Group_B_RFP_Q A_07_Nov_2014.pdf

General:

The pricing templates for each task order have been revised. Offerors can add cells/calculations to reflect offerors accounting processes and procedures.

Note: The hours provided are the required hours for each task; DO NOT change the number of hours per FTE or Total Annual Hours

Offerors may submit questions to the Contracting Officer at any time; however, questions received after COB 14 November 2014 may not be answered prior to the solicitation closing date.

# RFP Document Section Para.

Page

Question/Comment Government Response

1 Attachment 1, SWMS

Group B SOW

7 Table 8 The performance objective regarding issues, concerns, and customer complaints are resolved at the lowest level references SOW Para. 5.1.1.

After review of the SOW, we found no such reference and ask if the Government was referring to SOW Para. 5.1?

Amendment 0001 will change the reference to

5.1

2 Attachment 1, SWMS

Group B SOW

7 Table 8 The performance objective regarding contractor maintains a stable workforce and fills vacancies timely references SOW Para. 4.5. After review of the SOW, we found no such reference and ask which SOW reference further describes this requirement.

Amendment 0001 will change the reference to

5.5

3 Attachment 6b Cell E9 The SOCSOUTH analyst is shown as working

1800 hours per year, whereas all others are

1880. Is this a mistake?

Amendment 0001 will correct the hours for

SOCSOUTH to reflect 1880.

4 Attachment 6b Cell P46 It appears that this cell should total the cost of travel, but it totals the OY4 personnel subtotal, the personnel total and OY4 travel.

Amendment 0001 revises the pricing template.

5 Attachment 6b Cell P48 This cell should total the personnel and travel costs for Base Year thru OY4, but it does not.

Amendment 0001 revises the pricing template.

6 Attachment 8 MSOS ITC Instructio ns

2.c 2 Item 2C in the instructions for the MSOS ITC

TO says, "For evaluation purposes, offerors shall apply their indirect rates as appropriate and propose a fixed fee amount ...". Should this read, "For evaluation purposes only…."

indicating that the value for the estimated cost for subtask 2 and 3 provided by the government is simply a plug for ease of comparison?

Amendment 0001 will add “only” to

Attachment 8 ITO Paragraph 2.c.

7 Attachment 8, Section

2.a

2.a The Government states in Attachment 8, Section 2.a, “The fully burdened rate shall include all labor, material required to provide these services.” Does the Government intend to add cell(s) to the MARSOC ITC pricing template (Attachment 8b) for the offeror to propose costs for ODC and/or Materials, or does the Government intend for the offeror to include costs for ODC and/or Materials in their fully burdened labor rates?”

The FFP should include ODC and/or Materials in their fully burdened labor rate.

8 Attachment 8b MSOS

ITC

2.2 3 Please clarify the correct number of hours for the Task Lead. Paragraph 2.2 of the SOW suggests that an FTE is 1800 hours, whereas and the Attachment 8b reflects 1880 hours.

Amendment 0001 will include a revision to

Attachment 8; SOW Para 2.2 to correct the discrepancy. The required hours for the Task

Lead are 1880.

9 Attachment 8b MSOS

ITC

TO TEP

tab

The Government Plug number for travel is being included in the MSOS ITC TO TEP;

however only the indirects were being included on the other two sample tasks. Please confirm that this is intentional, or update accordingly.

The pricing templates for all 3 task orders have been revised. The TO TEP should have calculated the totals to include the plug number for travel and indirect rates.

10 Attachment_10_PPQ Some font sizes used in Attachment 10 are 11 point and the margins exceed 1" (one-inch). Is the Offeror to adjust the attachment (i.e., margins and font size) in order to meet the font and margin restrictions cited in

Final_Group_B_RFP, Section L1.2.2, page 37, which states Times New Roman 12 point and 1" margins.

No, font size applies to offeror generated documents. Formatting for Government provided attachments can remain unchanged.

