HCaTS_RFP_Q A_Complete.pdf

10/30/2015

Question Answer

I just noticed that the message below lists October 16th as the due date (which I think is correct). However, October 16th is a Friday, not a Tuesday as mentioned below. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to re-post this message.

As prescribed in L.3.4, the correct date to submit proposals is Friday, October 16th, 2015. The blog post has since been revised.

Is this an actual job? Or is this a proposal to get a contract vehicle? (similar to GSA and Seaport)

This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) program.

If this is an actual project, will the payments for the job be allowed to run through the GSA schedule contract? (i.e. Can payments be logged for quarterly IFF through GSA?)

The HCaTS program is separate and distinct from the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program.

The Government has provided Direct Labor Rate Ranges in attachment J.8, using the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Are these rates intended to represent fully burdened rates, through fee, or are they intended to represent wages that employees receive with or without benefits. (J.8)

As prescribed in Section L.5.5.1, the direct labor rates are not burdened with indirect rates such as fringe benefits, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and/or profit.

Is there a prescribed method that the Government would prefer a contractor to use for pricing labor categories that a contractor has not provided a particular service for previously? (J.7)

No.

FDIC contacts have indicated to us that they are only permitted to release CPE&R forms, rather than completing another form, such as the HCATS substitution form. Will HCATS accept the FDIC CPE&R form in lieu of a substitution form? The form is almost identical to the form used to collect information in the PPIRS system and the procedures allow contractors to review and comment on past performance, just as the PPIRS system does.

No.

Reference Page 125 or 158, Section L, Paragraph L.5.2.1. If the relevant experience being cited uses the NAICS Code of the IDIQ contract; e.g., 611430, or a contract issued under a GSA Schedule shows the NAICS Code in Block 10 of the SF 1449, does Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation) still need to be submitted with the proposal?

No. Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) shall only be submitted if the Offeror has a legitimate reason that the NAICS Code for any Federal government Relevant Experience Project was reported incorrectly and requests from a duly warranted Contracting Officer from the awarding agency to identify the correct NAICS Code.

Reference Page 122 of 158, Section L, Paragraph L.5.2. This paragraph states that Volume II (Pool Applications and Certifications) is to be completed in four Sections. However, it is unclear as to the placement of various attachments within each section. Can the Government provide more detailed formatting instructions for Volume II?

The four sections identified in Section L.5.2 refer to Attachment J.4 (Pool Application and Certification).

In accordance with Section L.4.1, Attachment J.4 (Pool Application and Certification) shall be submitted in Volume 2.

HCaTS Q&A Amendment 01

Some of the files listed in L.5.1 Proposal Format Table will not apply to all offerors. For these not-applicable files, should offerors submit an appropriately-named document containing “Not applicable” or is writing N/A in the proposal checklist explanation column sufficient?

Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) will be amended to include the following instruction:

"The Offeror shall complete those rows that are applicable to its proposal submission."

Due to DCMA’s and DCAA’s well publicized backlog in approving contractor business systems, documentation to validate a company’s accounting system and other business systems adequacy may not meet the three year requirement. Will the government accept DCMA/DCAA validation outside the three year requirement? (p. 110)

No.

Section L.5.2 states that two out of the six required Relevant Experience Projects may, at the discretion of the Offeror, be a “collection of task orders” a list of 7 criterion applies.

For offerors with task orders awarded under a contract vehicle in a non-consecutive or overlapping manner, may offerors submit a collection of up to 6 non-consecutive task orders so long as each of the other 6 requirements (not to exceed 6 task orders; none used as a stand-alone project; awarded by an entity outside of our corporate structure; each task order performed within the last five years; each task order scope inclusive of at least one KSA, some component of which was customized; offeror submits J.9 signed by a duly warranted Contracting Officer or commercial equivalent Authorized Official) listed in section L.5.2. as well as the requirements listed in section L.5.2.2 are met? (p. 124-125)

No.

“This order of precedence applies unless a duly warranted Contracting Officer responsible for the Relevant Experience Project submits an Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) that indicates the NAICS Code that they select in Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) represents the preponderance of work performed.”

In the event that the Contracting Officer responsible for a relevant experience project no longer works for the agency or is otherwise unavailable, will the government accept Attachment J.10 signed by a duly warranted Contracting Officer at the agency responsible for the Relevant Experience Project? (p. 126)

Yes.

We plan to submit a Relevant Experience Project that is one task order issued under an IDIQ with nearly 100 task orders. The existing CPAR is at the IDIQ level, does not specifically evaluate any task orders, and has an evaluation period that covers only the first three months of the task order’s 14-month period of performance. We assume that we can submit a J.6 Past Performance Substitute Form that covers the specific task order and its full period of performance to provide an accurate assessment of this specific task order? (p. 136)

Yes, Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) that covers the specific task order and its full period of performance may be submitted if CPARS information only exists at the master (base) IDIQ or BPA contract level.

