Attachment 10.pdf

HSCG23-08-R-MMZ339 Questions & Answers

7/2/2008 1

1. The attachment 2 – Evaluation Criteria was incorrectly posted on FBO as attachment 5 the same as attachment 5 - Instructions.

ANSWER. The correct attachment 2 (Evaluation Criteria) was posted last week.

2. Attachment No. 3 (PWS for PQE Task Order) Section 5.0 states as one of the performance requirements to “…respond to mariner inquiries”. Are we to understand the Qualification Examiners may have direct interaction with the Mariner applicant? Does the MICC not handle these inquiries or is the mariner often transferred directly to the applicable examiner to resolve an issue or answer a question?

ANSWER: The MICC handles most inquiries, but may transfer a mariner directly to the applicable examiner on rare occasions.

3. Attachment 1, page 2 (Section 1.2 BACKGROUND): The next to last paragraph in this section estimates 7,000 requests to MICC for assistance per month, while Attachment 7, page 1 notes 5,000 monthly requests. Please confirm which number is correct.

ANSWER: The figure in Attachment 1 is correct. Attachment 7 is a draft PWS and will be revised.

4. Attachment 7, Draft Q & A, Question 22: We would like to request the current SOPs, either published for all or sent to our company. To whom shall we make that request?

ANSWER: See next question.

5. Per the solicitation instructions page 9 of Amendment 1 we are requesting electronic copies and or access to the Mariner Licensing and Documentation (MLD) Program, Mission Management System (MMS) at CG Central to assist in our bid preparation.

Please let us know how we can gain the access required.

ANSWER: Many of NMC’s SOPs are being revised, so they are not readily available.

SOPs will be posted on FedBizOpps as soon as possible. In the interim, offerors are invited to view the information at the NMC’s web site (www.uscg.mil/stcw).

6. Please confirm that the Key Personnel consist of the Project Manager and any On-Site Supervisors, and no other personnel. Is it the intention of the Government to not have trainers designated as Key Personnel?

ANSWER: Confirmed.

7. Submission of the first task order is due with the RFP. Can you please clarify what constitutes the submission, i.e., how many copies, is the pricing simply 1/12th of the PQE pricing submitted for the IDIQ?

7/2/2008 2

ANSWER: This question suggests a misunderstanding of the price schedule. PQE pricing is based on number of evaluations accepted. The unit is per evaluation – not month.

8. Attachment 5, page 5 (INITIAL TASK ORDER PRICE): This paragraph begins, “Provide a separate price proposal for the initial task order (i.e. PQE). This task order will be number HSCG23-08-J-MMZ080.” Please provide more detail on how we should present this initial task order proposal in terms of format (e.g., in a B-table or our own spreadsheet?) and submission (e.g., in the same Volume V and package as our proposal response to HSCG23-08-R-MMZ339, or in a separate volume and package?).

ANSWER: Spreadsheet in same Volume V.

9. Attachment 5, page 5 (INITIAL TASK ORDER PRICE): As in the draft RFP, this paragraph notes a five-month period of performance for the initial task order despite the time elapsed since that draft. Please confirm that the correct performance period is still five months.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

10. Attachment 1, page 2 (Section 1.2 BACKGROUND): The next to last paragraph in this section calls the pulled SSE inputs “electronic credential vetting requests”, while Attachment 5, page 5 calls these inputs “applications”. Since an application package can include more than one credential, does the 275 vetting requests/day estimate count credentials or applications?

ANSWER: The figure counts vetting requests. The applicant is the focus of the vetting.

There is only one applicant per application – regardless of how many credentials the applicant may request.

11. The Coast Guard has provided three days from final RFP release to submit questions.

We request the Coast Guard extend the question submission date.

ANSWER: This RFP was posted previously as a draft. Dozens of questions were received and answered on the draft RFP. That information is posted on Federal Business Opportunities. Request for extension is denied.

12. The Supplemental Instructions for proposal preparation states that there is a 100-page limit for Volumes I through III combined. Should the proposal cover page and table of contents be included as part of the page limitation? That would take up 6 pages against the page count (two pages for each of the 3 volumes). And does the Compliance Matrix count against the 100-page limit?

ANSWER: The pages described above may be excluded from the page count.

7/2/2008 3

13. In the Supplemental Instructions, Attachment 5, it states in the first paragraph on page one regarding the paper/font sizes that “A page is defined as one side of standard 8.5” x 11.0” paper, 12 pitch or equivalent, with 1 inch margin on all sides. The minimum font size is 9.” These two sentences contract each other in terms of the font size requirements. The first sentence states a font size of 12 pitch, whereas the second sentence states a minimum font size of 9 pitch. Which is the correct font size limit?

ANSWER: There is no contradiction.

Font refers to typeface. Font size denotes height and is expressed in points. Pitch refers to the number of characters printed per inch - measured horizontally. In other words, pitch defines the amount of space between each character. For example, a document printed at 11-pitch will have more space between its characters than a document printed at 12-pitch. The intent of the referenced paragraph is to discourage offerors from trying to meet the restriction on number of pages by shrinking, condensing and squeezing text to the point that it becomes difficult to read.

14. Regarding Attachment 1, Page 4, PWS 1.6.1 Transition In – Is the incoming contractor exempt from developing a Transition In plan?

ANSWER: No.

15. Regarding Attachment 3, Task Order PWS PQEB, Section 5.2 Administrative Evaluation Support, Page 6 – The incumbent currently has a staff dedicated to the production of mariner documents and preparing these documents for mailing. Under this Task Order for the PQEB the work in production is not included. Did the Coast Guard inadvertently leave out this requirement or is this work being reprogrammed?

ANSWER: The task described is not part of this contract.