11 Attachment_10_PPQ 2 SWM

S

SOW

Parag raphs

2 The PPQ requests the Offeror’s customer respondent to rate performance in SWMS SOW task areas 4.1.1-4.1.9, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.3, which contain no description of task scope.

Without the customer’s knowledge of the full scope of each SWMS task area, how will a proper rating of performance be made of the

Offeror?

Amendment 0001 will revise Attachment 10

PPQ to remove this portion. Offerors should provide rationale to how the effort is relevant to Group B.

12 Attachment_6_Lessons_

Learned

2 b 2 Instructions to Offerors provide a Government estimate for travel per year of $400,000.00. In that the government has established a common base price (non inclusive of offeror indirect loads) for all offerors to bid, is it the governments intent that offerors should still provide a detailed Basis of Estimate (for anticipated Travel) as part of its Technical approach and understanding, as described in

Section L.2.3.1 Technical, Page 39, of the Final

Group B RFP?

No. Amendment 0001 will include a revision to L2.3.1 as follows: L2.3.1 Technical.

Describe your knowledge and understanding of the requirements and provide an overall discussion of how you will meet the requirements outlined in the TO SOW.

13 Attachment_9_PPI_Grou p_B

The font size used in Attachment 9 is 11 point and the margins exceed 1" (one-inch). Is the

Offeror to adjust the attachment (i.e., margins and font size) in order to meet the font and margin restrictions cited in

Final_Group_B_RFP, Section L1.2.2, page 37, which states Times New Roman 12 point and 1" margins.

No, font size applies to offeror generated documents. Formatting for Government provided attachments can remain unchanged.

14 Final Group B RFP L L2.3.

P. 39 L2.3.1 states: "Provide an overall discussion of your management approach meet the SOW.

Provide a detailed basis of estimate (BOE), without related cost data, which supports the technical approach, to include all required resources to execute the requirements delineated in the SOW. The BOE shall provide sufficient detail to convey an understanding of the requirement, the minimum required labor categories, labor hours per category, and the basis for the proposed hours which were used to develop the offeror’s price."Question: The government has already provided all the highlighted requested information. See

Attachement_6_Lessons_Learned (10.0) and

Attachement_6B_Lessons_Learned. What does the government require in addition to this information?

Amendment 0001 will include a revision to

L2.3.1 as follows: L2.3.1 Technical. Describe your knowledge and understanding of the requirements and provide an overall discussion of how you will meet the requirements outlined in the TO SOW.

15 Final Group B RFP L 4.2 41 Is DBA an ODC that will be reimbursed at cost or do we need to include the cost of DBA in the

FFP?

All ODCs should be included in the FFP.

16 Final_Group_B_RFP L L1.2.

3, Table

L.1, L3.1

37 Per Table L.1, under L3.3, it lists Past

Performance Questionnaires as part of Volume

II submission. Offeror acknowledges PPQs are to be submitted directly from our reference to the government. Does the government want a copy of the PPQ we sent to our references or just the "PPQ Tracking Record" of the PPQs per L3.1?

Just the PPQ Tracking Record. The completed

PPQs will be provided directly to the

Government.

17 Final_Group_B_RFP H H.6 14 RFP states "The DPLH specified in Section B will be taken from RFP attachment 3 for the task orders attached to the solicitation."

Attachment 3 of the RFP listed in Section J, is called "Contractor Provided Quality Control

Plan". Please clarify reference.

Amendment 0001 will “Reserve” H.6. This clause is not applicable to Group B.

18 Final_Group_B_RFP B. H.6 CLIN

2, 14 Section B, CLIN 0002 is labeled as CPFF but states Level of Effort in the details. In addition, H.6 identifies the CPFF-LOE under CLIN series 0003 versus CLIN 0002, please clarify whether a separate CLIN should be established for CPFF-LOE or if both types will be issued under the same series?

Amendment 0001 updates the CLIN 0002 description to remove the LOE reference.

19 Final_Group_B_RFP L L2.2.

1.4

39 Does the Organizational Conflict of Interest plan count against the 45 page limit?

Yes.