“NOTE #1: The Offeror shall only submit one Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) per Relevant Experience Project. Attachment J.6 shall be completed and signed by a current employee of the organization who has direct knowledge of the contract, task order or purchase order and who is authorized to provide the rating.”

We plan to submit a subcontract for which the prime contractor changed names. The employee with direct knowledge of the contract remained with the company that is now doing business under a different name. Will the government accept Attachment J.6 completed by that individual? If not, please provide guidance. (p. 137)

Attachment J.6 will be amended as follows:

"The Assessing Official shall be an individual who has direct knowledge of the contract, task order or purchase order and be authorized to provide the rating. For US Federal contracts, task orders or purchase orders, the Assessing Official shall have been a Federal government employee at time of contract, task order or purchase order performance.

If the Contractor performed work on the contract, task order or purchase order as a First-Tier Subcontractor, the Assessing Official shall have been an individual of the Prime Contractor who has direct knowledge and is authorized to provide the rating."

The RFP will be amended to indicate that the Government will accept Attachment J.6 Amendment 00 and Amendment 01 versions.

Paragraph 3 of Section M.7 states that “An Offeror’s fully burdened ceiling rates will be determined fair and reasonable if they fall within the acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range.”

How will the Government determine the “acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range?” (p. 157)

In accordance with Section M.7, the Government will establish an acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range for each HCaTS labor category based on the proposed labor rates of every Offeror in accordance with FAR Paragraph 15.404-1(b).

If an Offeror develops fully burdened labor rates based upon direct labor rates that fall within the range provided in Attachment J.8 plus its DCAA-recommended indirect rate and a reasonable profit/fee, will their fully burdened rates be determined to be in the “acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range”? (p. 157)

In accordance with Section M.7, the Government will establish an acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range for each HCaTS labor category based on the proposed labor rates of every Offeror in accordance with FAR Paragraph 15.404-1(b).

The Price Worksheet does not require Offerors to provide a buildup of the fully burdened labor rate for Year 1. In order for the Government to determine if offerors have utilized the direct labor rate range designated in Attachment J.8, and to determine if the fully burdened rates are within the “acceptable burdened ceiling rate range,” does the Government want offerors to provide the buildup of the rates for Year 1 as backup documentation? (Attachment J.7)

No.

Question number 3, part two, states, “If yes, which Relevant Experience Project(s) overlaps?” However, the drop down box limits offerors’ selection to only one project. Please provide another drop down box to select a second overlapping project if applicable. (Attachment J.12.1)

Attachments J.12.1 and J.12.2 will be amended adding an additional drop down box to select a second overlapping project.

Would GSA consider deleting FAR 52.224-2 within the HCaTS solicitation and only include it for task orders that call for the design, development or operation of any system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function, AND the contract or solicitation specifically identifies the system of records and the design or operation work the contractor is to perform? (p.

81)

No, the Government anticipates many resulting task orders under HCaTS to require the design, development or operation of any system of records on individuals; therefore, inclusion of this clause in resulting contracts is in the Government's best interest.

Would GSA be willing to allow Offeror to accept FAR 52.227-3 with the understanding that the Patent and Copyright Indemnity provision found in Offeror's GSA IT Schedule Contract is additionally incorporated and takes precedence should any conflict exist? (p. 81)

No

Would GSA be willing to delete FAR 52.227-17 as it is not applicable? We believe that pursuant to FAR 27.409(i) and 27.405(a), deliverables required hereunder are not considered Special Works. (p. 81)

No, the Government anticipates resulting task orders under HCaTS for the production or compilation of data (other than limited rights data or restricted computer software) for the Government’s internal use, or when there is a specific need to limit distribution and use of the data or to obtain indemnity for liabilities that may arise out of the content, performance, or disclosure of the data; therefore, inclusion of this clause in resulting contracts is in the Government's best interest.

Would GSA allow us to accept FAR 52.237-3 with the understanding that: 1) release of necessary Personnel records will be done only with the consent of involved employees and will include only such information that we would normally release in accordance with our company's Personnel practices; 2) "on-site" is interpreted to mean on the customer's site; and 3) employees electing to leave our company will receive all earned fringe benefits (i.e.

payments for accrued vacation, vested pension rights, insurance conversion privileges, etc.) in accordance with normal company Personnel practices at the time of separation? (p. 81)

1. No, release of necessary necessary personnel records shall be negotiated at the task order level.

2. No, the agreed upon location of where interviews take place shall be negotiated at the task order level.

3. No, transfer of all fringe benefits shall be negotiated at the task order level.

Would GSA consider accepting system audits and approvals for our purchasing system outside of the parameter of within the last three years?

We have no control of the approval of the systems by DCAA as they have devoted their resource to incurred cost audits and haven’t dedicated resources towards system reviews and approvals. (p. 141)

No.

Would GSA consider accepting system audits and approvals for our estimating system outside of the parameter of within the last three years?

We have no control of the approval of the systems by DCAA as they have devoted their resource to incurred cost audits and haven’t dedicated resources towards system reviews and approvals. (p. 141)

No.

