QA posted 21 Sept 09 Amend 1Finalx.pdf

Questions with Answers, Amend 1 to RFP H92222-09-R-0034, posted 21 Sept 2009.

1. PWS, paragraph 3.1.1 of the SDS references under Cost Control assessing several “cost” type factors, such as “Have overhead costs increased substantially?” which do not typically apply to FFP. How will FFP be evaluated under Cost Control?

Answer: There are several Cost Control SDS areas that apply to FFP and others that apply to cost type orders – each task will be rated appropriate to the type of order. Additional information is in the QASP for the task order level SDS criteria and Section H on option exercises as well (such as competitiveness on task orders).

2. Clause H.29 requires the contractor and its subcontractors to make an express offer of employment to each employee who is covered by the Service Contract Act. In order to prepare an adequate FFP proposal for the four task orders, request information be provided as to how many of the positions are SCA covered, length of their employment, and SCA labor category.

Answer: None of the positions are covered under the SCA for these 4 task orders.

3. Section L, paragraph 1.13.1 requires the offeror to have a facility to accommodate up to 67 persons within 50 miles of MacDill AFB. However, task order 4 does not mandate that performance has to be within the Tampa area. Please clarify.

Answer: The number of personnel working off-site as indicated in Section L accommodating up to 67 persons (number of current Full Time Employees in current contractor off-site facilities) is the number of personnel that the Government specifically indicated needed to be in Contractor Off-Site facilities based upon the current requirements throughout all task orders under ALMBOS. When this is required in the future, that information will be annotated in the Task Order ITO. Since Task Order 4 does not indicate that the Contractor will be required to house the Contractors in specific off-site facilities within a 50 mile radius, the Contractor can propose to put the people required to support the task anywhere, as long as the solution is fully explained as required in Section L of the solicitation.

The required Secret Facility to house up to 67 people only includes support personnel for specific task orders that will be competed in the future and does not include any of the support required for management personnel that a contractor may propose as part of their offer for basic contract support. As stated in the ITO for Task order 4, this current off site support is included in the overall 67 number. However, we are not requiring this particular task order support to now be located within the 50 mile radius.

Sections L and M have been revised to clarify this requirement. There is no intent or desire on the part of the Government for offerors to go out and lease or acquire a facility capable of housing the 67 possible off site employees on day 1 of the contract award. Offerors may or may not win those task orders that require off site support. The off site support magnitude may also change over time.

4. Section L, paragraph 1.13.1 requires the offeror to have a facility to accommodate up to

67 persons. If a team member versus the prime contractor has the facility to accommodate 67 persons, is this considered acceptable?

Answer: The prime offeror must have the TS facility clearance and be able to provide a local facility within a 50 mile radius of MacDill Air Force Base that can be accredited at the SECRET level capable of accommodating up to 67 persons. If the SECRET facility is a team member versus the prime contractor, please state in the offer.

5. Section L, paragraph 3.1.2 references SF294s/SF295s. May copies of the equivalent ISR (previously SF294) and SSR (previously SF295) be submitted versus the SF forms?

Answer: Yes, Section L has been revised accordingly via Amendment 1.

6. In the Draft RFP, it was mentioned that copies of the current task orders would be provided. Will the Government supply a copy of the current task order related to the four task orders in the final RFP?

Answer: As stated in the previous Q&A posted for the draft RFP, FOIAs are required to receive copies of current task orders to ensure all redactions are properly made. The FOIA website is:

http://www.socom.mil/foia/Pages/default.aspx Offerors are cautioned that these task orders are not the same as task orders currently being administered under the current contract:

requirements have been re-written and combine when the Government felt combination of requirements made sense. Historical data is provided in each ITO as well as in Attachment 3.

7. In order to map the four task orders to Attachment 3, please provide the current task order numbers.

Answer; the previous/current task order numbers are on the each task order DD 254.

8. Task Order 2, SOO – The paragraph numbers appear to be mis-numbered under paragraph 2.0. Please clarify.

Answer: re-numbered last two paragraphs in Amend 1

9. Task Order 2 requires travel in accordance with paragraph 7.0. Recommend since specific locations are not provided that travel be bid as Cost Reimbursable versus FFP.

Otherwise, please provide specific locations so that an adequate FFP can be prepared.

Answer: see Question 16 response below.

10. Task Order 3, ITO states that travel is required, however the SOO, paragraph 7.0 indicates that there are no known travel requirements. Please clarify.