20 Final_Group_B_RFP L-1 L1.2.

37 Can the Cover Letter be exempt from page limitations?

Cover sheets are excluded from the page limit

(Reference L1.2.3).

21 General The Draft RFP had a requirement of Set staging of the training facilities. (VSO) However, I was not able to find any requests for such items on the RFP. Is there a need for the set staging, and will there be an additional award for set staging of the training facilities?

Village Stability Operations (VSO) is not a current requirement. If there is a need in the future it would be included in request for task order proposal.

22 Group B RFP With regards to Past Performance, will past performance be required for future Task Order

Requests following award of the initial IDIQ?

Potentially; the Government intends to award future task orders using a variety of procedures

(i.e. Trade-off, LPTA) to determine best value.

23 H92222-14-R-0021 M, 2.3 44 In Section M 2.3, Subfactor 2.3 is designated as

FFP, but Attachment 8b for Subfactor 2.3 shows FFP, CPFF and Cost. Can the government confirm which contract type

Subfactor 2.3 is?

Amendment 0001 revises M2.3 as follows:

Sub-Factor 2.1: FMD Lessons Learned (FFP w/ Cost Travel CLIN)

Sub-Factor 2.2: FMD Manpower

Augmentation Support (FFP w/Cost Travel

CLIN)

Sub-Factor 2.3: MSOS ITC Support (FFP w/

CPFF CLINs and Cost Travel CLIN)

24 H92222-14-R-0021 L 2-Apr 41 Section 4.2 requests Offerors to provide a total

Firm Fixed Price for Lessons Learned Task

Order, Manpower Augmentation Task Order, and MSOS ITC Task Order, and yet the pricing template in Attachment 8b requires two tasks to be priced as Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Can the government provide clarification as to what contract type Sub-factor 2.3 MSOS ITC Task

Order will be?

Offerors are required to submit a FFP proposal for Lessons Learned, FMD Manpower

Augmentation and MSOS ITC SOWs provided. Additional pricing instructions are identified in the separate Instructions to

Offerors for each Task Order. In addition to

FFP, MSOS ITC includes CPFF and Cost

(Ref: Attachment 8)

25 H92222-14-R-0021 Attachm ents 6b, 7b and

8b

Is the government's use of 1880 hours per FTE for evaluation purposes, or does the government want Offerors to provide their actual productive work year if it is different than 1880 hours?

The hours provided in the SOW and pricing templates are the hours the Government expects the contractor to perform.

26 RFP B 3 Question - Can the government provide an example of where CLIN 003 (Fixed Price

Incentive Fee) or CLIN 004 (Cost Plus

Incentive Fee) has been used under the existing

GBPS contract?

No. These CLINs are included in the event these contract types will be utilized for future requirements.

27 RFP J N/A 24 The list of attachments indicates Attachment 3 constitutes the "Contractor Provided Quality

Control Plan (submitted as part of Sub-factor

1)". There was no such attachment or template found on FBO marked as Attachment 3. Did the

Government intend to provide an Attachment 3 or is this listed in error in Section J. Please clarify the Government's intent.

The QCP is submitted as part of Volume I, reference L2.2.1.5.

28 RFP L 2.1 38 The Government specifies that offeror's are to, "Provide a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations."

This is specified in the instructions for Volume

I, Technical Proposal. This also appears to be the same information requirement per Section

L.5.3 on page 42 of the RFP under subparagraph (a). We recommend that the

Government remove the redundant information requirement in Volume I and retain the requirement in Volume IV, Administrative

Material and include the requirement that

"...individuals who are authorized to discuss the proposal [and conduct negotiations] with government personnel...."

Amendment 0001 will delete "Provide a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations." from

L2.1.

29 RFP L 2.2.2

Subfa ctor

1.2

39 Are the resumes for key personnel exempt from the page limitation for two areas two IDIQ technical capability responses (LREC and

MARSOC G-7)? The instructions for both indicate that a resume is required for key personnel but the Table L.1 does not exempt the resume from the page limit was noted for all other areas of the proposal. Recommend that the resumes for these two requirements not count against the page limit.