Would the government please explain the content required in the section for "scope explanation," and customization explanation"? Examples would be appreciated. (Attachment J.12.1 and J.12.2)

Offerors are required to provide an explanation of how the Relevant Experience Project is within scope of the claimed KSA(s) and what was customized.

Attachments J.6 & J.10

With the official HCaTS RFP released on Monday, August 17, 2015, will GSA accept forms J.6 and J.10 that have been completed and signed prior to the RFP release date?

See amended RFP Section L.4.1 for which attachment versions will be accepted.

Page 112, Subcontracting Plan L.5.1.7, Paragraph 9

For the Subcontracting Plan, are bidders expected to identify potential small business subcontractors by name, status, and industry, or only to state the percentage goals for each type of small business?

Offerors shall only state the percentage goals for each type of small business.

Page 113, Subcontracting Plan L.5.1.7, Paragraph 7

For confirmation, is the Subcontracting Plan to be based on the total dollars issued to all subcontractors, and not total contract dollars?

The goals are to be based on the total dollars issued to all subcontractors.

Page 137, Past Performance L.5.3.2, Paragraph 4 (Note #1)

Instructions for the Past Performance Substitution Form state, “Attachment J.6 shall be completed and signed by a current employee of the organization who has direct knowledge of the contract, task order or purchase order and who is authorized to provide the rating.” In some cases, particularly on projects completed more than three years ago, those with knowledge of the work have left the customer agency, and are now at a different government agency. In these cases, can we ask that person to complete the form and be available for GSA to contact to verify the information and ratings provided? Or is it preferable that a current employee of the customer agency provide ratings based on what they can learn from contacting their former colleague?

Attachment J.6 will be amended as follows:

"The Assessing Official shall be an individual who has direct knowledge of the contract, task order or purchase order and be authorized to provide the rating. For US Federal contracts, task orders or purchase orders, the Assessing Official shall have been a Federal government employee at time of contract, task order or purchase order performance.

If the Contractor performed work on the contract, task order or purchase order as a First-Tier Subcontractor, the Assessing Official shall have been an individual of the Prime Contractor who has direct knowledge and is authorized to provide the rating."

The RFP will be amended to indicate that the Government will accept Attachment J.6 Amendment 00 and Amendment 01 versions.

What is the preferred approach or format for addressing non-mandatory requirements that are non-applicable to the Offeror?

Similarly, if a specific section/document is not applicable to our bid – are there specific instructions to ensure we remain compliant?

Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) will be amended to include the following instruction:

"The Offeror shall complete only those rows that are applicable to its proposal submission."

In the pricing worksheet, only fully loaded rates are required. Given this, please confirm the purpose of the direct labor rate range table (reference:

Attachment J.8 – Direct Labor Rate Ranges). (Attachment J.7)

In accordance with Section L.5.5.1, "Attachment J.8 (Direct Labor Rate Ranges) is provided as a reference when establishing fully burdened ceiling rates for each HCaTS labor category. Attachment J.8 (Direct Labor Rate Ranges) contains direct labor rate ranges found acceptable by the Government for all HCaTS labor categories."

The Offeror is required to complete and submit all representations and certifications in accordance with the instructions in section K (L.5.1.10.2, p.

122, paragraph 2). In section K, it is mentioned that section K.2.1 requires action from the Offeror, and sections K.2.3 and K.2.5 require the Offeror to check the appropriate boxes (K, p.87, paragraph 2). For section K.2.1, is any action required if no amendments to the representations and certifications in the SAM are made? Should this clause be inserted in the Offeror’s response as part of the submission document for Section K? (p.

87 & 122)

In accordance with FAR 52.204- 8(b)(2)(i), "Paragraph (d) applies."

In accordance with FAR 52.204-8(d), "the offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website accessed through https://www.acquisition.gov/."

Therefore, at a minimum, Offerors shall have completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM website.

If an Offeror does not have any amended changes to its annual representations and certifications, the Offeror does not need to submit any additional information.

“In lieu of an Individual Subcontracting Plan that applies to the HCaTS program as a whole …an Offeror may choose to submit any type of subcontracting plan…” Please advise how the plans will be evaluated. Will an Individual Subcontracting Plan be evaluated more favorably than a Master or Commercial Plan? (p. 112)

In accordance with FAR 19.705-4(c), "In negotiated acquisitions, the contracting officer shall determine whether the plan is acceptable based on the negotiation of each of the 11 elements of the plan (see 19.704)."

None of the different types of Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated more favorably than another.

In order to provide evidence of final contract duration and value, we will need to submit all applicable contract modifications, with annotations, as attachments to J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2). Please confirm that GSA will accept modification documentation as proof of contract duration and value. (p. 133-134)

Yes, modification documentation will be accepted as proof of contract duration and value.

