MPE-S_RFP_Attachment_7_QA_v.2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mission Partner Environment Services (MPE-S)
- Solicitation number
- HC1047-18-R-4012
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for Mission Partner Environment Services (MPE-S). The solicitation will be for a single-award IDIQ contract to provide services to design, implement, and operate the MPE enterprise worldwide over a five-year ordering period. Services will include capabilities analysis, engineering, program management, logistics, testing, and equipment to support the MPE-Information System and related programs. The Defense Information Systems Agency intends to release the RFP in July 2018 with an anticipated award in Q4 2018. The contract will include both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement CLINs as well as cost-reimbursable ODCs and travel plug values. Offerors had questions about documentation requirements, pricing templates, and the scope of ODCs. The government provided clarification around page limits, consent letters, formula errors, and guidance that ODCs for the notional task order should not be priced.
MPE-S Responses to Follow-up Questions for Clarification
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q and A
| MPE-S HC1047-18-R-4012 | |
| ATTACHMENT 7 - QUESTION TEMPLATE | |
| Company Name: |
| Question # | Questions / Comments | RFP Reference | Government Response | RFP Change Required (Y/N) | Location of Change | |
| 1 | L.4.2.2.3.3. Subfactor 3: Contract Management and Task Order Management (PWS 6.1, Task Area 1) states- “The Offeror shall include a Service Management Plan (SMP) and Key Personnel that meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS. | |||||
| Question- Will the Government please clarify if the SMP should address the IDIQ PWS, the Notional Task Order PWS, or both? | L.4.2.2.3.3. Subfactor 3: Contract Management and Task Order Management (PWS 6.1, Task Area 1) | The SMP only addresses the IDIQ PWS. | N | |||
| 2 | Q&A 77 confirms that consent letters are only required for subcontractors if the offeror is submitting a past performance by a subcontractor. Amend 0001 Section L.5.1.3 still states the contractor is to provide consent letters 'In accordance with the page limitations set forth in Table 1.1, the Offeror shall provide consent or client authorization letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner. These letters authorize the release of past performance information so the Offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is provided at Attachment 5.' | |||||
| Q) Would the Government please confirm that the Amendment 0001 L.5.1.3 requirement for consent letters only applies if the offeror is submitting a past performance by a subcontractor, as it appears the Amendment conflicts with the Q&As? | Amend 0001 L.5.1.3 Part C-Consent Letters, Q&A #77 | Confirmed that this only applies if the Offeror is submitting a past performance record by a subcontractor or teaming partner. | N | |||
| 3 | Q&A 77 confirms that consent letters are only required for subcontractors if the offeror is submitting a past performance by a subcontractor. Amend 0001 Section L.5.1.3 still states the contractor is to provide consent letters 'In accordance with the page limitations set forth in Table 1.1, the Offeror shall provide consent or client authorization letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner. These letters authorize the release of past performance information so the Offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is provided at Attachment 5.' | |||||
| Q) would the Government please confirm that offerors are NOT to submit a consent letter for EACH subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, but ONLY those partners who would have direct involvement in the referenced past performance? | Amend 0001 L.5.1.3 Part C-Consent Letters, Q&A #77 | Confirmed that this only applies if the Offeror is submitting a past performance record by a subcontractor or teaming partner. | N | |||
| 4 | The government provided Attachment 6 has the following formula errors: |
1. On each CY buildup row 42 for CPFF CLINs, the formula is written as =sum(AB5:AB41). As a result, an Offeror's total price is duplicating their labor cost as labor cost is being calculated on row 36 with the formula written as =sum(AB5:AB35).
| Question - Will the government please amend attachment 6 to fix this formula error, or will the government please remove the text from the instructions worksheet in Attachment 6 that offerors are not permitted to alter the government provided formulas? | Pricing (Amendment 0001 Attachment 6) | The formula has been corrected. | Y | Attachment 6 |
| 5 | The government provided Attachment 6 has the following formula error on the Total Price Rollup worksheet: |
For each CY worksheet, Task 3 has a mix of FFP labor for subtask 6.3.1 and CPFF for subtask 6.3.2.
1. On the total price rollup worksheet the government formula for populating the FFP prime labor on row 4 reads ='CY1'!W42+'CY1'!BQ42 which is correct. Though when the government is populating the Total Proposed Price CPFF on row 26 of the Total Price Rollup worksheet the government formula is also capturing the FFP labor.
