Q A__2.pdf

Questions and Responses # 2

1. Are Offeror’s required to propose staffing in accordance with Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region without any deviation?

Response: Yes.

2. If Offeror’s are allowed to deviate from the staffing provided in Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, please provide the estimated workload information.

Response: Offeror’s may not deviate from the staffing requirements in Attachment 5.

3. The Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires, in Paragraph H-2 of the RFP, states the DOL Labor Category for FAP Victim Advocates is a professional, non-SCA position. The DOL has issued WD 2013-0093 for Victims Advocates and WD 2014-0042 for Advocates for personnel performing the same scope of work. Please confirm these Wage Determinations are not applicable to this solicitation.

Response: All applicable DOL Wage Determinations will apply to this solicitation. Employees cannot be paid lower that an applicable wage determination.

4. In Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, the Government has stated the location for multiple positions is "Region." Can the Government please provide the geographical location for these positions?

Response: For the Mid-Atlantic Region, the Regional Office is in Norfolk; for Naval District Washington, the Regional Office is in Washington, DC; for Navy Region Southeast, the Regional Office is in Jacksonville, FL; for Navy Region Japan, the Regional Office is in Yokosuka; for Navy Region Pearl Harbor, the Regional Office is in Pearl Harbor; for Navy Region EURAFSWA, the Regional Office is in Naples, IT; for Navy Region Marianas, the Regional Office is on Guam; for Navy Region Southwest, the Regional Office is in San Diego, CA; for Navy Region Northwest, the Regional Office is in Everett, WA.

5. Is the Bahrain position meant to be part of the OMN chart that also included Super Region

OCONUS?

Response: The Bahrain position is the sole position under the contract which remains under OMN-OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations).

6. For the staffing provided in Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, is this provided as expected staffing for the purposes of our proposal?

Response: Yes.

7. For the staffing provided in Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, if this provided as expected staffing, will the government please provide historical staffing information?

Response: No. Historical staffing is not necessary to provide a proposal.

8. In Section L-3-4(2)(b), the Government asks for Offerors to "discuss experience with collective bargaining agreements (CBA)." Is there a current CBA for this program?

Response: No.

9. If there is a current CBA, can the government provide it to the Offerors?

Response: N/A

10. If there is no CBA, is there a bargaining unit?

Response: N/A

11. Centralized Scheduler is an SCA position. Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, lists the location for many of these positions as "Region." Please provide the geographical locations for this labor category so industry can determine the correct Wage Determination and wage rate.

Response: Answered under Question 4 above.

12. The successful Offeror is required to provide consumable supplies, i.e., copier paper, toner, etc. for Norfolk FFSC, VA; Oceana, VA; Little Creek, VA; National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD;

Sugar Grove, WV; Fort Gordon, GA; San Diego, CA (all FFSCs); and FFPS Murphy Canyon Branch, San Diego, CA. The amount of consumable supplies for each location is likely to differ greatly depending on workload and that is not provided. Please provide a plug number to use for these ODCs.

Response: The average total monthly cost for these sites over the past five months is $14,148.64.

13. If a plug number is not possible, please provide the historical amounts of each consumable supply used.

Response:

14. Please provide information by which offeror’s could estimate the historical needs for consumable supplies at the installations listed in PWS 17.

Response: See #12

15. Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, has two OMNR staffing locations, New Orleans and Ft. Worth that are under the title "Six Month Extension". Should these locations be staffed throughout the life of the contract?

Response: Yes. The words "Six Months Extension" should have been deleted from the title.

16. Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, has the FAP Staffing under the title "Six Month Extension." Should these locations be staffed throughout the life of the contract?

Response: Yes. The words "Six Months Extension" should have been deleted from the title.

17. The link listed in Attachment 3 under "Other Resource Information" http://www.ffsp.navy.mil/ffsp/accreditation.htm does not appear to be working (it is related to accreditation standards). Please provide an alternate link for this resource.

Response: There is no alternate link. The referenced FFSP Accreditation Handbook has been replaced by the attached FFSP Certification Standards. This will be provided in a modification to the solicitation.

18. Will FFSMIS data reports be available to the contractor for QC purposes?

Response: Yes.

19. Will the contractor be able to run or request data reports from FFSMIS for QC purposes?

Response: Yes.

20. PWS 5.9.2.5 indicates that NAFI will provide contractor personnel who work in OCONUS areas access to services and facilities identified in the provided table, but that the contractor or their employee must pay for the services on a non-reimbursable bases. Please confirm that this refers to permanently assigned personnel and not those using the facilities (e.g., lodging) on temporary duty.

Response: Confirmed.

21. For PWS 9.15 Relocation Costs, is there a set amount available for relocation costs if needed?

Response: The amounts included in paragraph 11, Travel (page 44 of 92) take relocation costs into consideration.

22. For PWS 9.15, if there is no set amount, will relocation costs be negotiated after award?

Response: N/A

23. PWS 15.5 "Performance Standards" references customer comment cards. Will the contractor have access to the comment cards on contractor staff?

Response: Government representatives will provide any necessary feedback to the Contractor whenever issues arise.

24. With prior government approval, are site visits by contract management staff reimbursable through a travel CLIN?

Response: No.

25. For the staffing provided in Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, is this provided as historical information for offeror’s to extrapolate future staffing requirements?

Response: The staffing provided in Attachment 5 is to be used to prepare a proposal for the requirement's base six month period and for the requirement's four option years.

26. For the staffing provided in Attachment 5, Staff Allocation by Super Region, if this provided as historical staffing, will the government please provide expecting staffing?

Response: N/A

27. Are all incumbent staff members fully qualified IAW the qualifications outlined in PWS 14.4?

Response: Yes. However, it is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure they are qualified upon contract award.

28. If any incumbent staff members are not fully qualified IAW the qualifications outlined in PWS 14.4, will any waivers granted to current contractor convey for these individuals?

Response: No. Contractor will be responsible for providing qualified personnel per the PWS.

29. Is there a relative weighting for the evaluation factors listed in M-1?

Response: Non-cost factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Non-cost features are approximately of equal importance to price.

30. What will be evaluated for each item in the Technical Proposal listed in M-1?

Response: Section L provides information concerning what each item in the offeror's Technical Proposal should address, and upon which evaluation shall be based.

31. Will the government please provide specific questions for offerors to address under each of technical factors being evaluated?

Response: The offeror's attention is invited to Section L, L-3-2, Volume II - Technical Proposal for details concerning what should be addressed by the Technical Proposal.

32. What adjectival rating will the government use to rate each technical factors (e.g. outstanding, good, or acceptable)?

Response: Technical Evaluation Adjectival Rating are as follows:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION ADJECTIVAL RATINGS & DEFINITIONS

EXCELLENT (E) GOOD (G) SATISFACTORY (S) POOR (P) UNACCEPTABLE

(U)

E (Excellent) - Proposal/factor demonstrates thorough and detailed understanding of requirements.

Technical considerations and capabilities significantly exceed performance and capability standards.

Proposal/factor offers one or more significant strengths which are not offset by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a high probability of success with no apparent risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements. An excellent rating includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance which can be expected to result in a superior completed product, and essentially no disadvantages. In addition, an excellent rating may include an aesthetically pleasing and innovative proposed design solution.

G (Good) - Proposal/factor demonstrates clear understanding of requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities exceed performance and capability standards and include some advantageous characteristics of substance and few relatively minor disadvantages. Proposal/factor offers one or more strengths. Strengths must outweigh any weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a strong probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements.

S (Satisfactory) – Proposal/factor demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities meet performance and capability standards. Proposal/factor offers no strengths, or, if there are strengths, these strengths are offset by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a reasonable probability of success with overall moderate degree of risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements.

P (Poor) - Proposal/factor demonstrates a limited understanding of requirements. Technical considerations and capabilities are questionable as to whether or not they meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains weaknesses and offers no strengths, or, if there are strengths, these strengths are outweighed by weaknesses. The proposal/factor represents a low probability of success with overall high degree of risk in meeting the NAFI’s requirements. Proposal/factor might be made satisfactory with additional information and without major revisions of the proposal.

U (Unacceptable) - Proposal/factor demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirements.

Technical considerations and capabilities do not meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal/factor contains major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The degree of risk is so high that there is no reasonable likelihood of success, regardless of price. Deficiencies are so major or extensive that a major revision or complete rewrite of the proposal would be necessary.

33. If the rating definitions are adjectival, how will the government define each of the ratings?

Response: see above

34. The government states in M-1 that the non-cost factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Accordingly, is the Technical factor is three times more important than the Past Performance factor?

Response: Section M does not assign specific values to the non-cost factors.

35. The government states in M-1 that the non-cost factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Accordingly, is the Organization sub-sub-factor under the Technical Resources sub-factor six times as important as the Management Staff sub-factor under Technical Resources?

Response: Section M does not assign specific values to the non-cost factors.

36. The government states in M-1 that the non-cost factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Accordingly, is the Organization sub-sub-factor under the Technical Resources the same as the Organization sub-sub-factor under the Management sub-factor?

Response: Section M does not assign specific values to the non-cost factors.

If not, how are they different?

Response: Section L provides a description of what should be provided to illustrate the proposed application of resources for each functional area.

37. Could the government please clarify what will be evaluated per "Positions not covered by DOL Wage Determination"?

Response: Section L provides a description of what should be included in the Technical Proposal for Positions Not Covered by Department of Labor Wage Determination.

38. What type of security will the contractor be responsible for providing (evaluation factor under Technical sub-factor 2: Management)?

Response: Section L provides a description of what should be included in the Technical Proposal concerning Security.

39. How will the government evaluate an offeror's ability to conduct safety and accident prevention?

Response: Section L provides a description of what should be included in the Technical Proposal concerning Safety and Accident Prevention.

40. How will the government evaluate Technical sub-factor 2: Management, sub-sub-factor c, Contract Administration. Contract administration cannot occur until after award.

Response: Section L describes the elements which should be addressed by the Technical Proposal concerning Contract Administration.

41. How will the subcontracting proposal be rated?

Response: Acceptable or Unacceptable

42. Will subcontracting plan be rated as acceptable/unacceptable?

Response: Yes

43. Will subcontracting plan be rated using an adjectival ratings?

Response: No

44. Are there specific subcontracting goals?

Response: No

45. Are there specific small business subcontracting goals?

Response: No

46. Please provide page limitations for sections other than for Technical Methodology (35 pages) and Past Performance (1 page each).

Response: There are no other page limitations.

47. Are the key personnel identified in L-3-2 1 (c) (6) "(i.e., Project Manager, Quality Control Chief, Financial Manager, Contracts Manager, and Functional Chiefs)" the only required key personnel?

Response: The referenced personnel are examples only. It is up to the offeror to identify its own key personnel.

48. Please provide minimum requirements or qualifications for the key personnel positions identified in L-3-2 1 (c) (6).

Response: The solicitation asks the offeror to provide the minimum qualification requirements it insists upon for each of the offeror's key personnel.

49. Are offeror require to provide their own definition for the minimum requirements or qualifications for the key personnel positions identified in L-3-2 1 (c) (6)?

Response: Answered under question 48 above.

50. Was PWS area 4.4 intentionally omitted?

Response: Yes. There is no paragraph 4.4 in the PWS.

51. On page 77 of 92, Section L-2.f states text font must be no smaller than 12 point. Would the Government allow the font size of identifying information in the headers and footers to be set to no less than 10 point?

Response: Font size shall be as the solicitation requirements state.

52. What are the qualifications for the Personal Financial Education Specialist position?

Response: The Personal Financial Specialist labor category is the same as the Accredited Financial Counselor position described in paragraph 14.4.10 on page 47 of the solicitation.

53. What are the qualifications for the Crisis Response Supervisor position?

Response: The Crisis Response Supervisor labor category is the same as the Contract Counseling and Advocacy Programs (CAPs) Supervisor position described in paragraph 14.4.3 on page 46 of the solicitation.

54. On Attachment 5, page 9, under Gulfport: Is the position supposed to read "New Parent Support Home Visitor?" (All others have "Parent" in the name.)

Response: Yes, it should read “New Parent Support Home Visitor.”

55. Do qualifications differ for Child Counselor and Child Counselor (FAP)? No, they do not differ.

Or Clinical Counselor and Clinical Counselor (FAP)? No, they do not differ.

Or WFL Consultant and WFL Consultant – OCONUS? No, they do not differ.

Response: No they do not differ