HCaTS SB RFP Questions.pdf

9/21/2015

Question Answer 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.

Many of our contracts are awarded under the Navy’s MAC-IDIQ Seaport-e vehicle.

Does the Government consider all contracts awarded under Seaport-e as individual, stand-alone contracts which can be cited independently for HCaTS bids - or is each award considered a Task Orders for the HCaTS submission?

As prescribed in Section L.5.2, for all Federal government Relevant Experience Projects a single contract is defined in accordance with FAR Section 2.101, a single task order placed under a master Single Award or Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery task order contract is defined in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.5, and a single task order or purchase order placed under a master Single Award or Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreement is defined in accordance with FAR Subsection 8.405-3 or FAR Section 13.303.

We would like to confirm if a firm missed the RFI and Q&A phase, can we still bid as a Prime under the small business set aside since we are an 8(a) firm.

Yes

On page 113 of Section L.5.1.7 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN it states that the Government believes that HCaTS SB provides significant opportunities for the use of SB concerns as subcontractors (including Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB)).

Would the Government consider recognizing the VOSB community on page 144, Section M.3.1, IDENTIFYING THE TOP 40 PROPOSALS?

No. The prescribed set-asides in Section M.3.1 are in accordance with FAR Subparagraph 19.003(a)(3).

The present definition of 'task order' and 'collection of task orders' clearly favors certain types of contractual vehicles and is a disadvantage to others - such as State Department contracting where they prefer (for budgetary reasons) to write multiple task orders for the same task. While we greatly appreciate the minimizing of points for longevity and value, we would hate to lose because our work (which might be more relevant) was not procured in a manner aligned with HCaTS scoring methodology. You might want to consider removing the requirement that the collection of task orders must be linear/sequential (i.e. two task orders issued for the same project at the same time would be allowed).

No.

HCaTS SB Q&A

Page 97 of 157 of the solicitation states in Section L.3.1 in part “All the evaluation criteria an Offeror is submitting a proposal for and taking credit for in accordance with Section L.5.2 shall be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in Block 15A on the SF133 with a corresponding CAGE Code Number and DUNS Number in sam.gov.” Please confirm that compliance with this section requires an offeror to populate block 15A of the SF33 with an offerors name, address, CAGE code, DUNS number and proposed Pool number. If not can the government please clarify the intent of this paragraph, specifically “all the evaluation criteria an offeror is submitting a proposal for and taking credit for”?

Fill out the SF 33 in accordance with Section L.3.1 and L.5.1.1. The phrase: “all the evaluation criteria an offeror is submitting a proposal for and taking credit for”, means that all elements of the proposal shall be under the Offeror's name reported in block 15A of the SF30 with the exceptions outlined in Sections L.3.2, L.5.1.8, and L.5.1.9.2.

Page 106 of 157 states only a requirement of the excel template for pricing as part of Volume 5. Please confirm that offerors shall submit as an additional part of this volume our approach to pricing methodology in the form of an accompanying narrative and/or other supporting documentation?

Section L.4.1 states that the submission of L.5.5 is Limited to template. This means that there is nothing additional required or allowed.

Page 101 of 157 states a requirement by L.5.1.10.2 for an offeror to provide the SAM website entity record. Section L.5.10.2 refers to representations and certifications, a requirement necessary to fulfill Section 5.1.6 as stated on page 100 of 157. Please confirm that offerors should include print outs of both their reps and certs AND entity records as found at sam.gov to satisfy the requirements of both L.5.1.6 and L.5.1.10.2.

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.

Page 111 of 157 states that Attachment J.3 shall be signed by the individual responsible for the design of an offerors accounting system. There is no signature block, only a block for a name. We presume population of the name constitutes signature and therefore compliance with the Solicitation requirements and no signature is required. Please confirm.

Confirmed, Attachment J.3 does not require a signature.

Please confirm that as part of an offeror’s documentation to be attached to Form J.3 SF 1408 they may include attestations from CPA’s who have reviewed an offeror’s accounting system but have not provided a fully comprehensive audit and that these attestations shall allow an offeror to check “yes” on question 3 of Attachment J.3 (SF 1408).

As stated in Section L.5.1.5:

To determine an accounting system adequate, the HCaTS SB Contracting Officer may accept the findings and recommendation(s) from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), other Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) other than DCAA, or a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) that are dated within the past three years prior to the solicitation closing date; or, the HCaTS SB Contracting Officer may not accept the findings and recommendation(s) from the DCAA, CFA, or a CPA and may enter into discussions with the Offeror.

Page 103 of 157 provides a sample file name for Attachment J.4 of ABC.VOL1.J4.xslm. Please confirm the sample name should be ABC.VOL2.J4.xslm and that Attachment J.4 is part of Volume 2.

Yes; L.4.1 will be amended.

Please confirm that if an offeror is not claiming credit for any Volume 4 accreditations that no documents for Volume 4 should be otherwise submitted and explanations that an offeror shall not be submitting for credit on Attachment J.2 shall suffice.