The formula reads as ='CY1'!BM92+'CY'!CE92. When you trace the precendents back to the CY1 cell reference of CE92, that formula is summing the FFP labor in cell BQ92 and CPFF labor in CA92.
2. Cell G4 on the total price rollup worksheet is populating this cell utilizing the formula ='6 Month Extension Option'!W40+'6 Month Extension Option'!BQ40. When you trace the precendents back to the 6 Month Option worksheet, those cells referenced in the formula are blank and should reflect W42 and BQ42.
| Question - Will the government please amend attachment 6 to fix this formula error, or will the government please remove the text from the instructions worksheet in Attachment 6 that offerors are not permitted to alter the government provided formulas? | Pricing (Amendment 0001 Attachment 6) | The formulas have been corrected. | Y | Attachment 6 |
| 5 | The government provided Attachment 6 has the following formula error when calculating Prime contractor overhead (OH) cost on the CY1 worksheet: |
The government provided formula for calculating overhead on row 40 of the CY1 worksheet is written =AB36+AB38*$B$40. This formula should be corrected as it is written for CY2, CY3, CY4, and CY5 as =(AB36+AB38)*$B$40.
| Question - Will the government please amend attachment 6 to fix this formula error, or will the government please remove the text from the instructions worksheet in Attachment 6 that offerors are not permitted to alter the government provided formulas? | Pricing (Amendment 0001 Attachment 6) | The formula has been corrected. | Y | Attachment 6 |
| 6 | The government provided Attachment 6 has the following G&A calculation error found on CY4. |
On row 86 of CY4, cells J86 and Q86 utilize the formula =(sum(J80:85)+J42)*$B$86. This formula is incorrect as it is applying G&A to an already fully burdened (through Fee) FFP hourly rate.
| Question - Will the government please amend attachment 6 to fix this formula error, or will the government please remove the text from the instructions worksheet in Attachment 6 that offerors are not permitted to alter the government provided formulas? | Pricing (Amendment 0001 Attachment 6) | The formula has been corrected. | Y | Attachment 6 |
| 7 | The government provided Attachment 6 has the following"Total Direct Labor" error for Task 2 of CY4. |
The current government provided formula in cell BM36 is including all subtask total direct labor costs except for AW36. As a result, it is underestimating the total evaluated price on the total price rollup and CLIN summary worksheets.
| Question - Will the government please amend attachment 6 to fix this formula error, or will the government please remove the text from the instructions worksheet in Attachment 6 that offerors are not permitted to alter the government provided formulas? | Pricing (Amendment 0001 Attachment 6) | The formula has been corrected. | Y | Attachment 6 | ||
| 8 | How does the Government want the offeror to propose COTS as ODC without a sheet to input build up costs to ODC total? The instructions state the offerors are not to hardcode any numbers into the sheet. | Q&A #7 and #120 | The Requirements Traceability Tool cited in Question #7 is not included in the Notional Task Order. Rather, it is a potential deliverable on any Task Order under the IDIQ contract. Its cost, therefore, will be included on future task orders, if applicable. However, the T&E / V&V Environment Management Tool cited in Question #120 is included and required as part of the Notional Task Order ODCs, which shall not be priced, but simply listed as part of the solution required by the Notional Task Order. As a result, the Government Response to Question #120 is changed from "Yes" to "No." | N | ||
| 9 | Where does the Government want the offeror to itemize ODC costs in regards to required COTS costs? | Q&A #7 and #120 | Please see the response to Question #8. Notional Task Order ODCs shall not be priced, but simply listed as part of the solution required by the Notional Task Order. | N | ||
| 10 | In reference to the Service Management Plan (SMP) in PWS 6.1.1, states, “The text in the "Page Limit" column is changed to read: "Technical / Management Approach shall not exceed 40 pages, inclusive of the SMP. The SMP shall not exceed 25 pages. The resumes shall not exceed 3 pages and are not included towards the 15 page count for the Technical / Management Approach page limitations." However, Table 1.1- in section L.2.2 on page 24-25 of 48 states, “Technical / Management Approach shall not exceed 40 pages. The SMP shall not exceed 25 pages and is included in the 40 page limit. Resumes shall not exceed 3 pages and are not included towards the 40 page count for the Technical / Management Approach page limitations.” | |||||
| Please confirm that any pages not allocated to the SMP are available for the Offeror to use to answer the Subfactors and the IDIQ and Notional Task PWS requirements. | Q&A #5 | The Offeror has 40 total pages for their Technical/Management Volume (excluding resumes which are not counted toward the total). | ||||
