance level

This scoring element will be removed. Accreditation

Will the government also accept the Associate Certified Coach (ACC) certification for

HCaTS key personnel?

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Accreditation

Additional points are awarded for several certifications that are relevant to the performance of HCaTS related services (ISO 9001, CMMI, etc), but the sustainability certification isn't relevant to the offerors ability to effectively perform human capital

The HCaTS PMO has removed ISO 14001:2004 as an accreditation and it will not appear in the final RFP.

Accreditation

Many training & learning professionals have degrees that are not specifically in

"Instructional Systems Design" but are focused on design & development of learning experiences for adult learners. Will the government accpet alternative degrees in areas such as: Education, Adult Learning, Instructional Technology, or Adult

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Accreditation

Many human capital and training experts have degrees in releavnt fields that are not specifically identified as human resources or human capital. Will the government accept degrees in disciplines such as: Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Organization Development, Management, or Business Mangement/Administration?

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Accreditation

Please note: All information is subject to change. We are sharing this information now for transparency. Please continue to check the HCaTS Interact blog

(https://interact.gsa.gov/hrfssi) for additional updates and changes. Additional changes will be found in the final RFP

HCaTS Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) Q&A

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

P.53, Section H.6.1 Question: Please confirm whether or not the small business must have a recent DCAA audit. Specifically, being audited is outside the control of a

(small) business as it’s the government’s decision who and when to audit, and many small firms have never received an audit. Our accounting system (Deltek) is capable of being fully compliant with DCAA’s requirements for an acceptable accounting system. Please confirm if the government is requiring small businesses that bid on this effort to have had an audit prior as a condition of bidding on (or being awarded this) IDIQ or if either of the following would be acceptable: (1) An outside firm conducts an audit of the potential awardee following the same audit requirements as

DCAA and presents a determination of findings to the government, or (2) The government notifies DCAA to come in and audit those businesses without audits prior to making a final award.

All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the

Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. If an Offeror has an accounting system that was audited by the DCAA within the last three years and there have been no changes, their system will not need to be audited again. Only Offerors with audited accounting systems will be able to compete for cost-reimburseable type work at the task order level.

Accreditation

H.6.5 EVMS is primarily used on large production contracts. Since this contract is focused on HCaTS, it is not reasonable to use attainment of EVMS certification as a discriminator. Recommend elimination of EVMS as a scoring factor.

Although the FAR requires the use of EVMS in major acquisitions for IT/systems development, there may be task orders issued under

HCaTS that can benefit from EVMS, especially under KSA 3.

Accreditation

H.6.5 The use of commercially integrated EVMS systems, such as DELTEK’s EVMS module, provide similar benefits as a self-administered ANSI/EIA Standard-748 certified system. Will the HCaTS team consider commercially integrated business system EVMS tools, such as Deltek’s ERP EVMS module, for points under L.5.4.4?

No Accreditation

H.6.8 ISO 14001:2004 specifically allows for self-certification. Companies working with the certification, therefore, may or may not have a 3rd party providing independent validation of the use of these processes and yet this may make a difference in scoring. Recommend acceptance of self-certification or removing this

This Accreditation has been removed. Accreditation

H.6.2-5: We recommend removing the award of additional points for the possession of audited estimating and purchasing systems as well as forward pricing rates agreements (FPRA), forward pricing rate recommendations (FPRP), and approved billing rates. We appreciate that the HCaTS PMO is not considering these as mandatory or minimum requirements; however, Offerors who have met these criteria

This recommendation was considered but the RFP will not be amended.

Accreditation

H.6.1: We recommend removing the requirement that Offerors possess a DCAA-audited accounting system. This mandatory requirement may disqualify Offerors with strong relevant capabilities from participating and reduce competition at the task order level. We recognize that there are instances in which Cost Plus contracts are necessary and that a certified accounting system supports these contracts, but a large number of task orders issued under HCaTS will not fit under this description and are likely to be firm fixed price. There are also challenges associated with cost reimbursable contracts, such as added administrative costs and constrained access to an Offeror’s full complement of services. As a result, we recommend only requiring cost reimbursable contract pricing at the task order level, when necessary. Cost

This recommendation was considered. Accreditation

L.5.4.3 Credit is applied for the scoring element of Forward Pricing Rate

Agreements (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR), and/or

Approved Billing, if applicable. This element, however, is not scored evenly. There are more points awarded for FPRAs vs. FPRRs - and further based on time of approval (even points for expired FPRAs or expired Approved Billing Rates). It is requested that GSA reconsider this methodology and award one set of points for any current FPRA, FPRR, and/or Approved Billing Rates. This would be fair and consistent with the methodology of scoring under OASIS.