Section L.4 will be amended to add the following:

NOTE: If the Offeror’s proposal does not contain any part of one Volume, the Offeror does not need to submit a folder for that Volume. For example, if the Offeror is not submitting any accreditations, Volume IV need not be submitted.

Some contracting offices choose to issue short term (e.g. one – two ) year contracts for the same effort versus a longer period (e.g. 5 years). Please confirm that offerors may use a collection of contracts as a single past performance wherein an offeror certifies that there is a unity of scope of effort among the collection, i.e. an initial contract plus follow on contracts.

See section L.5.2 for the definition of a "collection of task orders."

We are EDWOSB 8 (a) firm but most of our training contracts fall under NAICS 541519 and value of these contracts are not more than $2 Million. These contracts directly maps to NAICs codes listed in the pool 1 and 2. We believe that since we have performed the similar work, Government would accept these as valid past performances for the HCaTS award? Please clarify? (p. 127)

As stated in Section L.5.2:

For an Offeror to be eligible for consideration under a given Pool, the Offeror shall have performed six Relevant Experience Projects, with four of those Relevant Experience Projects under a NAICS Code that corresponds directly to a NAICS Code in the Pool being applied for.

However, Section L.5.2.1 gives the option of:

If an Offeror has a legitimate reason that the NAICS Code for any Relevant Experience Project was reported incorrectly, the Government will allow the Offeror the opportunity to request and submit Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) from a duly warranted Contracting Officer from the awarding agency to identify the correct NAICS Code.

Will the Government allow past performances from the subcontractor or all the teaming is considered post award i.e. only prime offeror past performance will be counted. (p. 136)

In accordance with Section L.3.1, all the evaluation criteria an offeror is submitting a proposal for and taking credit for shall be under the Offeror's name reported in block 15A of the SF30 with the exceptions outlined in Sections L.3.2, L.5.1.8, and L.5.1.9.2.

In order to vertically on-ramp from a SB Pool to a Large Business Pool at a later date (ie: in a few years when the SB outgrows the pool size standard), would the small business be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan now with its 2015 proposal submission or at that later date when applying for the vertical on-ramp?

Submission of a sub-contracting plan is not required under HCaTS SB, however it will be required when applying for a Vertical On- Ramp under HCaTS. Small Business Offerors are permitted to submit a Subcontracting plan under HCaTS SB and abide by the requirements set forth at G.3.3 to permit possible additional scoring in the event the Offeror elects to On-Ramp into HCaTS Unrestricted after award.

Will the government please provide a formula, definition or guidance with regard to how a contractor should calculate the cost of task order performance incurred for personnel in order to remain compliant with FAR 52.219-14? There are varying opinions in industry with regard to how this is calculated. (p. 63)

No.

Is diversity of NAICS codes across a pool considered in evaluation? For example, in Pool 1, with all other factors being equal, would a company with four relevant experience projects in the primary NAICS code (611430) be equivalent to a company with two relevant experience projects in the primary NAICS code (611430)and two in another of the pool’s NAICS codes (such as 611699)? (p. 128)

No.

Does the clock on 3 months of performance start from date of submission of the proposal (October 16, 2015) or date of award? (p. 129)

Award Date of the contract, task order or purchase order; see Section L.5.2.

Is a contractor able to submit a proposal for both HCaTS and HCaTS SB? If so, are they required to submit two separate proposals?

Yes, and each RFP requires a separate proposal.

Proposal Delivery: The SF-33 states that proposals can be hand delivered to 26 Federal Plaza, Room 21-110, New York, NY. Page 98, Sect. L.3.4 only references the ability to submit proposals via Mail. Can you please clarify the delivery/submission requirements?

Section L.3.4 has been amended to add the following:

NOTE: Offerors are prohibited from hand delivering proposals.

CPARS vs. Past Performance Substitute Form: Our company intends to submit a Collection of Task Orders performed under a Blanket Purchase Agreement. We understand the individual criteria required for each Task Order to be a Collection of Task Orders as well as the limit of 6 Task Orders. Throughout the course of the BPA, we received multiple TOs over a 5-year period of performance. The reports included in CPARS do not comprehensively cover the entire period of performance (i.e., Actual Period of Performance 2009 -2015 captured in Collection of Task Orders vs.

CPARS Reports for 2011-2014 Only). Furthermore, the Period of Performance Dates in CPARS do not sync up with the supporting contractual/task order documentation that we will be submitting.

a. Given these circumstances and to ensure compliance with the RFP instructions, can we submit a Past Performance Substitute Form for this Collection of Task Orders in addition to the CPARS Reports that are available?

Yes.

L.5.4.1 (Acceptable Estimating System) and L.5.4.2 (Approved Purchasing System):

For those small businesses that have not been subject to audits by DCMA or CFA of their Estimating and/or Purchasing Systems, would the government allow an audit report by an independent CPA to be submitted to verify the acceptability of these systems – for proposal points/scoring?

