Q_and_A_MMS019.pdf

Amendment 1

HSCG23-15-R-MMS019

Questions and Answers

1. We would also like to know whether the Representations and Certifications (Attachments 2) should be included as a separate volume or included in one of the existing volumes for submission.

Answer: The Representations and Certifications may be provided as a separate document.

Travel Costs. I have a question about the amount of funding that can be allocated to travel in the budget price proposal.

2. On Page 24 of Attachment 2, the document specifies: “Use a figure of $10,000 and $13,000, respectively, for the base and option period one (1) for Other Direct Costs – travel (which includes G&A)”. The way I read this statement, it appears that total travel costs in year 1 are limited to $10,000 and in year 2 to $13,000 across all of the PWS --- and this includes Direct & Indirect costs combined. Is this the intent to limit travel to this amount across all PWS?

My concern is that several of the PWS will require travel to perform the Scope of Work, and I don’t believe the amount specified is sufficient for this purpose, when considering PWS 2.1-2.6 together. For example, PWS 2.3 specifies that a minimum of 10 ships will be sampled that have Ballast Water Treatment systems. This will require travel to sample most, if not all of these vessels, because they will come into different port systems (within the US) and at different times. On each ship sampling event, several biologists will need to travel to complete the sampling and analysis. I anticipate that on each such event, this is likely to include airfare, ground transport, lodging, per diem --- for a minimum of 3-4 days each.

It is not likely that multiple different ships will arrive within close timing of each other ---given the relatively few ships currently with operational treatment systems --- such that we should expect that a separate trip will be required for each event. It is also not likely that waiting for ships to arrive to a single port (e.g., Baltimore) would yield 10 appropriate vessels with treatment systems that could be sampled to meet the SOW, because the time period among arrivals may be weeks to months.

Answer: After review, the estimated travel costs (including G&A) are revised to be $32,000 and $37,000, respectively, for the base year and option period one (1). It is the government’s intent to limit travel across the entire PWS to these estimated costs. The instructions have been revised.

3. If this is the operational mode for ship sampling, I estimate a minimum cost for travel might be: 10 ships x 2 people x $1,200 each (airfare, lodging, per diem, ground transport for 3-4 day trip) = $24,000.

Answer: See question #2 and revised instructions.

4. Thus, I estimate the work for PWS 2.3 alone will require ~ $24,000 in travel costs. My current thinking is that this would be mainly in option year 2. Simply put, sampling ships will require travel to the port of arrival by a team of scientists.

Answer: See question #2

5. In my view, travel is required to implement both PWS 2.3 and 2.4 at the very least, in order to accomplish the tasks outlined.

Comment: See question #2

6. I estimate the travel costs for PWS 2.4 will require ~ $20,000, including $10,000 in each year. Combined with estimated travel costs from PWS 2.3, I anticipate at least $44,000 in travel is needed to successfully complete these two elements.

Comment: See question #2

7. I believe travel may also be required for PWS 2.6 and possibly other PWSs.

Comment: See question #2

8. In addition to the limitation [travel cost estimated by the government] specified in Attachment 2 (page 24), as below, I note that there is also see there is only acknowledgement that travel is needed for PWS 2.4 in Attachment 5, Section 1.7.1. I believe this should be expanded to include these other PWSs, although it may not be necessary (possible) to specify the exact locations.

Answer: See question #2

9. Having now considered possible costs associated with each PWS, I wish to seek clarification on the travel costs specified in Attachment 2 (as above).

Was this intended as an upper limit that applies only to PWS 2.1? This would be consistent with the current contract for NBIC that SERC has or does this apply cumulatively across all

PWS 2.1-2.6?

Answer: Travel costs apply to the entire PWS.

10. I wish to learn whether we can include travel costs that exceed the $10,000-13,000 specified value, when combining travel costs across all PWS (2.1-2.6).

Answer: See question #2

11. I wish to suggest that the apparent constraint on travel funding amounts be revised or clarified to either (a) remove the constraint of a particular travel amount or (b) substantially increase it.