We will revisit the allocation of points for each scoring element. Accreditation section H.7 “Cost Accounting Standards”: Per 48 CR 9903.201-1, CAS is not required for Firm Fixed Price or commercial item acquisitions; both of which will be

The labor rates awarded under HCaTS will be awarded as Fixed

Price with Economic Price Adjustment (FP EPA), to be referenced

Accreditation

L.4.1, L.5.4.1: Should the offeror submit two separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.1 is to submit an official audit report and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the audit? This requirement conflicts with the Proposal Format Table. The table indicates that the page limit is limited to the audit only. If the offeror is to submit two separate documents, what naming convention should be used for the second document?

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

L.4.1, L.5.4.2 Should the offeror submit two separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.2 is to submit an official audit report and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the audit? This requirement conflicts with the Proposal Format Table. The table indicates that the page limit is limited to the audit only. If the offeror is to submit two separate documents, what naming convention should be used for the second document?

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

Accreditation

L.4.1 and L.5.4.3 Should the offeror submit separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.3 is to submit an official audit report and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the audit? This requirement conflicts with the Proposal Format Table. The table indicates that the page limit is limited to the audit only. If the offeror is to submit two separate documents, what naming convention should be used for the second document for the FPRA, FPRR, and Approved Billing Rates?

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

Accreditation

L.4.1, L.5.4.4 Should the offeror submit two separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.2 is to submit an official audit report and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the audit? This requirement conflicts with the Proposal Format Table. The table indicates that the page limit is limited to the audit only. If the offeror is to submit two separate documents, what

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

Accreditation

L.4.1, L.5.4.5 Should the offeror submit two separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.5 is to submit a certification and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the certification? This requirement conflicts with the

Proposal Format Table. The table indicates that the page limit is limited to the

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

Accreditation

L.4.1, L.5.4.6 Should the offeror submit two separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.5 is to submit a certification and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the certification? This requirement conflicts with the

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

L.4.1, L.5.4, 7 Should the offeror submit two separate documents since the requirement in L.5.4.5 is to submit a certification and to provide POC information and reference page and paragraph of the certification? This requirement conflicts with the

Proposal Format Table. The table indicates that the page limit is limited to the

This information will be input into the Self-Scoring Sheet

(Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2).

Accreditation

We are a current small business TMA contractor and have been performing training and human capital studies for over 17 years. We have never once needed many of the certifications called for in the solicitation (e.g., ISO, CMMI, EVS). We believe there is the danger, that having these certifications in the scoring system could skew the outcomes in unanticipated ways. For example, it may be that small business IT firms that do some human capital and training projects on the side would score higher than true training and human capital firms. We request you eliminate these certifications (or further reduce their point count).

We have removed the ISO 14001 and CMMI certifications and the

Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry

Feedback.

Accreditation

The current requirements and evaluation criteria outlined for vendors to compete on the small business vehicle significantly impact the number of qualified vendors to support this human capital requirement. Moreover, the evaluation criteria are hyper-focused on operational processes (e.g., EVM, estimating systems) rather than on the core of what the Government is interested in—quality of services to customers.

Based on the current requirements, it is questionable as to whether the Government will get the most qualified pool of small businesses. It is our recommendation that the

Government consider removing these additional process-centric evaluation criteria for the HCaTS SB vehicle and rather focus on criteria that evaluate the vendors’ ability to successfully deliver goods and services to the Government.

We have removed the ISO 14001 and CMMI certifications and the

Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry

Feedback.

Accreditation

C.3.3 Given that IT is considered an ancillary support service or product on HCaTS task orders, will the Government remove additional scoring points for EVMS?

Justification/Reason/Explanation: The FAR only requires the use of EVMS in major acquisitions for IT/systems development. Similarly, OPM-specific guidance requires

EVMS in major acquisitions for IT development. IT and system

Although the FAR requires the use of EVMS in major acquisitions for IT/systems development, there may be task orders issued under

HCaTS that can benefit from EVMS, especially under KSA 3.

Accreditation

L.5.4.7 ISO 14001:2004 specifies the requirements of an environmental management system (EMS). The registration/certification process is costly and can take several years. Will the government remove additional scoring points for ISO

14001:2004? Justification/Reason/Explanation: Contractors specializing in human capital and training solutions are unlikely to have accredited EMS and therefore will be penalized relative to large system integrators, manufactures and ther suppliers that also happen to provide Human Capital and Training services.

This accreditation will be removed from the RFP. Accreditation

H.6.1-3 The Department of Defense (DOD) has established business system criteria in the DOD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), see DFARS

Yes, a Cognizant Federal Agency auditing any accreditation with the exception of the Accounting System is allowed.