| The Offeror must address the Technical/Management Subfactors in that 40 pages and has the latitude to determine how much of the 40 pages they would like to devote to the SMP (assuming it is less than 25 pages). Put another way, as long as the SMP is under 25 pages and the total volume is under 40 pages (excluding resumes from the count), this is acceptable. | N | |||||
| 11 | The RFP originally had a total of $4,675,000 worth of Travel/ODCs listed in both section L and in Attachment 6. According to the amendment, the Attachment 6 is unchanged, with $4,675,000 listed under “Travel”, but section L.6.2.6 shows $4,250,000.00 per year of ODCs, plus $425,000.00 in the 6 month option to extend for a total of $21,675,000.00. There are no values populated in the “Other Direct Costs” (row 23) section of the Attachment 6 template. Please advise if the section L values for ODCs should be inserted into Attachment 6 in addition to the travel plugs for a total plug value of $26,350,000.00 before labor and surge. If that is not the correct total, please clarify what values should be in rows 22 and 23 of Attachment 6. | The template has been revised to match the RFP travel plug in numbers. | Y | Attachment 6 | ||
| 12 | Answer #120 says that COTS tools should be priced as an ODC, but that seems to go against the concept of the plug ODCs referenced elsewhere in the RFP. Please advise if offerors should be bidding just the plug ODC values, or if other ODC amounts should be added to those plug values. If other ODCs need to be added to those plug values, please identify what ODCs would be expected to be priced there. | Please see the response to Question #8. Notional Task Order ODCs shall not be priced, but simply listed as part of the solution required by the Notional Task Order. | N | |||
| 13 | Section K includes a reference to 252.215-7009 – Proposal Adequacy Checklist. This should be required with proposals requiring certified cost and pricing data, but given that this contract will be competitively procured, it seems that this should not be required at the IDIQ level and would only potentially apply on subsequent task orders. Please advise if the full Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required with this submission. | The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not required with the current submission. | N | |||
| 14 | Some ambiguities remain with the RFP Instructions and the Q&A released with Amendment 1 on what the government is expected to see incorporated for ODCS proposed costs. Can the government please confirm that all the hardware and software associated with the proposed Sample Task Order should be included in the ODC line item of the pricing template? | Please see the response to Question #8. Notional Task Order ODCs shall not be priced, but simply listed as part of the solution required by the Notional Task Order. | N | |||
| 15 | Section L.2.4 depicts the following Volume IV file names: |
• Volume IV: Shall be sent as three files labeled as follows:
o Company Name – Volume IV – Part A o Company Name – Volume IV – Part B o Company Name – Volume IV – Part C
| Would the Government please advise where the offeror is to submit the remaining Parts listed in L.2.4 (Part D; Part E; Part F; and Part G)? | L.2.4; Page 71 of 94 | ||
| Q&A 61 | Please see the revised Section L.2.4. | Y | Section L.2.4. and Section L.2.2. |
| 16 | The government requests offeror’s to provide Volume IV with three volumes and was confirmed in Q&A #61 dated 09/05/2018: |
Part A – Cost/price narrative Part B – Estimating System Part C – Purchasing System
Under Section L.6.1.4, Supplemental Cost/Price Information, the government states that Offeror’s shall submit its current Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) and, if applicable, a more recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP).
Question #1: As offeror’s will write to their estimating system, purchasing system, and accounting system in Part A - Cost Narrative, will the government permit the following submission structure for Vol IV:
Part A – Cost/price narrative which includes all of the required sections listed above. If the government would like a copy of the offeror’s estimating system (Part B), purchasing system (Part C), and accounting system (Part D) status they can supply those to the government via Attachments.
Part E – Explanation of Estimating Methods – This is written to in the Offeror’s cost/price narrative (Part A).
Part F – Offeror describes their approach to the government provided template and provides to the government as an attachment.
Part G – Offeror’s Sanitized Cost Proposal
| Question 2: if the Government will not allow the offeror to restructure Volume IV as above, Will the Government please provide guidance as to specific Parts the offeror is to submit per L.2 (Part A; Part B; Part C; Part D; Part E; Part F; and Part G) as the guidance and Q&A only have the offeror submitting 3 parts? | L.2.4; Page 71 of 94; L.6.1.4; | ||||
| Q&A 61 | Please see the revised Section L.2.4. | Y | Section L.2.4. and Section L.2.2. | ||
| 17 | Per Amendment 1, and in Reference to Question #134, below, is the Government specifically stating that the network encryptors are provided as GFE? | Yes, the network encryptors will be provided as GFE. | N |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .