17R0020_QA_1_-_final.pdf

Question # Contractor Question Government Response

According to the RFP, the cover page has a proposal due date on March 27, 2017 and on Page three of the RFP the proposal due date is listed as March 24, 2017. Is March 27, 2017 the correct proposal due date?

The proposal due date is March 27, 2017 at 1000 CST. The information on page 3 of the RFP has been updated to correct this discrepancy.

Please confirm the number of base level seats are required:

CAD 6

Mech. Eng. 2 Elec. Eng. 2 Proj. Mgr. 1

3 Is this posting an expansion of the current contracts or a replacement?

This requirement consolidates 2 contracts in to one as outlined in Attachment 9, Consolidation D&F. This contract replaces the existing contracts, and will cover the existing technical requirements with differing and expanded technical requirements.

Do all rostered personnel for base services require a current security clearance or can they be in an inactive state, ready to be active or some other interim clearance, then beginning the appropriate security clearance process once the contract is initiated?

Yes, all personnel shall have a current security clearance at time of proposal submission.

Does our SECRET clearance need to be active at the time of proposal submission or by time of award? Our dormant clearance is soon to be activated for a Department of State contract.

Yes, SECRET clearances need to be active at time of proposal submission.

Evaluation of proposals (factors 1 & 2) includes validation of active security clearances.

6 Is the Government planning to award initial task orders based on the proposed scenario pricing or is the scenario pricing for evaluation only?

The Government will utilize the response to both task order scenarios for evaluation purposes as outlined in the RFP. The Government anticipates award of scenario 1 as task order 0001.

Are the qualifications specified as required for the key personnel based on the qualifications of the current incumbent personnel? Do the current incumbent personnel meet all of the specified requirements for key personnel?

The required minimum qualifications are not based on existing personnel, however some personnel may meet the requirements.

Will the Government permit the key personnel requirements to be satisfied in a “matrix” approach? For example, as long as 2 people are LEED certified, and 2 people are CEM certified, will that meet the requirement?

To be deemed acceptable, all tasks must be fully covered and key positions filled with qualified personnel.

HC1028-17-R-0020

Question & Answer, round 1

Key personnel are outlined in the PWS and PWS Key Position & Minimum Qualification Matrix. The Government estimates a maximum of 9 seats for the base services.

As a small business, a critical success strategy is to retain incumbent personnel through an effective transition plan. The highly specific nature of the key personnel requirements appear to give an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent. For example, Mechanical Engineer requiring “experience in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), TileFlow or equivalent software program, five (5) years of experience in energy engineering or energy management with a focus on energy conservation for critical facilities, experience with computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) and three (3) years of experience in building automation systems (BAS). The engineer is required to be a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) by the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) AP by the US Green Building Council or other national recognized equivalent program."

Would the Government consider modifying the requirement to allow the required personnel to be proposed as non-key, but mandatory on contract on a specified day after contract award, such as contract day 30, 60 or 90 as outlined in the proposed transition plan?

No, loss of service capabilities within the scope would put the mission and national security at undo risk. Key personnel requirements are the minimum technically acceptable experience, in addition see response to #3

The RFP states, “The phase-in transition period will not exceed 15 days.

The Contractor is expected to be at 100 percent performance on 1 June 2017." This appears to give an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent contractors, since any new employee to the contract will require a customary (2-week) notice period to their current employer as well as onboarding and clearance transfer, timeframes frequently outside the company’s control. The Government has placed significant weight on the bidders’ transition plan (Factor 1, Subfactor 2), but the 15 day requirement severely limits the effectiveness of bidders’ transition planning. We request that the Government remove the 15 day requirement, and allow the bidders’ to describe how they will meet the requirements during transition over 30, 60, or 90 day timeframes.

No, see responses to #3 and #9.

Please confirm the proposal due date and time. Page 1 indicates 27 Mar 2017, page 3 indicates 24 Mar 2017. Also, considering daylight savings time is in effect starting 12 March, please confirm the timezone indicated is Central Daylight Time?

The proposal due date is March 27, 2017 at 1000 CST. The information on page 3 of the RFP has been updated to correct this discrepancy.

At least one of the current contracts being consolidated allows (and has executed) work up to and including TOP SECRET, however the draft DD254 is only up to the SECRET level. Will the Government be raising the classification requirement to TOP SECRET before proposal submission or at a later date after contract award?

The current base requirement is at the SECRET level, some Task Orders for a special customer may require TOP SECRET or above. The PWS and DD254 will be adjusted accordingly.

The pricing attachment lacks formulas to generate desired totals. To ensure consistency, will the government consider releasing an updated attachment 7, to provide electronic formulas to ensure desired evaluation totals are generated exactly as the Government requires?

The Government does not intend to populate the spreadsheet with formulas. The total proposed/ evaluated price will consist of the response to both task order scenarios for each of the base and option years along with the ODC plug numbers for the base and all option years

The terms “generic resume” and “generic key personnel resume” are unclear. Please define “generic resume” and “generic key personnel resume” as it relates to the requirement to provide resumes of specific (vs.

generic) personnel.

The reason for this is to allow offerors to submit generic resumes which the evaluators can review to ensure that the contractor employees have the requisite experience and education. Resumes of specifically named personnel shall not be included within the contractors proposal. All resumes submitted shall clearly outline the qualifications of the individuals that the Offeror may provide, but should not identify an actual person.

For scenario pricing, it appears the Government is requesting that bidders determine the number of personnel to propose for each specific task area.

Is the Government requiring bidders to propose the same number of personnel as are currently on the contracts or is the Government expecting bidders to propose their own level of effort? If the latter, we request the Government either provide additional metrics that permit the determination of accurate proposed LOE, or utilize (and disclose) a price evaluation that normalizes the LOE before evaluation to ensure consistent evaluation. An example of requested metrics to calculate LOE could be, for CAD designers, numbers of drawings, relative complexity, typical required turnaround times, and other metrics.

Offeror shall submit resumes outlining their proposed personnel qualifications; however, the resumes should be generic and not identify a specific persons information. Also see response to question 14.

The RFP specifies Base Services Place of Performance in Denver, CO.

Will the Government permit the application of regional rate adjustment factors for work performed at alternate places of performance?

The Government will not entertain regional rates. It is anticipated that all "base services" i.e., services taking place on a long term, live-in basis, will be received at Denver, CO and Ft. Meade, MD. All other requirements taking place at other DISA locations will be on a TDY basis. As a result, the contractor shall provide labors rate for the following: On-Site: Denver;

On-Site: Ft. Meade; Off-Site rate for all other locations. the contractor shall be sure to incorporate all rates, for all labor categories, for all 3 locations (Denver, Ft. Meade, Off-site) in to the attachment 7 labor category chart.