Accreditation

H.6.1-3 In many cases, DCAA has never audited a contractor’s accounting system. If

DCAA has never audited the contractor’s accounting system is the contractor

All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the

Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their

Accreditation

H.6.4 The creation and change of FPRA, FPRR, PBR and/or Approved Billing Rates is frequently the result of negotiation with the cognizant ACO. If there is no audit report, is there a specific submission requirement for some other type of information or will a contractor explanation of the change be sufficient?

The RFP will be amended to allow for a CFA's Contracting Officer's determination as verification. It will also be amended to state that the FPRA, FPRR, and Approved Billing Rates shall bave be current and audited/determined acceptable within the last three years.

Accreditation

Does the Government have performance data that demonstrates that a company having ISO certification or a CMMI rating performs better than companies that do not have ISO certification or CMMI rating?

The CMMI Certification will be removed from the RFP. There will also be changes to the ISO accreditations that are scoring elements. These were determined based on reseach and industry feedback.

Accreditation

How will the Government verify that the division/organization/group within the company that submits a proposal stating that they are ISO certified are actually the division/organization/group that will be performing the work?

The Offeror shall submit enough verifiable information to substantiate the division/organization/group that is submitting the proposal is the one that has the certification. The HCaTS PMO will audit contracts and reach out to Ordering Contracting Officers to verify that the Contractor is performing in accordance with its contract.

Accreditation

What is the value of an Earned Value Management Systems in the Size Standard for small businesses under $11 million (Pool 1)?

The HCaTS PMO chose accreditations based on their value for work that may be performed and not based on size standard.

Accreditation

Will the Government consider providing credit for accreditations such as IACET, whereby Offerors have undergone a rigorous third-party review and have met the nationally-recognized standards set forth by ANSI and IACET to ensure high quality continuing education and training programs for adult learners? IACET is the

This accreditation was previously under consideration and was determined not to be included in the RFP.

ISO 14001 was designed for manufacturers to demonstrate how they protect the environment. Given this is a services-only vehicle can the government explain why application of this standard is relevant (adds points to the evaluation) and how the government intends to apply it post award?

This accreditation has been removed from the final RFP. Accreditation

When the government requires proof of ISO certification it becomes a cost-reimbursable line item on a contract. Will the government in fact reimburse

No, requiring proof of an ISO certification does not make it a cost-reimbursable line item on a contract. Offerors are eligible for

Accreditation

References from C.3.3., M.7: L.5.4.4; L.5.4.5; L.5.4.6; L.5.4.4.7; L.5.4.9

Discussion. C.3.3. states that, “IT is considered ancillary support service or product on task orders and may be performed and/or provided only when the service or product is integral and necessary to complete a total integrated solution under a

The CMMI and ISO 14001 Certification will be removed from the

RFP. There will also be changes to the ISO accreditations that are scoring elements. These were determined based on reseach and industry feedback.

Accreditation

F.5 Performance Standards reads . . . . “The Contractor shall maintain throughout the ordering period of HCaTS, at a minimum, the accreditations at time of contract award.

For example, if a Contractor’s proposal included an acceptable accounting system

The RFP will be amended to reflect your recommendation. Accreditation

M.7, F.5 Performance Standards reads . . . .“An acceptable accounting system is mandatory for all Contractors. Compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) are mandatory unless covered by exemption under 48 CFR 9903.201-1 and 48 CFR

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Accreditation

H.6.2 – H.6.8, M.7 In Section H of the RFP, there are numerous certifications that offerors are “encouraged” to have. These include things such as an acceptable estimating and purchasing system, forward pricing rate agreements, EVMS, CMMI

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel and ISO 14001

Certification scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final

RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Accreditation

Section H.6, Accreditations, and Section H.6.1, Acceptable Accounting System. Many small businesses, especially 8(a) businesses, have not yet undergone DCAA compliance audits of their accounting systems. Therefore, to demonstrate that a

HCaTS SB Contractor maintains an “acceptable accounting system,” how will the determination of “acceptable” status be rendered? Is it adequate for the Contractor to possess an accounting system that is listed on the HCaTS Program Management

Office (PMO) master list of acceptable accounting platforms/software systems? Or, All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the

Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. If an Offeror has an accounting system that was audited by the DCAA within the last three years and there have been no changes, their system will not need to be audited again. Only Offerors with audited accounting systems will be able to compete for cost-reimburseable type work at

Accreditation

Sections L.5.4.6 and L.5.4.7 (Page 127) outline scoring elements for ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 14001:2004 certifications. These certifications are heavily focused on product development and are significantly less relevant to service-oriented industries.

Specifically, these certifications are virtually never required for human capital and training tasks. Will GSA consider removing these certification from consideration?

ISO 14001:2004 will be removed from the RFP Accreditation

Systems and Certifications

We recommend that GSA reevaluate the systems and certifications included in the

DRFP to ensure that they are relevant to contract performance under the future

The HCaTS Team has removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Accreditation

FPRA/FPRR/Approved billing rates—Credit is applied for Forward Pricing Rate

Agreements (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR), and/or

Approved Billing, if applicable. However, these items are not scored equally. There are more points awarded for FPRAs vs. FPRRs - and further based on time of

We have removed expired FPRAs as a scoring element. Since

FPRAs are actual agreements, as oppose to an FPRR, which are just recommendations, we believe the FPRA have additional value.

Comment: In sections L.5.4, the Government includes scoring elements for EVMS

ANSI/EIA Standard 748, CMMI Capability Level 3, MCCI Maturity Level I, and ISO certifications. These certifications are most commonly beneficial to and required in the Information Technology (IT) field. They are cost prohibitive for cost conscious, medium sized companies that specialize in Human Resources and Human Capital

Management (HR/HCM).

The CMMI certification will be removed from the RFP. Accreditation

Page 127-129 of the RFP: L.5.4.1 Acceptable Estimating System, L.5.4.2 Acceptable

Purchasing System, L.5.4.3 FFRA, L.5.4.4 EVMS Will the government confirm that a small business, if tied to a large business or other entity, may NOT use the other entity’s systems as if it were their own for points?

Within a corporate structure, an Offeror may utilize resources from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary provided that the meaningful relationship was in place at the time the contract or task order being submitted as a Relevant Experience Project was performed. The Government shall allow an Offeror to take credit for any evaluation element, including Relevant Experience

Project(s), accreditations from a parent company, affiliate, division, Accreditation

Section H.6.2, pg 51: Acceptable Estimating System

In our experience, an estimating system is required when there is a need for a contractor to provide certified cost and pricing data as outlined in DFAR 215.408(2).

FAR 15.403-1 and DFAR 215.403-1 outline the prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data. The type of services outlined in the draft RFP are normally provided as commercial services, and adequate price competition normally exists. Both are

This recommendation was considered but the RFP will not be amended.

Accreditation

Section H.6.3, pg 51: Acceptable Purchasing System

FAR 44.3 states that a contractors purchasing system review (CPSR) only be conducted “If a contractor’s sales to the Government (excluding competitively awarded firm-fixed-price and competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment contracts and sales of commercial items pursuant to Part 12) are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 months”. It is our experience that the services that will be requested under this contract are normally procured as

This recommendation was considered but the RFP will not be amended.

Accreditation

For these optional systems – would the government consider accepting a third party assessment? Or would the government make enough time for offerors to go through a DCAA audit?

No, all optional accreditations shall have been received by the date the RFP closes by a Government entity.

Accreditation

Question: Can the government provide further clarification to the following requirement: The Contractor shall have and maintain an acceptable accounting system that will permit timely development of all necessary cost data in the form

All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the

Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. If an Offeror has an

Accreditation

Credit for Earned Value Management Systems should be granted only at the task order level, where it is clear whether and how EVMS is relevant and of value.

Consideration should also be given to aligning any EVMS requirement to the new

This recommendation was considered and the RFP will not be amended.

L.5.1.5. and H.6.1 We strongly recommend that the requirement to secure a future

DCAA audit not be a pass/fail requirement at the IDIQ level.

• The predecessor contract, TMA, successfully met agencies needs without procuring cost reimbursable contracts, and the requirement at the IDIQ level is overly restrictive for FFP and T&M Task Orders.

• It penalizes those firms whose core services directly relate to Pools 1 and 2, such as firms who performed successfully under the TMA contract and new competitors who successfully perform for many non-DoD federal agencies as well as other industry sectors but have not required a DCAA audit in the past, while inappropriately providing an advantage to those firms who perform Pool 1 and 2 services as an ancillary function, but have DCAA audits.

Offerors are not required to have an audited accounting system prior to award. All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. If an Offeror has an accounting system that was audited by the DCAA within the last three years and there have been no changes, their system will not need to be audited again. Only Offerors with audited accounting systems will be able to compete for cost-reimburseable type work at the task order level.

Accreditation

L.5.4.4 We recommend that the government remove the option to receive additional points for an EVMS from the RFP for the following reasons:

• EVMS is required for major acquisitions for development, according to the FAR, Although the FAR requires the use of EVMS in major acquisitions for IT/systems development, there may be task orders issued under

HCaTS that can benefit from EVMS, especially under KSA 3.

Accreditation

L.5.4.5 With the elimination of the original Pool 3, we recommend modifying this section of the RFP to only include CMMI Maturity Level 3 for Services. Many Training and Human Capital consulting companies do not have CMMI in Development due to the nature of work. Allowing CMMI in Development would give an advantage to those

This certification has been removed. Accreditation

Would the Government consider removing the mandate for Small Business contractors to have an accounting system audited and found acceptable by DCAA from the HCaTS SB RFP? This mandate is understood for the large business track, however, most small businesses do not have audited accounting systems.

Small businesses are not required to have an audited accounting system prior to award. All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. If an

Offeror has an accounting system that was audited by the DCAA within the last three years and there have been no changes, their system will not need to be audited again. Only Offerors with audited accounting systems will be able to compete for cost-reimburseable

Accreditation

1. Page 26 of 144 . . . F.5 Performance Standards reads . . . . The Contractor shall maintain throughout the ordering period of HCaTS, at a minimum, the accreditations at time of contract award. For example, if a Contractor’s proposal included an acceptable accounting system and ISO 9001:2008 certification and made a part of contract award, then the Contractor shall maintain an acceptable accounting system and ISO 9001:2008 certification for the duration of the HCaTS ordering period.

Comments/Suggestions: We recommend the statement be reworded accordingly . . .

“The Contractor shall maintain or exceed throughout the ordering period of HCaTS, at a minimum, the accreditations at time of contract award. For example, if a

The RFP will be revised to reflect equivalency for successor certifications.

Accreditation

2. Page 26 of 144 . . . F.5 Performance Standards reads . . . .“An acceptable accounting system is mandatory for all Contractors. Compliance with the Cost

Accounting Standards (CAS) are mandatory unless covered by exemption under 48

CFR 9903.201-1 and 48 CFR 9903.201-2. All other accreditations (i.e., certifications, clearances, systems) are optional;”

Your recommendation will be considered. Accreditation

7. Pages 51 and 52 of 144 . . . H.6.2 Acceptable Estimating System, H.6.3

Acceptable Purchasing System, H.6.4 Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, H.6.5

Your recommendation will be considered. Accreditation

8. Page 53 of 144 . . . H.6.6 CMMI Level Certification

Comments/Suggestions: This certification is predominantly used in the manufacturing industry. While CMMI can be a beneficial certification to achieve, there has never been a requirement for CMMI for training and human capital

The CMMI certification will be removed from the RFP. Accreditation

9. Page 53 of 144 . . . H.6.8 ISO 14001:2004 Certification This accredidation has been removed. Accreditation

Standard Form 1408 is labeled as 5 questions with sub-sections under each question

(e.g., 2(a)) - The solicitation states "offeror is not required to answer questions 3 through 21" - does this refer to numbers 2-5 with all subsections? Is there an SF1408

The final version of J.3 Pre-Award Survey will reflect the correct information.

Attachments

REFERENCE: Draft Section J.10 NAICS Code Re-Determination Form; Page 1

OFFEROR COMMENT/QUESTION: Discussion: On April 3, 2015, the Government issued Section J attachments to the Draft RFP which included Section J.10 “NAICS

Code Re-Determination Form.” This Form states: “Contracting Officers: You are receiving this form because the Offeror cited in Section I claims that the majority of

Attachment J.10 NAICS Redetermination form will be amended in the final RFP to state that this redetermination is solely for the purposes of the evaluation of HCaTS and any redetermination will not require of the Contracting Officer to take any action or make any changes in the original contractual documents or how it was

Attachments

J. 7 The Cost-Price Worksheet instructs “Editing or reformatting this sheet in any way is prohibited and will result in your worksheet not being reviewed”

Would the government allow the offeror to edit the Cost-Price Worksheet in order for

No, the Offeror must fit their cost elements into those provided into

J.7 Cost/Price Worksheet.

Attachments

J.5.2 and Section H.6.1 states “Only those Contractors that maintain an acceptable accounting system, as approved by the HCaTS CO, shall be eligible for task order solicitations.” In addition, the Attachment J.5.2, Self Scoring Work Sheet requires contractors to state whether their accounting system has been audited. These statements may lead the reader to believe that contractors that have not been audited by DCAA may be barred from the award of task orders from this

RFP. Or it may simply mean that said contractors will need to have their systems

All Offerors eligible and considered for award will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. Only Offerors with audited accounting systems will be able to compete for cost-reimburseable type work at the task order level.

Attachments

L.5.1.2 Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) seems to be missing from the posted attachments. Can you please provide Attachment J.2 for Offerors to review?

The Final RFP will have this attachment included. Attachments

J.5.2 and L.5.2.1 Column F does not calculate beyond row 16. Instructions to offerors on page 120 state that the sheet should auto-sum. Will the Government please provide an updated copy of Attachment J.5.2 Self Scoring Worksheet SB Pool 2 in which the auto-sum calculations are included?

The Self Scoring Worksheets (Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2) were released in draft form and will be fully functioning when released with the RFP.