No.

There appears to be a typo on Page 103 of 157 – L.5.2. File name is “ABC.VOL1.J4.xlsm”. Please confirm that is should be “ABC.VOL2.J4.xlsm”.

Yes; L.4.1 will be amended.

There appears to be a typo on Page 104 of 157 -- L.5.2. Self Scoring Worksheet SB Pool 1 and 2 file types are listed as Macro Enabled Excel Spreadsheets (.xlsm files).

The files included in the solicitation package are .xlsx files. Can you please confirm that these files should be .xlsx files?

Yes; L.4.1 will be amended.

Will submissions be accepted by hand delivery to the GSA office in New York, or must the disks be mailed?

Section L.3.4 has been amended to add the following:

NOTE: Offerors are prohibited from hand delivering proposals.

Page 50, G.3.3, Paragraph 6: In terms of ‘“Affiliates” of the contractor or subcontractor’, in the case of Tribally owned firms, we assume the term “affiliate” does not apply to Sister-entities under the same Parent Tribal company, per the SBA.

Question: Please confirm that subcontracting to sister (i.e. non-affiliated) Small Disadvantaged Business entities is reportable in the Individuals Subcontract Reports and Summary Subcontract Reports?

The data and information reported in the Individuals Subcontract Reports and Summary Subcontract Reports shall comply with the definitions and regulations prescribed in FAR Part 19 and SBA guidance.

Attachment J.2, Cell B11: Form J.2 does not recognize a DUNS beginning with ‘0’.

The digit is not shown in the final form, though entered into the field, resulting in an apparent 8-digit DUNS. We fear this will be rendered non-compliant upon visual inspection of the form.

Question: Can the government please provide update form J.2 with an allowable first digit ‘0’, or acknowledge that the form will be compliant as is?

The ability to have a DUNS number starting with a 0 will be added to all Attachments.

Attachment J.2, Cells L31, L49, L52, L55: Form J.2 does not allow a file name to be entered in the blacked-out fields.

Question: Can the government please provide a space to fill in the applicable file names in these cells.

Attachment J.2 has been amended to have a more logical organization and all documents that support an REP were placed under the corresponding scoring element of each REP. There are no longer any proposal documents that have blacked out rows.

Attachment J.4 Field B11: Form J.4 does not recognize a DUNS beginning with ‘0’.

The digit is not shown in the final form, though entered into the field, resulting in an apparent 8-digit DUNS. We fear this will be rendered non-compliant upon visual inspection of the form.

Question: Can the government please provide update form J.4 with an allowable first digit ‘0’, or acknowledge that the form will be compliant as is?

The ability to have a DUNS number starting with a 0 will be added to all Attachments.

Attachments J.12.1 & J.12.2, Page 1, DUNS#: Forms J.12.1 and J.12.2 do not recognize a DUNS beginning with ‘0’. The digit is not shown in the final form, though entered into the field, resulting in an apparent 8-digit DUNS. We fear this will be rendered non-compliant upon visual inspection of the form.

Question: Can the government please provide update forms J.12.1 and J.12.2 with an allowable first digit ‘0’, or acknowledge that the form will be compliant as is?

The ability to have a DUNS number starting with a 0 will be added to all Attachments.

Page 20, RFP B.3.5 “MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT”, Paragraph 3: States the following: “Unless otherwise directed by task order terms and conditions, the Contractor may apply indirect costs to material and equipment consistent with the Contractor’s standard accounting practices.”

Question: Can the Government please confirm that profit/fee will be allowable on material and equipment?

As Section B.3.5 states; Material and equipment shall be priced in accordance with the terms of the task order solicitation, contract type, and applicable FAR and agency-specific regulatory supplements.

Page 67 H.15 “MEETINGS” paragraph 3: States the following: “From time to time, the Government may require Contractor attendance, including the attendance of Contractor Key Personnel, to meetings at various locations….Any Contractor costs associated to PMR meetings shall be at no direct cost to the Government.”

Question: If direct staff, other than the Corporate HCaTS Program Manager (CHPM) and the Corporate HCaTS Contract Manager (CHCM), is required to attend will the Government revise this statement to allow for travel costs associated with direct staff?

No.

Page 106, L.4.1 “PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE” Volume 4: The Accounting System was listed as one of the Accreditations in H.6., however, the Accounting System appears to be missing from Volume 4 Accreditations in the Proposal Format Table.

Question: Should this table be updated to include the Accounting System?

No, this is not a scoring element.

Page 139 L.5.4 “VOLUME IV (ACCREDITATIONS)”, paragraph 1: The Accounting System was listed as one of the Accreditations in H.6; however, the Accounting System appears to be missing from L.5.4.

Question: Should L.5.4. be updated to include the Accounting System?

No, this is not a scoring element.