For “collection of task order” Relevant Experience Projects please advise if GSA prefers we submit multiple Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) documents (one for each task order) or if GSA prefers a single Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) document for the entire “collection.” (p. 137)

Section L.5.3.2 Note #2 has been amended as follows:

NOTE #2: If submitting a “collection of task orders", and no CPARS/PPIRS Reports exist for any task order, in order for the Offeror to receive a past performance rating the Offeror shall submit at least one Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form). One Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) may be used for all or any combination of the task orders in the “collection of task orders.” Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) shall not be submitted if a CPARS/PPIRS Report exists for any of the task orders. If a CPARS/PPIRS Report exists for any task order(s) it shall not be included on Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form).

Is the government able to provide MS Word versions of the Attachments? No, Offerors are required to complete and submit the attachments in the format published in FBO.

It is requested that the Government respond to the questions separately – responses to the questions relating to the “HCaTS Unrestricted” and the “HCaTS Small Business” RFPs. This will eliminate the need for the anticipated “HCaTS Unrestricted” Offerors to review questions specific to the “HCaTS Small Business” RFP.

All questions submitted under the HCaTS RFP will be answered independently from the HCaTS SB RFP and vice versa.

For RFP Attachments/PDF forms that require a digital or ink signature (i.e.

J.10), if the attachment contains an “ink signature” and is scanned for proposal submission the PDF form features will be lost. Please confirm that this scanned format is acceptable for proposal submission. (Attachment J.10)

A scanned version is acceptable and no required features of the pdf will be lost. If the Offeror intends to use an ink signature, the sheet must first be filled out and then printed.

Can the government provide information on if there will be a cap to the CAF per year for dollars exceeding a pre-set threshold. (p. 44)

The Government does not have plans to estalish a cap to the CAF. Consideration at this time is being given to a possible tier discount based on agency volume with a signed Interagency Agreement. No formal tier has been established at this time. In addition, if a project dollar value is a significant value the customer agency is commiting to HCaTS, the Program Office would consider modifying the CAF on a case by case basis.

The RFP states: “If a customer organization has a CAF rate that is less than 2% for a specific task order award, the HCaTS PMO will notify the proper CAF rate to bill the customer.”

Will the CAF be a tiered structure based on use (similar to the OASIS CAF structure)?

Will the government provide additional instruction on how a customer will qualify for a lower CAF? (p. 44)

Consideration at this time is being given to a possible tier discount based on agency volume with a signed Interagency Agreement. No formal tier has been established at this time. In addition, if a project dollar value is a significant value the customer agency is commiting to HCaTS, the Program Office would consider modifying the CAF on a case by case basis.

OASIS is a separate contract vehicle from HCaTS.

Each master contract has unique properties that are reflected in their respective CAF.

If a customer qualifies for a lower CAF, will that be posted to government website for reference for all HCaTS contract holders? (p. 44)

If a customer qualifies for a lower CAF, the task order solicitation will notify Contractors accordingly. A copy of the agreement will be provided to the successful task order contractor.

The RFP states “Starting from the HCaTS Notice-to-Proceed, the Contractor shall maintain a minimum of three task order awards, or, a total task order estimated value of $1.5M (total estimated value of all task orders inclusive of all options); or, show a good faith effort in responding to competitive solicitations released under the Contractor’s respective Pool(s) prior to the exercise of Option I under its HCaTS contract.”

Can the government define what constitutes “good faith effort”? (p. 68)

Assessment of a Contractor's efforts to respond to competitive solicitations shall be at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, taking into consideration a variety of factors specific to the Contractor, with the burden of demonstration that a good faith effort was made at the Contractor's sole responsibility.

In the RFP section: Open Season On-Ramping, the RFP document states that in order to be eligible for an on-ramp, “an Offeror’s proposal shall have a self-score equal to or higher than the lowest awarded scoring Contractor within the HCaTS Pool being applied for…”

Will the government be posting the scoring ranges by pool after award? (p.

75)

Yes, the minimum self-score needed to be eligible for contract award will be publicized if the Government determines to initiate On-Ramping procedures.

The RFP Accreditations section states that – “An award matrix will be published in the HCaTS PMO website publicizing which accreditations Contractors incorporated in their contract.” It is requested that the Government advise if it is their intent to publish this information on a public website or on an internal site available only to the Government (including OCOs).

Most companies would consider this data to be proprietary; accordingly, it is requested that this information not be posted publicly. (p. 58)

Yes, the Government intends on publicizing all Contractor's accreditations on a publicly available website. Participation in the award matrix publication is optional; see RFP Section H.6.

The RFP states “Offerors are prohibited from modifying, in any way, shape or form, any documents, printed or electronic, associated with this solicitation and any amendment(s) thereto unless specifically authorized to do so.” To protect the offeror’s confidential or proprietary data please confirm that contractors may include:

1. A Volume title page/cover page containing the FAR restriction on disclosure statement.

2. A footer in the RFP attachments and other documents that comprise the proposal submission that contains the FAR reference “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” or alternatively “Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation”

3. A header in proposal documents, other than RFP Attachments, containing relevant/identifying information in (solicitation number, due date, volume number, name, etc.)