Attachments

L.5.2 This section states that “Additional instructions for filling out Relevant

Experience Projects Template is found in Section J.5.3 (Self Scoring Worksheet SB

(Sample)).” Attachment J.5.3 seems to be missing. Can you please provide

Attachment J.5.3 for Offerors to review?

This will be released with the RFP. Attachments

Attachment J7 states that “DCAA audited rates should be input” however the solicitation does not indicate that a DCAA audit is required prior to submission. Will the government clarify or remove the requirement for DCAA audit prior to submission?

All Offerors that are considered for award based on being in the

Top 40 proposals per Pool will have the option to have their accounting system audited by DCAA. If an Offeror has an accounting system that was audited by the DCAA within the last

Attachments

Recommendation 4: Eliminate Estimating the Total Value of a KSA within J.5.1 and

J.5.2 Scoring Sheets

This will be removed in the final RFP. Attachments

On the pre-award survey, Section III question 4 – Can you define “full operation”? Fully operational for a commercial accounting system means that the Offerors accounting system is able to handle all contract types and generating inputs and outputs, and all components of the accounting systems are operational.

Attachments

On the pre-award survey, Section III – what information is required to “validate” an answer in section 3?

Each question in Section III states what form of substantiation is required for an affirmative response.

Attachments

The modified Pre-Award Survey Comment box has a limited field capacity (75 characters). Is this intentional?

This will be amended in the final RFP. Attachments

L.5.5 “The Offeror shall propose ceiling rates for T&M/L-H task orders by completing

Columns H through V of the Cost/Price Worksheet.” The Cost/Price Worksheets only include Columns H through N. Please correct either spreadsheet or instructions.

The instructions will be amended in the final RFP. Attachments

J.3 Preaward Survey SF 1408 HCaTS v.01 The form, in its current state, cannot be edited and the comment sections on the form aren’t large enough to accommodate our responses. We suggest the government make the form editable and/or increase the size of the comment sections so that we can enter sufficient responses.

The comment sizes will be increased in the final version. Attachments

J.6 Past Performance Substitute HCaTS v.01 The form, in its current state, requires the contracting officer to admit to incorrectly assigning the original NAICS code. We suggest that GSA change the form to allow the contracting officer to state what

NAICS code “could” have been selected rather than “should” have been selected.

The language in the final J.10 will be amended to state that the

NAICS Code determination is solely for evaluation purposes for

HCaTS and does not change any official contractual documents nor reports.

Attachments

Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2, Self Scoring Sheets. We recommend that the requirement of the submission of the Self-Scoring sheets as a part of the proposal be removed. Contractors cannot be impartial when scoring themselves, and will likely try to apply various techniques and schemes to skew their point values upward, exploiting any unintentional loopholes that might exist in the forms. The Self-Scoring sheets seem like an extra paperwork burden of limited value, because all respondents will be averse to rating themselves negatively, even when they are well

The RFP states "in the event the Government discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent Relevant Experience Project information, documents, statements, and/or claimed points in

Section J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self

Scoring Worksheet Pool 2), the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award."

Attachments

Page 123 of the RFP: L.5.2.3.5 Relevant Experience project Period of Performance.

“For each Relevant Experience Project submitted, the Offeror will receive additional points if the period of performance meets or exceeds the following:…”On the self-scoring worksheet it states, “These values are only for the portion of the project that is contained on the PPIRS or Past Performance Substitute Form. If the project is only partially completed, then the duration and total value should reflect that.” Despite the instructions, the self-score worksheet implies that you can only claim credit for the months already exercised. This seems to give an advantage to work that has expired or is near expiration, versus work that is ongoing. It would also give an advantage to

The current methodology treats value and duration equitably.

Offerors are permitted to take credit for all work that they have performed, regardless of when the work was performed so long as some portion of the period of performance, including the base and any option periods, falls within the last five years from when the

RFP closes.

The Self Scoring Sheet (Attachments J5.1 and J.5.2) will be corrected in the RFP to not require those elements be validated by

Attachments

Attachment J.10 details how to correct an incorrect NAICS code for relevant projects.

In some instances, a NAICS code was never assigned to a federal project. Should we still use the same form and just put “N/A” or equivalent in the box in Section II, letter c, and request that the Contracting Officer identify the correct NAICS code?

Yes. The RFP lists several sources of substantiating the NAICS

Code of the Relevant Experience Project. If none of these have an identified NAICS Code, then J.10 NAICS Code Confirmation Form may be used and the Contracting Officer will list the awarded

NAICS Code as "none".

Attachments

J.6 Past Performance Substitute Form:

J.6 Past Performance Substitute Form, Item a. (Contract Number/Project Number) asks for the “Contract number or Project number that you are evaluating.” Some of our clients use internal agency project numbers to identify projects. These may or may not correspond with the PIID number that is coded into FPDS for the project.

Is it acceptable for the client to use the internal project number they have assigned the project, or do we need to direct them to use the corresponding FPDS PIID number?

The text field provided for “k. Contract Effort Description” is only 94 characters in

When using FPDS-NG to substantiate a NAICS Code, the Offeror shall submit enough information to substantiate that the contractual document's contract/task order/project number relate to what is included in the FPDS-NG report.

Attachments

We have a scenario in which we have a uniquely qualified Relevant Experience

Project where the Prime Contractor is unreachable and no longer available to complete the Substitute Form. However, we do maintain contact with the Govt.

Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative.

All past performance information for Relevant Experience Projects shall be completed by someone authorized to rate the performance of the Offeror. Since the Government does not have privity to the contract between the Prime Contractor and the Subcontractor, the

Government cannot rate the past performance of the

Attachments

How will the assessment or handling of the potential appearance of a conflict of interest where competing offerors may be evaluating each other?

HCaTS team recognizes Prime Contractors are not required to rate their Subcontractors and complete the J.6 Past Performance

Substitute Form, and First-Tier Subcontractors need to prepare for that event. First-Tier Subcontractors will make a business decision

Attachments

What happens if the performance rating for the First-Tier subcontractor is different than the performance rating assigned by the government to the federal prime contractor?

GSA is only evaluating the past performance information of the

Offeror and will not consider the past performance information of another entity; therefore, it will not matter if the Prime Contractor's past performance rating differs from the past performance rating of the First-Tier Subcontractor.

Attachments

Page 93, Section L.2.4 indicates that there will be 40 awards in each pool. Are these

40 small business awards, or a combination of 40 large and small business awards?

Both contract vehicles, Unrestricted and Small Bussiness, will have

40 contract awards per Pool. This is a total of 160 awards. The

Small Business Contract Vehicle is set-aside for small business;therefore, all 80 awards will go to small businesses. Any

Awards

REFERENCE:Unrestricted DRFP, Page 92, Section L.2.4 Single or Multiple Awards.

1) Pool 1; 2) Pool 2. OFFEROR COMMENT/QUESTION: For each pool listing, it states: “Maximum Number of Multiple Awards: 40”

Both contract vehicles, Unrestricted and Small Bussiness, will have

40 contract awards per Pool. This is a total of 160 awards. The

Small Business Contract Vehicle is set-aside for small

Awards

REFERENCE: Unrestricted DRFP, Page 62, Section H.19

OFFEROR COMMENT/QUESTION: Solicitation states that “the Contractor shall attain a minimum of three task order awards or a total task order estimated value of

$1.5M prior to the exercise of Option I. Failure….may result in a Contractor being Off-

Ramped.” Would the Government consider an alternative metric based on the number of proposals submitted over time, for example six submissions prior to Option

I? Shouldn’t the goal of using this contract be to encourage companies to submit

The RFP will be amended to include language allowing Contractors to substantiate a good faith effort in responding to solicitations solicited under their respective Pool(s).

Awards

G.2.6 This is a clarification with regards to section G.2.6 and if there will be 1 awarded contract, or 2 (one for each pool). Based on that clarification it is our assumption that if 2 contracts are awarded, there is no need to have 2 key personnel per contract; only 1 PM and 1 CM for the overall IDIQ; however, (see recommendation on line 6) large business only needs one contract total.

If an Offeror submits one proposal for both Pools, the Offeror will be awarded two separate contracts provided that they win awards in both Pools.

Awards

In section I.2.3.4, it states that, “The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the

Secretary of Labor.” Earlier in the DRFP you mentioned adjustments to labor rates based on the employment cost index (ECI). Do you consider prevailing labor rates

Yes Awards

H.23.2 7. Is the “lowest scoring contractor” the contractor that scored lowest of all

HCaTS awardees in the original HCaTS competition?

Yes Awards

FAR 15.304(c)(1) requires that price or cost “shall be evaluated” in a best value procurement. The RFP merely requires the Agency to determine a price is “fair and reasonable,” which is an independent determination that an agency must make. See

FAR 15.402(a). The RFP provides that awards will be made to the highest technically-rated proposals with fair and reasonable pricing. Doesn’t this evaluation scheme violate the requirement that price/cost serve as an evaluation factor?