Page 142, L.5.5 “VOLUME V (PRICE)”, Paragraph 2: States the following:

“Additionally, altering Attachment J.7 (Price Worksheet) in any way may result in the proposal being rejected as being non-conforming.”

Question: Is it acceptable to add headers/footers to indicate proprietary cost data to the Price Worksheet?

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."

Page 143, L.5.5 “VOLUME V (PRICE)”, Paragraph 3 & Page 145, L.5.5.1 “DIRECT LABOR RATES” Paragraph 1: L.5.5 States the following: “These fully burdened ceiling rates are to be based upon the highest qualified employee within a given labor category or group, working in the highest paid area within CONUS, on a highly complex requirement, excluding Secret/Top Secret/SCI.”

L.5.5.1 States the following: “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. Direct labor rates are labor rates that are not burdened with indirect rates such as fringe benefits, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and/or profit.”

Question A: As L.5.5 states that the fully burdened ceiling rates should be based on the highest paid area within CONUS, our assumption is that the direct labor rate ranges in attachment in J.8 are based on the highest paid area within CONUS, can the Government please confirm our assumption, or clarify on what area/location the Direct Labor Rate Ranges (Attachment J.8) are based?

Question B: Also, as L.5.5 states that the fully burdened ceiling rates are to be based on the highest qualified employee within a given labor category or group, is it the Government’s intent that all bidders use the maximum rate found in Attachment J.8 when performing their buildup to arrive at the fully burdened ceiling rates to be proposed?

Question A-The direct labor rates ranges provided in Attachment J.8 allow for work performed throughout CONUS.

Question B-The direct labor rates ranges provided in Attachment J.8 were solely provided to give Offerors an idea of the acceptable range of direct labor rates. The Government did not intend for the Offerors to use the rates when preparing their fully burdened rates.

Page 156 M.6 “POINT VALUES FOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS, PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND ACCREDITATIONS”, Table section Volume IV Accreditations: The Accounting System was listed as one of the Accreditations in H.6; however, the Accounting System appears to be missing from Volume IV Accreditations in the Scoring Table.

Question: Should this scoring table be updated to include the Accounting System, to allow for scoring of that Accreditation?

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

Page 157, M.7 “PRICE PROPOSAL”, Paragraph 3: States the following: “The Government will establish an acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range for each HCaTS labor category per Pool based on the proposed labor rates of every Offeror within that Pool in accordance with FAR Paragraph 15.404-1(b). An Offeror’s fully burdened ceiling rates will be determined fair and reasonable if they fall within the acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range. Attachment J.8 (Direct Labor Rate Ranges) is provided to help Offerors propose fully burdened ceiling rates.”

Question: Will the Government clarify how it will establish the floor and ceiling of the acceptable range?

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

Page 157, M.7 “PRICE PROPOSAL”, Paragraph 3: States the following: “The Government will establish an acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range for each HCaTS labor category per Pool based on the proposed labor rates of every Offeror within that Pool in accordance with FAR Paragraph 15.404-1(b). An Offeror’s fully burdened ceiling rates will be determined fair and reasonable if they fall within the acceptable fully burdened ceiling rate range. Attachment J.8 (Direct Labor Rate Ranges) is provided to help Offerors propose fully burdened ceiling rates.”

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that all bidders use the labor rates provided in Attachment J.8 when performing their hourly price buildup to arrive at the fully burdened hourly price, so that, in order to establish the acceptable ranges, all bidders are starting at the same point?

The direct labor rates ranges provided in Attachment J.8 were solely provided to give Offerors an idea of the acceptable range of direct labor rates. The Government did not intend for the Offerors to use the rates when preparing their fully burdened rates.

Attachment J.7, Tab 1: The “Instructions-Offeror information” tab in the Attachment is locked.

Question: Will the Government please provide a password or a non-protected file?

Corrected J.7 will be provided via Amendment.

Attachment J.7.1: The Sample Price Worksheet contains a Labor Category Crosswalk tab.

Question: Will the Government confirm that providing a labor category crosswalk in Attachment J.7 is not required as part of the submission?

Yes, it is not required. J.7.1 is a sample provided to aide Offerors.

Attachment J.5.1, Attachment J.5.2, and, Attachment J.5.3: The Accounting System was listed as one of the Accreditations in H.6; however, the Accounting System appears to be missing from VOLUME IV - ACCREDITATIONS on the Self Score tab of these three attachments.

Question: Should these attachments be updated to include the Accounting System, to allow for scoring of that Accreditation?

No, this is not a scoring element.

Understanding the final RFP was amended to remove additional scores assigned to NAICS codes, what is the significance of the predominant NAICS codes (611430 and 541612)? Are those considered more favorably if they are referenced specifically in past performances? (opposed to the other NAICS codes which are in the same pool?)

See H.4.1 for HCaTS SB NAICS Codes information. See M.6 for point values for Relevant Experience Projects.