Comment: See question #2

Price Spreadsheet: Labor Cost Calculation and Other Direct Costs. I have multiple questions regarding the information requested for Volume II – Price in Attachment 2 (page 24). These questions involve the Price Spreadsheet. This is a different format for budget information than we have used previously, so I wish to clarify a few things.

12. First, the document specifies 1,887 labor hours as the annual basis for an FTE. There are 2,080 hours in a year (40 hours/week x 52 weeks). I presume the labor hours adjusts for annual leave and holidays, resulting in 1,887 actual (realized) hours of work per year.

Answer: That presumption is correct.

13. We usually calculate pay rate on an annual basis. For example, an employee may be paid $50,000 per year. To properly estimate hourly rate, I presume I can divide $50,000 by 1,887 hours. This would yield an hourly rate of $26.50 in direct costs paid to employee. To complete the Price Spreadsheet properly in this example, I would apply benefits and indirect cost to this hourly rate as the labor rate for column 2 of the Spreadsheet (in Attachment 3). Is this correct?

Answer: Government declines to answer. Each offeror must decide how to draft its proposal.

14. Second, the current Price Spreadsheet has categories included for “Labor” and “Other Direct Costs – travel”. I presume that we can include other direct costs in our budget (e.g., field and laboratory supplies, genetic analyses, computer software, etc.), and that we should simply add additional rows as needed and label these accordingly as “Other Direct Costs – field supplies”, “Other Direct Costs – laboratory supplies, and so on. Is this correct?

Answer: Please add additional rows as needed and label these accordingly.

Price Spreadsheet: Format. I have two additional questions about completion of the Price Spreadsheet (Attachment #3).

15. I expect that the total length of the completed Price Spreadsheet(s) will be multiple pages, because including the Labor Categories and Other Direct Costs will require many lines (rows) for each PWS.

Comment: See revised instructions and next question.

16. I see two different approaches to include information for each PWS. First, I could provide a separate Price Spreadsheet for each PWS (e.g., one for PWS 2.1-2, one for 2.3, etc). This seems the clearest to me, to be able to see the cost basis for each PWS, and this is my preference. Is this acceptable?

Alternatively, I could subdivide each Price Spreadsheet (base and option period 1) into each individual PWS component per category. For example, under Labor Category, there would be a separate subsection for each PWS.

Answer: Please use the revised pricing sheet for the price proposal.

17. Price Spreadsheet: Format. My section question (following from C) is whether it is acceptable to provide the Price Spreadsheet in Portrait (instead of Landscape) orientation. I believe this will take fewer pages and be easier to follow across pages.

Answer: The orientation may be adjusted so document can be read easier.

18. Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). On page 24 of Attachment 2, the document estimates that

12.5 FTEs will be required in each year.

I estimate that approximately this number (12.5 FTEs) will be required for PWS 2.1-2 alone and that more will be required to accomplish the SOW for PWS 2.3-2.6.

I presume it is acceptable to include more FTEs in the price proposal along with the justification and rationale for this. Is this correct?

Answer: Offerors may use their discretion in exceeding the Government estimate of FTE’s.

Format of Document. Page 24 of Attachment #2 specifies font size for the text of Volume I, as 12 point for text and 11 point for graphs and tables. I have several questions regarding document format, as follows:

19. Is it acceptable to use 11 point format for Resumes for Project Manager and Alternate required In Management Approach (page 23 of Attachment 2)?

Answer: No, please use 12 font for the resumes.

20. Is it acceptable to use smaller (9 or 10 point font) to label objects in a figure, other than axes of a graph --- if it is fully legible?

Answer: Yes, it is.

21. Margins were not specified. Is it acceptable to use 0.5 inch margins for the document?

Answer: Please use 1 inch margins for the document.

22. Past Performance References. Page 23 of Attachment #2 specifies references should be for work within the past 3 years. I presume we could include a current project that has been in place for sufficient time to demonstrate performance, and that the project need have ended.

For example, if a contract has been in place for 3-5 years and has produced deliverables. Is this acceptable?

Answer: Yes, past performance references may be used for current and expired contracts/orders.