Price can be evaluated and considered fair and reasonable in many different ways. By providing all Offerors with a pre-determined direct labor rate range of acceptability for each labor category, Offerors need to submit for evaluation their direct and indirect costs as per their accounting system. If a cost element exceeds any of the thresholds prescribed in the RFP, an Offeror is also permitted to submit a justification for our consideration. Therefore, all proposals considered for award will have their fully burdened rates evaluated and considered fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

Awards

Section F.5.1, Deliverable and Reporting Requirements. We do not object to any of the compliance measures themselves; however, there is some redundancy and duplication of effort imposed on industry by requiring HCaTS SB Contractors to both certify and update compliance data in existing government databases (such as the

Department of Labor VETS-100 compliance database/web portal, as only one example out of more than a dozen), and then email duplicate copies of these same certifications and records to hcats@gsa.gov (or, alternatively, manually upload the items to the HCaTS SB Management Module (HMM)). Rather than requiring this duplication of effort, which creates an additional regulatory burden on small

As our IT infrastructure evolves, the contracts will be modified changing the need to update in multiple systems.

Awards

Section G.5, Option Determination. We recommend the last sentence in the first paragraph be changed slightly to read “If necessary, the HCaTS PMO has also included one six-month option to extend the initial ordering period of HCaTS SB contracts.” Adding the word “initial” in this way clarifies that the six-month extension applies to the initial ordering year, and does not constitute an Option 1 period.

This recommendation was considered and the RFP will not be amended.

Awards

Section H.19, Minimum Task Order Awards or Estimated Value. Much like with the

GSA Multiple Awards Schedules, participation on HCaTS SB requires intensive self-marketing, with no guarantee of success; therefore, it seems like the minimum task order award amounts / estimated value of awards required to avoid being Off-

Ramped from HCaTS is a bit onerous for small businesses, particularly disadvantaged ones. The GSA Multiple Awards Schedule program requires a

The RFP will be amended to include language allowing Contractors to substantiate a good faith effort in responding to solicitations solicited under their respective Pool(s).

Awards

G.3.1 We believe an excessive CAF outside that of current similarly structured

IDIQs (e.g., GSA Alliant and OASIS) will limit the use of HCaTS. Is there a proposed range or not-to-exceed cap to the CAF, and if yes, will the Government provide it?

The RFP will be amended to include the CAF once it is agreed and decided upon.

CAF

Section B.1.8, paragraph one, states, “GSA and OPM operating costs associated with the management and administration of HCaTS are recovered through a CAF.” Does this cost get passed along to the federal client seeking services, or to the contractor providing them?

The Contract Access Fee (CAF) is passed along to the Federal customer.

CAF

B.1.8 and G.3.1 For large task orders, will the government consider a CAF cap?

Justification/Reason/Explanation: A CAF cap has been introduced on several other large Federal IDIQs and has proven to encourage greater participation by all agencies, increase the IDIQ's competitiveness with the CAFs of other agencies/vehicles, and overall, enhance the marketability of the IDIQ contract.

The Contractor Access Fee has not yet been established, but several methods are being considered.

CAF

Section B.1.8, Contract Access Fee. To reduce the regulatory burden on OPM/GSA and industry alike, rather than calculating and monitoring varying Contract Access

Fee amounts, can the Government simply set one fixed percentage rate for the CAF, The CAF has not yet been determined. CAF

What fees will apply under HCaTS? The Contract Access Fee has not yet been determined. CAF

Section L.5.4.14 indicates the Contractor’s Key Personnel for Contracts Manager provide verification that they have a Certified Professional Contracts Manager

(CPCM). Would the government consider equivalency language to indicate either years of experience or a Certificate in Procurement and Contracts Management from the University of Virginia (or similar University) which is recognized by the National

Contract Management Association (NCMA)?

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Certifications

Page 143, Section M.7. There are no indicated points for the Contract Manager certifications.

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide

Certifications

Page 142, Item L.5.4.9, we suggest that in addition to providing points for advanced degrees for Human Capital/Resources and ISD, that points also be awarded for advanced degrees in Organizational Development or Industrial/Organizational

Psychology.

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Certifications

CMMI Level 3 is more relevant to IT or Software Development programs and not

Human Capital programs. Would the government consider removing this as a scoring element?

The CMMI certification will be removed from the RFP.

Certifications

In this section of the draft RFP, under Compliance Table Item H.6.14, the table requires that the Certified Professional Contracts Manager (CPCM) maintain their

Human Capital and Human Resources Certification. We believe that it should state

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Certifications

Will the government consider a PhD in a scientific discipline addressing human learning, e.g., Cognitive Psychology, as a substitute for a degree in Instructional

Systems Design?

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Certifications

Will the government consider a minimum of 3-years of full-time university-level teaching experience as a substitute for CPLP certification?

We have removed the Contractor Key Personnel scoring element due to Industry Feedback. The final RFP will only have company-wide accreditations.

Certifications

Section H states, “The Council created a directory of accredited Six Sigma providers that is available at the Council's website at www.sixsigmacouncil.org/. L.5.4.10 states, “Verification requirements include a copy of the Offeror’s Six Sigma Black Belt

Certification from an International Association for Six Sigma Certification accredited provider.