(p. 97, 109, 131)

Offerors are only permitted to submit one title page containing any restriction on disclosure and use of data for the entire proposal in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e).

In accordance with FAR Paragraph 3.104-4(d) the "Contracting Officer must notify the contractor in writing if the contracting officer believes that proprietary information, contractor bid or proposal information, or information marked in accordance with 52.215-1(e) has been inappropriately marked."

RFP L.3.1 states that all Relevant Experience Projects (REP)-related information shall be in the offeror’s name, with the only exception being experience gained/cited via an MRCL, however L.5.1.9.2 allows offeror’s to submit a REP for experience gained as a member of a Joint Venture (JV).

In this instance, the REP information (CAGE, DUNS, etc.) would reflect that of the JV and not the proposing JV team member.

Please confirm that under these circumstances, the information may reflect that of the JV and not the offeror/proposing JV member.

Accordingly, it is requested that L.3.1 be modified to add the following to L.3.1, Paragraph 2 - “and Section L.5.1.9.2”.

(p. 98 & 118)

Section L.3.1 will be amended as follows:

The only exceptions to the above paragraph is if the Offeror is claiming an evaluation criteria due to a merger, acquisition, novation and change-of-name agreement in accordance with Section L.3.2, and/or from a qualifying Meaningful Relationship under a Corporate Structure in accordance with the instructions in Section L.5.1.8, and/or from an existing or previous Joint Venture or Partnership in accordance with Section L.5.1.9.2.

Note #1 states in part – “The name, title, signature and date identified in Blocks 16, 17, and 18 shall be an authorized representative with authority to commit the Offeror to contractual obligations. All information provided in the SF 33 shall match the information provided in Attachment J.4 (Pool Application and Certification).

Please note that company policies often require specific levels of signature authority for large procurements. Internal procedures may require that an Offeror’s President sign the SF 33, however, there are other authorized representatives that have authority to commit the company assigned to this Offer. Those individuals would be identified in Attachment J.4. It is requested that the Government allow an individual other than those identified on Attachment J.4 to sign the SF 33 for this submittal in accordance with their internal requirements. (p. 108)

The RFP will be amended allowing Offerors to identify individuals on Attachment J.4 (Pool Application and Certification) that differ from the individual who signed the Standard Form (SF) 33.

It is requested that GSA provide a sample/template for what would be considered an acceptable “Commitment Letter” for the proposed Key Personnel. (p. 122)

The Government will not provide a sample/template for what would be considered an acceptable commitment letter. In accordance with Section L.5.1.11, commitment letters shall be "signed by the Offeror’s authorized representative and the identified Contractor Key Personnel and complete Attachment J.4 (Pool Application and Certification)."

RFP L.5.1.5 states in part – “The Offeror shall attach its most current audit to Attachment J.3 (Modified Preaward Survey {SF1408})”

It is requested that this be amended to read: “The Offeror shall attach its most current audit to Attachment J.3 (Modified Preaward Survey {SF 1408}) or whatever documentation the Offer has regarding DCAA/DCMA review or approval of their accounting system.” This would allow submission of a letter from DCMA indicating that the Offeror’s Accounting System has been determined to be acceptable and approved. Offerors would not receive copies of the audit that formed the basis for this determination. (p. 110)

No, Offerors shall submit their audit report, if applicable, and complete Attachments J.3, J.4, and J.5.1 and/or J.5.2 accordingly.

If no audit report is available, Offerors shall complete and answer Questions 1-20 of Attachment J.3.

Does the contractor’s proposal in response to the solicitation for a contract, as accepted by the government upon award, qualify as acceptable contract documentation? (p. 127)

Yes, in so far as the proposal was incorporated into the resulting contract and the Offeror in response to the HCaTS RFP can substantiate any and all claims associated with the aforementioned proposal.

For Attachment J.5.1 and .2, when determining value for a Relevant Experience Projects (REP) contract/task order that started more than five years ago, should the contractor report/calculate total contract value, or just the value for the last five years?

For example, if an REP period of performance is 1/1/2007 – 1/1/2015, should offeror’s include contract value for 1/12007 – 12/31/2009 when calculating value? (p. 129)

Offerors are permitted to claim the total value of a Relevant Experience Project regardless of when the Relevant Experience Project started so long as some portion of the Relevant Experience Project was performed within the last five years from the date the HCaTS RFP closes.

Request that the government reevaluate the point allocation related to the number of KSAs associated with the REPs –1200 points for three KSAs vs.

600 points for two KSAs.

It is unlikely that any HCaTS task order would include tasks in all three KSAs. Task Orders under the current OPM IDIQ contract typically require only 1 of the 3 KSAs.

No, the Government will not reevaluate the point allocation related to the number of KSAs associated with Relevant Experience Projects.