An amendment will remove the requirement to submit resumes for Key Personnel; this applies to LREC and MARSOC G-7 ONLY. Future

Requests for Task Order Proposal will identify any Key Personnel/resume requirements.

30 RFP L L2.3.

39 The instructions regarding Quality in response to Factor 2 - Task Order Proposal states that in accordance with the [offeror's] proposed QCP, include metrics for gauging the quality of service provided under each task order. Does the Government want us to only provide only the metrics for gauging the quality of service provided for each task order proposal? Please provide clarifying instructions as to the need to provide more elaborative responses that summarize our QCPs or whether or not evaluators will be able to review our proposed

QCPs from Subfactor 1.1 - Program

Management and thus, need only the metrics for gauging the quality of service provided for each task order proposal.

Based on the QCP offerors propose as part of

Factor 1; include specific metrics that apply to the task orders provided.

31 RFP M 2.2 44 "Sub factors are of equal importance" for

Factor 1 but are noted as descending order of importance on page 43. Please confirm that the sub factors are of equal value?

Amendment 0001 will revise M2.2 to reflect

"Sub-factors are in descending order of importance."

32 RFP L 1.4 38 Is there a naming convention for the Volumes with the electronic submission?

Amendment 0001 will add the following language to L1.4: Naming Convention for files: Offeror Name-Vol # (ABC-Vol I).

33 RFP L 5.4 42 We currently have valid documentation from

DCAA regarding our accounting system's ability to permit timely development of all necessary cost data for the cost type CLINS and the negotiation of cost in accordance with the

FAR and applicable supplements. Our valid documentation was provided from DCAA on 28

December 2011 upon award of a similar IDIQ contract supporting DoD with cost-type task

If the offeror’s accounting system has not changed from what DCAA validated, the 28

December 2011 documentation is sufficient.

Offeror’s are advised that if a contract is awarded, a post award accounting system audit will be required to re-validate the accounting system.

order contracts/CLINS. Given that the

Government requires valid documentation within the last three years and the possibility of extensions of SWMS B proposals due dates beyond 28 December 2014, how far in

"advance" must we be prepared to submit an advanced copy of an SF 1408 to the cognizant

DCAA office and the SWMS Contracting

Officer?

34 RFP and Attachment 9 L 1.2.3 37 Table L.1 limits each past performance citation to 2 pages. The government provided template for the citation (Attachment 9) is already 1 page. Recommend that the page count for be increased to a minimum of three in order to fully address the information requested in

Attachment 9?

The Government requests clear, concise information be provided as part of the Past

Performance Information Sheets, extensive narratives are not requested. The page limit remains unchanged.

35 Final_Group_B_RFP Section I 5652.

237-

22 Reference 5652.237-9001 Key personnel

Requirements. Is it the Government’s expectation that only the Program Manager should be submitted as a key personnel with resume for the IDIQ level of the contract?

Yes. Offerors can identify additional key personnel as part of their management approach; however, a resume is not required.

36 Final_Group_B_RFP L 2.2.1.

39 RFP requires Offerors to (1) describe their quality control plan, and (2) submit their quality control plan, included in the page count. A robust QCP for a contract of this size and scope would be itself as long or longer than the page limitation for Volume I. Is it the Government expectation that Offerors will provide both a description of their QCP AND their QCP in their submissions? Request the Government consider accepting a summary of Offeror's CQ

Plan and allow Offerors to submit a full version of their QC Plan on award.

Offerors should describe their plan for quality control. The Government does not desire an in-depth Quality Control Plan but rather a clear and concise plan the offeror proposes to address L2.2.1.5.

Final_Group_B_RFP L L.1.2.

37 Can the government please clarify what is meant by the term "Cross Reference Matrix". Is this term analogous to a "Compliance Matrix"?

Amendment 0001 will revise the language in

L1.2.3 to “Compliance Matrix” vice Cross

Reference Matrix.