Understanding the final RFP was amended to remove scoring for facility clearances, are vendors considered more favorably if they currently hold a facility clearance?

No.

The RFP states that proposals must be “mailed.” Does this mean we are required to use the US Postal Service, or can other delivery services be used? (p. 98)

The RFP is intentionally silent on carrier/method of compliance with the requirements for mailed Proposal submissions. In accordance with L.3.4, the RFP requires only that all proposals shall be mailed with proof of delivery to establish the time of receipt at the Government installation.

Section H.7 states that total labor dollars contracted to Prime vs. Subcontractors should be included on each invoice. Section G.3.2.3 states that this information should be included on a quarterly report.

• Question 1: Do we report in both places? If not, which one?

• Per the invoice requirement, how are we to report if the work is fixed-price with no labor hours being reported? (p. 43 & 63)

1. Yes.

2. In accordance with your standard accounting practices.

There appear to be only one past performance roll-up form for each pool. Are we to use them twice if we have two roll-up projects within the same pool, as is permitted?

(p. 104 and Attachments J.12.3 & J.12.4)

J.12.3 and J.12.4 cover one "collection of task orders". If submitting two collection of task orders, submit two J.12.3 or J.12.4 (use the one that corresponds to the applicable Pool).

The forms include entries for documenting up to six roll up projects. Does the claimed experience (KSA 1, 2 or 3) need to be documented in every roll-up, or in at least one across the grouping? That is, does each individual sub-project need to include all of the KSA work that is claimed for the entire rolled up set? If not, are we to simply leave the redundant text entry areas blank? (p. 104 and Attachments J.12.3 & J.12.4)

See L.5.2, page 125, Item No. 6.

The pricing labor categories do not include labor categories commonly used in the training and development industry. Especially problematic are Senior Instructor, Coach (or Executive Coach), and Consultant. Suggest these be added as required “ancillary.” (Attachment J.1)

The “Instructions-Offeror Info” tab is password protected. (Attachment J.7) Corrected Attachment J.7 will be provided via amendment.

Will the offeror be able to charge G&A on materials? (p. 20) G&A on materials at the task order level may be permitted subject to OCO direction and individual task order requirements.

Is a submission cover letter required or permitted? Permitted.

Reference RFP G.3.3 Subcontracting Plan, RFP L.5.1.7 Subcontracting Plan, and RFP H.3.1 Set Asides Based on Socio-Economic Group.

RFP G.3.3 Subcontracting Plan indicates a requirement to ensure that socio-economic considerations are provided the maximum practicable opportunity to participate, and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) are included on the list.

RFP L.5.1.7 Subcontracting Plan illustrates a sample goal table, with the VOSB goal at 3%. RFP H.3.1 Set Asides Based on Socio-Economic Subgroup, does not list VOSB as a subgroup for competitive set-asides. As VOSBs are included in the considerations for subcontracting participation, we recommend and request that VOSBs should also be included as a subgroup for competitive set-asides.

No. The prescribed set-asides in Section M.3.1 are in accordance with FAR Subparagraph 19.003(a)(3).

Reference RFP G.3.3 Subcontracting Plan.

“Subcontracting Plans are not required for small business concerns”. In what way, if at all, will submission of a Subcontracting Plan result in a more favorable rating for the offeror?

Submission of a sub-contracting plan will not result in a more favorable score. Small Business Offerors are permitted to submit a Subcontracting plan under HCaTS SB and abide by the requirements set forth at G.3.3 to permit possible additional scoring in the event the Offeror elects to On-Ramp into HCaTS Unrestricted after award.

Reference RFP H.3.1 Set Asides Based on Socio-Economic Group.

In order to be more inclusive of veteran owned businesses, we recommend and request that the SDVOSB set-aside be expanded to include VOSBs, a category that still includes all SDVOSBs.

VOSB is not currently a permitted set-aside authority. Set-aside authority is limited to those socio-economic sub-groups set forth at FAR 19.000(a)(3).

Reference J.2 HCaTS SB Proposal Checklist, row 441, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Report.

This record may be required for multiple Relevant Experience Projects. We recommend and request that it be included on the checklist as an option under each Relevant Experience Project.

Corrected J.2 will be provided via Amendment.

Reference J.2 HCaTS SB Proposal Checklist, row 441, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Report.

The PPIRS web site has been down since the final RFP was released. What is the contingency if inaccessibility of the web site prevents the offeror from accessing our PPIRS record?

Corrected J.2 will be provided via Amendment.

Reference J.2 HCaTS SB Proposal Checklist, row 443, Past Performance Substitute Form.

This form may be required for multiple Relevant Experience Projects. We recommend and request that it be included on the checklist as an option under each Relevant Experience Project.

Corrected J.2 will be provided via Amendment.

Reference J.2 HCaTS SB Proposal Checklist, row 445, L.5.3.3, Individual Subcontract Report (ISR), Summary Subcontract Report (SSR), Standard Form (SF) 294, Standard Form (SF) 295.