Para. 5 of L.5.3.3 states in part – “For Relevant Experience Projects awarded by the Department of Defense or NASA, the most current SSR or SF 295 is for the reporting period ending March 31st, 2015…” Please note that SSRs/SF 295s are only required on an annual basis now for the Department of Defense and NASA. Therefore, the most current SSR/SF 295 for these projects would be September 30th, 2014.

It is requested that this paragraph be modified accordingly. (p. 138)

In accordance with FAR Subparagraph 19.704(a)(10)(iii)(B), "the SSR shall be submitted as follows: For DoD and NASA, the report shall be submitted semi-annually for the six months ending March 31 and the twelve months ending September

30. For civilian agencies, except NASA, it shall be submitted annually for the twelve-month period ending September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each reporting period."

RFP Section L.5.3.2, p. 137, Note 1. The RFP states that Attachment J.6 must be completed by a “current employee” of the client organization. In the HCATS Q&A released on 7/28/15, on page 2 (second row), GSA indicated that client staff who had left the client organization would be acceptable performance evaluators. We suggest that in order to provide the most accurate feedback from individuals who best understand past projects, GSA should amend the RFP to align with the prior Q&A. Since GSA encouraged offerors to start collecting past performance substitute forms before the RFP was issued, and some of the references have since taken different jobs, at a minimum, we recommend that GSA accept evaluations from staff who may have left the client organization but are still federal employees (or, in the case of commercial projects, employees who have remained with the parent company).

Attachment J.6 will be amended as follows:

"The Assessing Official shall be an individual who has direct knowledge of the contract, task order or purchase order and be authorized to provide the rating. For US Federal contracts, task orders or purchase orders, the Assessing Official shall have been a Federal government employee at time of contract, task order or purchase order performance.

If the Contractor performed work on the contract, task order or purchase order as a First-Tier Subcontractor, the Assessing Official shall have been an individual of the Prime Contractor who has direct knowledge and is authorized to provide the rating."

The RFP will be amended to indicate that the Government will accept Attachment J.6 Amendment 00 and Amendment 01 versions.

RFP Sections L.5.5, p. 145 and M.7, p. 157. The Price Proposal instructions and evaluation criteria have been changed significantly from those in the Draft RFP. Would the government please confirm that offerors are no longer required to submit a cost buildup showing direct salary, indirects, and profit?

Correct, Offerors are no longer required to submit a cost buildup showing direct salary, indirects, and profit.

RFP Sections L.5.5, p. 145 and M.7, p. 157. The Price Proposal instructions and evaluation have changed significantly from those in the Draft RFP. The Draft provided clear, actionable information on how the government would determine fair and reasonable rates, consistent with the transparent procurement process employed for HCaTS. Changes to the final RFP do not provide the same transparency into how the acceptable range will be established and how GSA may determine an offeror’s rates to be fair and reasonable or not. Would the government please provide a detailed description of the process to maintain a fully transparent evaluation which will enable the government to defend its final determinations?

In accordance with Section M.7, the Government will establish an acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range for each HCaTS labor category based on the proposed labor rates of every Offeror in accordance with FAR Paragraph 15.404-1(b).

RFP Sections L.5.5, p. 145 and M.7, p. 157. In establishing an acceptable ceiling rate range based on the proposed labor rates of every offeror for a Pool, will GSA be taking the highest and lowest rates from across all offerors and using those rates as the high and low end of the range? In which case each offeror’s rates will, by definition, be determined fair and reasonable?

In accordance with Section M.7, the Government will establish an acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range for each HCaTS labor category based on the proposed labor rates of every Offeror in accordance with FAR Paragraph 15.404-1(b). The specific labor rates proposed, agreed to and included in a resulting contract will be the ceiling rate for Time-and- Material/Labor-Hour contract types in accordance with Section B.2.5.1 for that specific Contractor.

RFP Section L.5.2.2, p. 127. Regarding acceptable verifiable contractual documents, does GSA require that the entire document be submitted, or does GSA prefer just the excerpted page(s) that provide the evidence?

The Government requires Offerors to submit enough documentation to substantiate all claims.

RFP Section J, Attachments J.12.1, 2, 3, and 4. The RFP requires that evidence be provided of KSA “customization.” This is a new construct which was not previously described in the Draft RFP. Would the government please clarify the type of evidence required? For example, if an SOW states that the contractor is to “develop training” (i.e., rather than deliver a pre-existing training course), would that suffice as evidence that the training is customized for KSA 1?

Selection of sufficient verifiable contractual documentation is the sole responsiblity of the Offeror.

RFP Section J, Attachments J.12.1, 2, 3, and 4. While it is possible that KSA 1 work could be non-customized, in the case of off-the-shelf training, it is hard to envision a type of KSA 2 or 3 work that is not by its very nature customized to the client organization. SOWs for KSA 2 and 3 work will define the work to be done but will not directly indicate that it is customized, again since the nature of the work is inherently custom to each organization or agency. Consequently, would the government consider eliminating the requirement that offerors provide evidence of customization for KSA 2 and 3?

No, Offerors shall provide required customization explanation in accordance with solicitation requirements.

RFP Sections L.5.4.1 and L.5.4.2, p. 141. The backlog of estimating and purchasing system reviews is well documented and a known problem in the federal contracting environment. In our experience, it is unrealistic to expect that the government has the resources to repeat these reviews every 3 years when the backlog to get them done is over 3 years. (Please note that GSA conducted extensive outreach to industry and government on this specific point for the OASIS procurement and in doing so removed all time limits on approval letters.) While offerors have the recourse of a CPA audit in the case of accounting systems, that possibility does not exist for purchasing and estimating systems. To reflect the current reality of the government’s resource constraints in conducting timely repeat audits, would the government please remove the 3-year limit on purchasing and estimating system letters?

No.

RFP Section G.3.1, p. 44. The government’s goal for HCaTS is to provide a simplified acquisition process for human capital and training solutions. Since MOBIS and OASIS both apply a 0.75% Contract Access Fee (CAF), it is reasonable to expect that agencies will be adverse to the proposed HCaTS 2% fee (i.e., 2.5 times greater than these similar vehicles). Since GSA and OPM are committed to securing agency participation in the HCaTS vehicle, it would appear that potential federal clients will have an incentive to use other vehicles to avoid HCaTS’ substantially higher fee. Would GSA consider lowering the CAF to be consistent with its other acquisition vehicles, and ensure a level playing field for agencies seeking to use the HCaTS vehicle?

MOBIS is part of GSA's Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program, which captures an Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) of 0.75%. OASIS is a distinct and separate multiple award, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract vehicle with a tiered CAF based on project dollar value. Additionally, HCaTS is part of Category Management, thus considered a strategic sourcing vehicle. Strategic sourcing contracts and BPAs traditionally have carried a 2% CAF. Both Industry and customer agencies have been exposed to this percentage. The CAF was built on the premise for GSA and OPM to recover HCaTS operation costs at the breakeven point. GSA and OPM will not be incurring additional revenue as a result of this

RFP Section L.5.2.4.4, p. 134, Note 1. Since the RFP was delayed several months, and potential offerors were encouraged to start collecting past performance substitute forms before the RFP was issued, would GSA please amend the Period of Performance requirements to allow projects completed within five years of the Solicitation release date (August 17)?

This date is closer to the initially planned submission date. Also, using the release date ensures that the POP date is clear in the event of any change in the proposal due date.

No.

RFP Section L.5.2.2, p. 129, Note 1. The RFP has added a new provision that allows offerors to use reference letters to validate work scope. Given that this provision allows for new information that is not contemporaneous with the timeframe established in the RFP, offers may be enabled to “game” documentation. For example, how would the government have confidence that offerors requested letters to claim credit for work that was never included in a contractual document, project plan, or deliverable? We recommend that GSA not allow letters to replace contractual documents in validating work scope. If GSA chooses to allow these reference letters, would the government consider requiring that the letter be signed by a Warranted Contracting Officer since it is a scope determination?

No, the solicitation allows for both Federal and Non- Federal experience and thus restricting to a warranted Contracting Officer does not provide equal opportunity. The HCaTS Contracting Officer will make a determination on the validation of all requirements and points claimed by reviewing the Offeror's substantiating documentation.

Furthermore, in the event the Government discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent documentation the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award and may be subject to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

RFP Section F.2, p. 33. This section indicates the HCaTS PMO (Program Management Office) has the authority to stop or terminate performance of an HCATs contract in accordance with FAR 52.242-15, 52,249-2, and 52- 249-8. However, since these actions are reserved to a Warranted Contracting Officer, does this indicate that the HCaTS PMO will be staffed with Warranted Contracting Officers? If not, we recommend that this provision be eliminated.

Yes, as set forth in G.2.2 the HCaTS CO shall be the sole and exclusive Government official with actual authority to administer and modify the terms and conditions of HCaTS contracts.

Section F.2 will be amended accordingly.

RFP Section J, Attachment J.2. The proposal checklist has a “Yes” box to check for compliance; however, some sections will not be applicable to all offerors. For such items, should offerors leave the checkbox blank and use the explanation field to explain why this item does not apply, or is there another way the government wants offerors to deal with these situations?

Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) will be amended to include the following instruction:

"The Offeror shall complete only those rows that are applicable to its proposal submission."

Will GSA allow for hand delivery of proposal responses? (p. 99) Section L.3.4 has been amended to add the following:

NOTE: Offerors are prohibited from hand delivering proposals.

There is no place in the Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form for Pools 1 and 2 to point evaluators to documentation substantiating use of subcontractors for each of the relevant experience projects. How does GSA want offerors to provide locations and files names for submitted documentation? (p. 135)

Verifiable contractual documents that substantiate the use of subcontractors/teaming partners shall be listed under L.5.2.4.5 Subcontracting/Teaming of the corresponding Relevant Experience Project. There are three lines under this element; which allows for three separate documents. If this is not enough, the Offeror may consider combining documents into one file or using the rows for the Additional Documents.

There is no place in the Relevant Experience Projects Supplemental Form for Pools 1 and 2 to point evaluators to documentation substantiating cost-reimbursement relevant experience projects. How does GSA want offerors to provide locations and files names for submitted documentation? (p. 135)

Verifiable contractual documents that substantiate that the Relevant Experience Project contained cost reimbursement shall be listed under L.5.2.4.6 Cost Reimbursement of the corresponding Relevant Experience Project. There are three lines under this element; which allows for three separate documents.

If this is not enough, the Offeror may consider combining documents into one file or using the rows for the Additional Documents.

Failure of Contractor Key Personnel to effectively and efficiently perform their duties will be construed as conduct detrimental to contract performance and may result in activation of Dormant Status and/or Off- Ramping (see Sections H.25 and H.26). How will this be measured by GSA? (p. 42)

The Contractor Key Personnel must be in compliance with the responsibilities stated in the soliciation.

Will the government consider adding labor categories for Instructional Coordinators (25-9031) and Training & Development Specialists (13-1151) as these are key roles in executing customized training and development programs likely to be procured under KSA #1? (Attachment J.1)

No, but their exclusion does not prevent them from being used when performing work under HCaTS.

Can the Government confirm that a Federal government Relevant Experience Project includes a task order or a collection of task orders issued by a “quasi-Federal agency” or a “semi-Federal agency” if the award(s) were made under a FAR-covered master contract, such as a Federal Supply Schedule contract or the previous OPM TMA IDIQ contracts? Treatment of these orders in this manner is appropriate since when a “quasi-“ or “semi-“ entity orders under a FAR-governed contract, it is acting exactly like a “Federal” agency and is subject to the same procurement rules for that order as a “Federal” agency. (p. 123)

No, this will be considered a Non-Federal government Relevant Experience Project.

Will the Government revise the solicitation to provide that a Federal government Relevant Experience Project includes contracts, orders and collections of task orders issued by “quasi-“ and “semi-“ Federal agencies?

Such entities will be permitted to order under awarded HCaTS contracts (see page RFP Section B.1.6) and were significant users of the previous OPM TMA IDIQ contracts. For example, the FAA regularly placed orders under the previous OPM TMA IDIQ contracts and will likely do so for the new ones. The RFP, however, does not appropriately incentivize vendors that conducted substantial business with these organizations to submit a proposal. Such projects will be given less points than ones delivered to Federal agencies. As a result, entities like the FAA, are less likely to find vendors with experience in meeting their requirements available under HCaTS contracts. This will affect the use of HCaTS contracts by these entities. (p. 123)

No, this will be considered a Non-Federal government Relevant Experience Project.

Will GSA eliminate NAICS Code 624310, Vocational Rehabilitation Services, from the RFP? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the NAICS code applies to organizations that provide job training to the unemployed or to those who are underemployed due to job market disadvantages. This focus appears inconsistent with the scope of HCaTS. OPM and GSA have expressed that the intent of the HCaTS contract is to address the human capital and training requirements of the existing federal workforce. Neither agency has indicated that an objective of the contract is to train individuals to be eligible for federal employment or to be eligible for a better federal position. This is the focus of organizations that provide Vocational Rehabilitation Services. Preparing an individual for a position is significantly different than improving the individual’s skills or performance. If the goal of the HCaTS procurement is the latter and not the former, the assignment of the NAICS Code 624310 will not attract the appropriate industry partners. (p.

57)

Price Evaluation - Section M.7 indicates that our fully burdened ceiling rates must fall within a range that will be determined using all of the Offerors’ proposed ceiling rates. This approach differs from the approach taken on the GSA OASIS proposal effort where the Direct Labor rates had to fall within the BLS Direct Labor Rates for a specific labor category. In essence GSA is now evaluating the competitive ceiling range based on the burdens each company applies to the Direct Labor rates, which in part translates to the evaluation of employee benefits, training programs and infrastructure rather than employee labor costs. This favors companies that minimize or do not provide employee benefits and training, thereby not investing in their staff or infrastructure. Such a short-term perspective is not in the interests of the Government in the context of a high-level professional services contract, which HCaTS most definitely is.

Attachment J.8 provides the direct labor rate ranges and we recommend these rates be used to evaluate whether a bid is fair and reasonable as was done in OASIS instead of using the fully burdened rate. (p. 157)

The approach that you are suggesting relies on an adequacy determination for all accounting systems.

This is not a requirement of HCaTS.

Contract Access Fee (CAF) - No cap/limit is mentioned on the Contract Access Fee(s). Is GSA considering a maximum CAF per Task Order/contract period, or a percentage cap – similar to the way other GSA MACs have been structured? (p. 13-14)

The Government does not have plans to estalish a cap to the CAF. Consideration at this time is being given to a possible tier discount based on agency volume with a signed Interagency Agreement. No formal tier has been established at this time.