Answer: The ITO is clear for TO 3 as to what to input on the travel CLIN for travel. Paragraph 7 of TO 3 SOO is also clear, as is states that “Travel is required to various CONUS and OCONUS locations”. Only TO 1 has no travel requirement. Please review again.

11. Question: Section H indicates that exit criteria for task order completion should be discussed as part of the Task Order Proposals, but Sections L and M do not include requirements to discuss exit criteria. Are exit criteria considered to be part of the performance metrics?

Answer: All task order proposals should be submitted IAW Section L. Section H is contract post award for all other task order competitions. If it isn’t in Section L and M then it is not required and will not be evaluated. Please reference Section H Deviations for the Government’s intend for the award of the actual task orders.

12. Question: Are offerors required to submit a Total Compensation Plan (TCP) as part of their proposals? If so, will the Government specify the volume in which the TCP should be included and the evaluation criteria associated with the TCP?

Answer: Yes, per 52.222-46. Include in Volume 1, however, this is not pass or fail, it will be evaluated IAW 52.222-46 as previously explained in the draft RFP Q&A posted in Aug 2009.

13. Question: The Service Delivery Summaries for the four task orders include the following Cost Control metric: “Must accommodate fact of life changes and increases in scope.”

Please clarify what is meant by “increases in scope” for these firm fixed price task orders.

Answer: All Task order SDS and Contract QASP has been revised to clearly state “increases WITHIN scope”. The intent of this measurement is to evaluate how well the contractors managed FFP task orders for minor changes, adjustments, flexibility of minor changes that are within the scope of the task order”. Substantial changes though determined to be within scope of the overall task order would be dealt with via modification. Changes determined to be “out of scope” would not be added to the task order.

14. Question: Submission of Task Order Proposals states “All cost/price proposals for all task orders shall contain Evidence of progress toward or compliance with all small business subcontracting plan goals.” Since small business participation will be tracked at the contract level (ref. H.21.1), please clarify how it will be evaluated at the task order level.

Answer: Again, if not in Section L, it is not required.

15. Question: Section L requires offerors to provide Key Personnel resumes, but Section M no longer includes evaluation criteria associated with this requirement. Will the Government please provide evaluation criteria for the key personnel resumes?

Answer: No. The Government is not required to specify each evaluation criteria for every requirement in Section L. Section M already clearly states; 1.4.1 Subfactor 1: Management Organizational Structure/Teaming Arrangements: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s outlined plans for each organizational element and defined responsibilities and business management practices, processes, and expertise to manage the GBPS contract in order to determine if the proposal exceeds, meets, or does not meet the requirements.

16. Question: Task Orders 2, 3, and 4 require travel; however, only Task Order 3 specifies the Cost Reimbursable Travel CLIN. Because of the uncertainty associated with the travel requirements, are we correct in assuming that the Travel CLIN also applies to Task Orders 2 and 4? If not, please provide additional details (e.g., locations, specific number of personnel) that will allow offerors to accurately price the travel associated with these Task Orders.

Answer: Task order 3 is the only task order that the Government can’t provide a reasonable estimate of required travel associated with the requirement; therefore, the Travel CLIN is appropriate. Enough information regarding travel for Task orders 2 and 4 is provided. The Statement of Objectives provides number of personnel, CONUS or OCONUS, duration, etc. This is enough information to include travel in the contract type CLIN. Costs do not vary enough from locations unless the Government changes from less CONUS to more OCONUS requirements, in which case a modification would be accomplished.

17. Question: We noted in the RFP the ability to ask questions. Is there a suspense/cut off date for questions?

Answer: No. However, offerors are cautioned that if they wait until the last minute to ask questions there is no guarantee they will be answered.

18. Question: Is the page numbering of the SF33 correct by section? 107 pages vs. 104?

Answer: No. 104 is correct. Our procurement database does not allow changing the page numbers on page 1 of the SF 33 after we have made changes in view document of the RFP in order to correct formatting errors when inserting sections into the system.

19. Question: The Statement of Objectives requires that the Editor-In-Chief must possess a Bachelor’s degree in either media, communications, or journalism along with eight plus years of experience in magazine development and print media production management.

As long as the experience requirements are met, is a Bachelor’s degree in a similar/relevant discipline (e.g., history, psychology, political science) acceptable?

Answer: No it is not.

20. In the Instructions to Offerors for Task Order 3 (CCM), an SCI addendum to the DD254 is referenced; however, there is no addendum provided in the final RFP released

September 10. Will the Government please provide the SCI addendum referenced in TO 3?

Answer: ITO has been revised to removed “SCI” just FOUO addendum for TO 3.