16. Regarding the number of Past Performance references that may be included with our proposal, there is a contradiction in this number, as follows:

On Page 2, Attachment 5, para. (g), it states that we should “submit a list of (3) similar contracts, task orders, or subcontracts completed during the past three (3) years or currently in progress.”

On Page 3, Attachment 2 (Evaluation Criteria), Factor 4, it states that “the Offeror shall provide at least three (3) references to include specific points of contact and e-mail addresses for those contacts.”

Is the required number of references a maximum number of three, or can it be more than three?

ANSWER: The required number is exactly three (3).

17. Regarding Past Performance Questionnaires, are we allowed to submit questionnaires to other contract references that are not included as part of our proposal references?

7/2/2008 4

ANSWER: No.

18. Regarding the Price Proposal, does the Government require separate sealed pricing bids from our subcontractors?

ANSWER: Yes (if applicable).

19. Page two of the Supplemental Instructions paragraph (f) require the offeror to “provide a Personnel Data Form or resume for each person proposed for the initial task order”. This requirement is both irregular and unreasonable. It is irregular in that it is not a normal practice to require this information on all proposed personnel, especially when those personnel are not Key personnel and are not managerial. It provides the evaluators with a test that is not a reasonable expectation of performance, namely, can the offeror acquire written commitments from incumbent personnel. Whether a contractor can hire and retain personnel is strictly a matter of the quality of the opportunity (the job and the compensation). If the Coast Guard’s desire is to ensure that incumbent employees remain on the contract, we suggest you ensure this by reasonably evaluating the offeror’s overall proposal which will provide a more exact measure. The requirement is unreasonable because it favors the incumbent by the fact that they have ready access to incumbent personnel that other offerors do not. The Coast Guard must realize that such commitments have no teeth. Neither party is contractually committed. Ultimately, the Coast Guard may give too much weight to this factor which has no bearing on the offeror’s ability to perform the work and may in fact be misleading.

ANSWER: See question 20.

20. Attachment 5, Page 2, Volume III (f) of the USCG NMC RFP HSCG23-08-R- MMZ339 states:

“Provide a Personnel Data Form or resume for each person proposed for the initial task order. Provide detailed compensation/fringe-benefit package for employees supporting this contract.”

Are you requiring resumes for all personnel for the Initial Task Order # HSCG23-08-J- MMZ080? Or are you requiring resumes for the Key Personnel only?

ANSWER: Submit Personnel Data Forms or resumes for key personnel proposed for the initial task order.

21. Reference page 2 of Attachment #5 (Supplemental Instructions) paragraph (f). The referenced paragraph states that the offeror is required to submit PDFs or resumes of "all persons proposed...". If this is the case then it would seem that potentially, offerors could be evaluated on the basis of how many incumbent contract personnel they are able to secure resumes from or employment agreements with. This places undue advantage on any company teaming with the incumbent contractor.

7/2/2008 5

Respectfully request the RFP be changed to call for the resumes of the Program Manager and a representative resume for each labor category proposed.

ANSWER: See question 20.

22. The Solicitation Document, page 18 of 44, Paragraph V, states that “The contractor….shall furnish…. Services (non-personal)…..” However, Attachment 5, page 2, paragraph (f) states that as part of its proposal, the offeror must: “Provide a Personnel Data Form or resume for each person proposed for the initial task order.”

Since this is not intended to be a personal services contract according to the first statement, it appears that requiring the contractor to submit and present the individual names and identification of individuals who will perform in each and every position for apparent government evaluation and approval seems contradictory to that intent. Please clarify. Will the government change this requirement to require Personal Data Forms or resumes for proposed key personnel only for the initial task order rather than all personnel proposed for the task order?”

ANSWER: See question 20.

23. Page 1 of the Supplemental Instruction, paragraph (b) requires the offeror to “…address all PWS requirements sequentially without deviation…”. Considering that the Coast Guard is dictating five volumes and dictating to some degree the contents of each volume, we do not think it is possible to comply with this requirement and provide a coherent proposal. We recommend this particular requirement be stricken.

ANSWER: No change in response to this comment.

24. Contract PWS, Paragraph 1.3.2.3 states: “Contractor employees shall speak, read, and write English. There is an additional need for some Spanish language capability to support the MICC.” What is the minimum FSI or ACTFL Scale rating required to meet the Spanish language capability requirement of this PWS paragraph?”

ANSWER: S-3.

Continued on next page.

7/2/2008 6

ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE PENDING:

PWS, 1.2 Background: How many of the 66,000 applications received from May 2006 to April 2007 were declined due to issues or concerns found in the PQE or SSE?

PWS, 1.2 Background: Regarding the REC reorganization schedule; has the reorganization taken place as planned and on schedule? What are the issues, if any, that have been experienced as a result of the reorganization effort to date?

PWS, 5.1, Professional Qualification Evaluation: Is the contractor able to contact the subject directly to obtain missing information?

PWS, 5.2, Security, Safety, and Suitability Evaluation: Is the contractor expected to conduct background checks, collect information from various databases, and contact courts, probation officers and other sources to verify identities? Is this required in the processing of every application?

Ref Att.3 pg 6 para 5.2.1.1. Referenced paragraph states that the offeror will issue and grade examinations. It is our understanding that this task is currently performed at the Regional exam centers, can the government please clarify this requirement? Will personnel under this IDIQ also perform this task? If so, is there an estimated work load for this or are there specific situations where this task would arise?

Regarding Attachment 1, Page 6, PWS 1.15.1 Cycle Time, and SF 1449 CLIN 0001B- 1E:

a. How will the Government track and report cycle time on an evaluation?

b. How will the Government measure cumulative time during the process as evaluations move from waiting information, medical review, for review, etc. back to the evaluator for either further work or corrections?