In the RFP, section L.5.3.3 is “Reserved”, and contains no reference to the reports or forms referenced in this row. Please provide more information on this requirement.

Corrected J.2 will be provided via Amendment.

Reference J.5.1 HCaTS SB Self Scoring Worksheet SB.

On the “Self Score” tab, column B is password protected and therefore cannot be edited. We recommend and request that the government unprotects the cells in this column so that we can label the Relevant Experience Projects with specific project names.

Attachments J.5.1 and J.5.2 are purposefully protected. Offerors shall only complete those cells that are applicable.

Reference J.6 HCaTS SB Past Performance Substitute Form, Section IV. Assessing Official.

“This form shall be signed by an Assessing Official with direct knowledge or observation of the Contractor’s past performance.”

For Relevant Experience Projects where the specific individual(s) with direct knowledge or observation of the Contractor’s past performance has left the agency or organization, is the specific individual who was formerly in that role still the correct and acceptable Assessing Official to complete the Past Performance Substitute Form?

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.

Reference J.9 Collection of Task Orders Confirmation Form.

For a collection of task orders in which the offeror was a first-tier subcontractor, please confirm it is the Prime Contractor who must complete the Collection of Task Orders Confirmation Form.

The Prime may complete Attachment J.9.

Reference J.9 Collection of Task Orders Confirmation Form.

For a collection of task orders where the specific individual(s) with direct knowledge or observation of the Contractor’s past performance has left the agency or organization, is the specific individual who was formerly in that role still the correct and acceptable Authorized Official to complete the Collection of Task Orders Confirmation Form?

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.

The Solicitation states "There are no minimum qualification requirements established for Contractor Key Personnel." Are there preferred qualifications or required/preferred experience and education for the Corporate HCaTS SB Program Manager or Corporate HCaTS SB Contract Manager? (p. 43)

No.

Can a NAICS-compliant REP in Pool 1 be used as a non-NAICS REP for Pool 2? (p.

128)

Potentially, if all requierments set forth in L.5.2.2 are met.

If we are a small business that meets the small business NAIC size codes (not 8(a), women owned, service disabled, etc.), would self-certification on SAMS suffice, or is more needed? (p. 112)

See L.5.1.6.

For the accreditation items in H.6, if we are currently pursuing these and expect to have it by the award date of April 2016, can we take credit if we can show plan of action that outlines how we are working towards the accreditations? (p. 59)

No.

For federal contracts where we do not have CPARS, do we use form J.6 HCaTS SB Past Performance Substitute Form and have clients rate our performance on that form? (p. 137)

See M.5.2.2.

Ref: J.12.1. Is there a limit to the number of characters in the cells within which offerors describe KSA Scope Explanation and KSA Customization Explanation?

Yes; character limitations are intentional and shall not be altered.

Pg 103 of the RFQ. L.5.2 says it should be included in Vol 2 but the file naming convention says Vol 1. Should the file be named Vol 2?

Yes; L.4.1 will be amended.

Section L.5.5 instructs offerors to fill out the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet in Attachment J.7 (Price Worksheet). Attachment J.7 requires that the Offeror fill out the Offeror and Contact Information fields within the Instructions-Offeror Information tab;

however, the sheet indicates a password is required to make any changes. Will the government provide a password for offerors to complete the necessary fields? (Attachment J.7)

Corrected J.7 will be issued via amendment.

Is it acceptable to the government if the offeror does not submit the folder for Volume IV if the offeror does not hold any of the accreditations? (Section L.5.4)

Section L.4 will be amended to add the following:

NOTE: If the Offeror’s proposal does not contain any part of one Volume, the Offeror does not need to submit a folder for that Volume. For example, if the Offeror is not submitting any accreditations, Volume IV need not be submitted.

Regarding L.5.2 and the definition of a collection of task orders, would the government consider modifying the requirements for single task orders to include task orders issued as a result of the initial statement of objectives?

No.

Regarding L.5.2.4.4., when the government has wanted to continue the same services for additional years, the government has issued a new task order for this work. Because this work flows from the original Statement of Objectives (SOO), could it be considered a single project rather than a collection of task orders? It seems that small businesses preparing an HCaTS response are at a disadvantage point-wise because the government has made a decision to issue single-year task orders rather than a task order with option years. Furthermore, it appears as if offerors are penalized by completing projects on time (i.e., within the 12 month period of performance of most of these task orders).

No.

Please clarify the purpose of the Contractor Team Arrangement Form? See L.5.1.9.2.

Is the CTA to be used in submitting the Prime's Subcontractor(s)? No. see L.5.1.9.2.

Reference L.5.5 - Attachment J.7, Please clarify if only the Prime submits Attachment J.7.

The Government does not understand the use of the term "Prime".

Attachment J.7 is a required submission document. See L.5.5, failure to provide and complete Attachment J.7 (Price Worksheet) may result in the proposal being rejected as being non-conforming.

Additionally, altering Attachment J.7 (Price Worksheet) in any way may result in the proposal being rejected as being non-conforming.

Is the Prime allowed to submit a proposal response for Pool 1 and Pool 2? Yes Is the Prime allowed to submit a proposal utilizing more than one (1) soci-economic status, i.e., EDWOSB and SDVOSB?

Yes so long as the requisite certification requirements and substantiation documents as required at L.5.1.6 are met/submitted.

The Government is very specific in proposal submission format, how would a contractor state their commitment to put into place a EVM or other System?

In order to claim credit for an EVMS under Section L.5.4.4, the Offeror shall have a certification.

Will subcontractors be allowed to join the team post-award? Subcontracting arrangements would be determined at task order level; OCOs shall specify limitaions unique to individual task order solicitations.

If so, what is the process - a Consent to Subcontract? FAR Subpart 44.2 does not apply to HCaTS SB att he Contract level; OCO requirements at the task order level may neccessitate adherence to specific consent to subcontract requirements.

Do SDVOSBs need to submit CVE verification? (p. 112) Page 112 pertains to option sub-contracting plan submission requirements; see

Is there a scoring benefit to submitting all six (6) Relevant Experience Projects under the NAICS Code that corresponds directly to the Pool being applied for? (p. 124)

No, See M.6 for point values for Relevant Experience Projects.

If the Offeror is submitting a proposal for one Pool, is the Offeror limited/restricted to only submitting six (6) Relevant Experience Projects?

Will the Government allow Offerors to submit more than six (6) Relevant Experience Projects when applying for one Pool? (p. 124)

Yes, See L.5.2; six Relevant Experience Projects shall be submitted if applying for only one Pool.

Are resumes for the two key personnel permitted? (p. 123) No.

Are a Management Approach and/or Technical Approach and/or Staffing Plan part of the Proposal Content requirements? (p. 107)

No, L.5 and its sub-paras sets forth the required Proposal submission requirements.

Would the Government confirm that a NAICS code for work completed as a subcontractor can be assigned by the Prime contractor?

Also, would the Government confirm that it is acceptable for the NAICS code for the work performed as a subcontractor to differ from that assigned by the Government to the Prime contractor? (p. 127)

See L.5.2.1 (pg. 127) which sets forth if the Relevant Experience Project was performed as a First-Tier Subcontractor on a Federal government contract, task order or purchase order, in order to receive the points identified in Section L.5.2.4.1 the NAICS Code shall be assigned by the Prime Contractor on Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form), based on the preponderance of work that the Offeror performed and cannot be self-certified by the Offeror. This NAICS Code does not have to match the NAICS Code assigned by the Federal government to the Prime Contractor.

May a contractor with a single award contract that is a Firm Fixed Price Contract with IDIQ line items account for all work (FFP and all FFP task orders issued through the IDIQ line items) as a single contract? Or would this contract be viewed as a “collection of task orders”? (p. 125)

If the task orders awarded under the single-award contract meet the requirements as prescribed in Section L.5.2 for a "collection of task orders", the Offeror may choose to submit the Relevant Experience Project as a "collection of task orders". If not, the Offeror may submit the single-award contract or the individual task order(s) as prescribed in Section L.5.2. The RFP has been amended to add the following Note in Section L.5.2.2 to further define the minimum requirements of a Relevant Experience Project:

NOTE #3: If submitting a "single contract" as a Relevant Experience Project, the scope of work (and services performed) in the original contract award and/or any subsequent modifications claimed as part of the Relevant Experience Project shall be in scope of at least one KSA and that some component of the KSA-related service and/or product was customized. If a “single contract” did not originally include any KSA or any subsequent modification(s) did not include any KSA, the Offeror shall only claim meeting the minimum requirements as prescribed herein Section L.5.2.2 and receive points in accordance with Sections L.5.2.4, L.5.3.3 and L.5.3.4 for the original contract award and/or subsequent modification(s) that are in scope of at least one KSA and contain some component of the KSA-related service and/or product was customized.

Does the Government view/define the Period of Performance as contract award date through the completion of the contract? Or in the case of current contracts, through the closing date of this solicitation? (p. 135)

See L.5.2.4.4, Note #1.

If the Government defines the Period of Performance as separate from the start date of a contract (based on date of award) through the ending date of the contract as noted on contractual paperwork, what are acceptable examples of documentation to demonstrate the Period of Performance? (p. 135)

Period of Performance starts on the award date of the contract, task order, or purchase order. Section L.5.2.4.4 was amended to clarify the period of performance with the following:

NOTE #1: The period of performance is defined as the total duration of a contract, task order, or purchase order from the award date to the completion date. Offerors may take credit for the entire period of performance, regardless of when the contract, task order or purchase order was awarded, so long as any portion of performance was provided within the past five years prior to the solicitation closing date, including options. Options that have not been exercised by the Contracting Officer and any period of performance beyond the closing date of this solicitation shall not count towards the Relevant Experience Project’s period of performance.

For work completed as a first tier subcontractor, does the teaming relationship with the Prime contractor count as one of the three separate and distinct entities to earn points for Relevant Experience Project involving Subcontracting/Teaming for services with at least three separate and distinct entities? (p. 136)

No.

For work completed as a first tier subcontractor, does the teaming relationship with the other subcontractors on the contract count as separate and distinct entities to earn points for Relevant Experience Project involving Subcontracting/Teaming for services with at least three separate and distinct entities? (p. 136)

No.

For work completed as a prime contractor, if the Offeror holds a single contract (as a prime) with multiple subcontractors, do each of the subcontractors (on that single contract) count as one of the three separate and distinct entities to earn points for Relevant Experience Project involving Subcontracting/Teaming for services with at least three separate and distinct entities? (p. 136)

Only if the requirements set forth at L.5.2.4.5 are met.

“in the case of Relevant Experience Project(s) without a record of past performance, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” If an Offeror submits Attachment J.6 because no record of past performance exists in CPARS or PPIRS will J.6 allow the Government to be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance? (p. 137)

No, only Offerors without a history of past performance will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Either CPARS/PPIRS or Attachment J.6 can establish an Offeror's history of past performance. See L.5.2.2, page 130, Item No. 4 for how average past performance ratings are determined.

Is the only way in which a Contractor can be rated favorably or unfavorably (and thus receive credit/points) contingent upon data being available in CPARS and PPIRS? (p.

137)

No, only Offerors without a history of past perforamnce will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Either CPARS/PPIRS or Attachment J.6 can establish an OFferor's history of past performance. See L.5.2.2, page 130, Item No. 4 for how average past performance ratings are determined.

If no data exists in CPARS and PPIRS, and the Government Contracting Entity is no longer with the Government or that Department/Agency, will the Government accept Attachment J.6 documentation from the Government Program Office?

If not, how would the Government recommend the Offeror obtain and submit this information to be evaluated? (p. 138)

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.

Please clarify, is the Government allowing Offerors to deviate from the “Junior, Journeyman, Senior, and Subject Matter Expert (SME) definitions in Attachment J.1” for the HCaTS SB proposal, or only at the task order level? (p. 16)

No; Contractors may deviate from labor categories at the task order level only.

If the Government is allowing Offerors to deviate from the definitions in Attachment J.1 in proposals for HCaTS SB, how will the Government compare rates of Offerors with varying definitions? (p. 16)

Contractors may deviate from labor categories at the task order level only.

Please clarify, are successful Offerors bound to HCaTS SB labor categories and rates when bidding on FFP task orders? (p. 16-17)

No.

Please clarify, are Offerors to only use the HCaTS SB labor categories and rates to bid on T&M and Labor Hour task orders? (p. 16-17)

No, see L.5.5 which sets forth the Offeror shall propose fully burdened ceiling rates for sole-source T&M/L-H task orders. Also, see B.2.1 which states except for ancillary labor as defined under Section B.3, when responding to task order solicitations, regardless of contract type, the Contractor shall identify both Prime and Subcontractor labor using the HCaTS labor categories and corresponding SOC Number that applies. The Contractor may deviate from the Junior, Journeyman, Senior, and Subject Matter Expert (SME) definitions in Attachment J.1 (Standardized Labor Categories), as long as the Contractor clearly identifies the deviation in its proposals.

If the Offeror is not submitting an element of information, such as L.5.4.1 – Estimating System, does the Offeror need to provide an explanation or documentation stating that the Offeror is not submitting any items for that element?

Or simply leave that section blank on the Proposal Checklist? (Attachment J.2)

Nothing is required to be submitted if an element is not applicable.

Is the “annual value” based on the value of the awarded contract, even if there are option periods that have not yet been exercised and/or continue after the closing date of the solicitation? (Attachment J.5.1)

L.5.2.4.3, Note #1 specifies the calculation methodlogy to be utilized (distinguiding between completed and on-going projects) in determining the annual project value for purposes of the J.5.1 entry.

For contracts that vary in value from year-to-year, is the Offeror permitted to submit the average annual value? (Attachment J.5.1)

L.5.2.4.3, Note #1 specifies the calculation methodlogy to be utilized in determining the annual project value for purposes of the J.5.1 entry.

What substantiating information/documentation would Offerors submit to demonstrate the “annual value”? (Attachment J.5.1)

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

Are points awarded for Offerors that have three or more distinct subcontracting/teaming entities PER each Relevant Experience Project?

Or are the points awarded for Offerors that have three or more distinct subcontracting/teaming entities represented across all six (6) Relevant Experience Projects? (Attachment J.5.1)

See M.6, page 156, scoring for L.5.2.4.5; points are allocated for each Relevant Experience Project that involves subcontracting/teaming for services with at least three separate and…