MT-1_additional_QnA.pdf

Additional Q & A

Q1: Is there a current MT-1 docket management system that FIMA is using to track processing performance?

A1: Currently, FEMA uses the MIP to track performance.

Q2: Is there a venue where we can go to perhaps team with other interested vendors?

A2: FBO.gov has a vendor tab.

Q3: Will there be an extension to the dateline?

A3: No. (This answer presumes the question was referring to the proposal submission deadline.)

Q4: Mass LOMA have a large variation in the number of structures impacted (up to 10,000+) with a considerable coordination effort with stakeholders. In addition, only three have been done to date and FEMA’s processes have not been fully defined. Would FEMA consider including the cost of processing mass LOMAs under the cost-reimbursable CLIN 0003 instead of driving up the unit price for processing MT-1s (CLIN 0001)?

A4: Offers should include no mass LOMA costs. If a mass LOMA request is received, please notify the COR so that an equitable adjustment may be discussed.

Q5: Sub-Paragraph I.12 (L) states, “Contractors shall identify in their proposals the names and citizenship of all non-US citizens proposed to work under the contract.” We assume this list is included in the 25 page limit. Is this assumption correct?

A5: Yes

Q6: Follow-up to Question 3: Not all eLOMAs require an audit, but all eLOMAs require some administrative effort (i.e., distribution, filing). Should all eLOMAs be counted in SLIN-001B or only audited eLOMAs? A3 – All administrative effort for eLOMAs, or similar digital submissions, should be captured in SLIN-001B. Please confirm that the following is correct: Based on your answer, FEMA is paying the unit cost for any eLOMA completed, even if it was not audited.

A6: The unit cost should be for any audited eLOMAs. To clarify, FEMA does not anticipate any MT-1 Contractor costs for unaudited eLOMAs.

Q7: Business Proposal: We have submitted on similar cost items before and have received a defined format as to how the cost should be provided in Excel. Question: Does FEMA have a format that can be shared with responding firms?

A7: FEMA has stated the requirements of the business proposal in the solicitation. Above and beyond those requirements, FEMA has no additional requirements or format/template that must be used.

Q8: Page L-5: “The technical proposal must not discuss or allude to cost or price, although information that could affect cost or price, such as labor hours, labor categories, labor mix, or materials, must be discussed in sufficient detail in the technical proposal to allow FEMA to evaluate the contractor's understanding of the work.” Question: Would discussing past performance in terms of dollar savings, and how these savings could be passed along to FEMA, be considered alluding to cost or price in the Technical Proposal?

A8: These references are acceptable.

Q9: You provide an estimate for eLOMA audits of 2,500 per year. However, you provide a range of 0 to 25K eLOMA audits (SLIN 1001BA) and from 25K to 35K (SLIN 100BB). Is this a typo or do you expect to have an order of magnitude increase (10x) in eLOMA audits?

A9: As one of the objectives of this contract is to Support the continued growth and utilization of online tools, FEMA expects that the number of cases processed under this SLIN will increase overtime. The range is not an error.

Q10: SLIN 1001BA talks about eLOMA or “similar audits.” Do you foresee other audits different than eLOMA”?

A10: Offerors may propose alternative or additive digital methods for MT-1 processing above and beyond eLOMA. The “similar audits” reference was included to allow for the work needed to support alternative methods.

Q11: Can FEMA provide more details concerning its portal or electronic (web-based) tools and workflows for MT-1 and related processes (e.g., URL and/or links, documentation)? If a Web-based online system is under development or planned, what is its status? And who is working on it?

A11: The MIP (hazards.fema.gov) is the current web-based tool and workflow system, and is not expected to be updated prior to contract award. Our Customer and Data Services (CDS) contractor maintains the MIP.

Q12: Who currently holds the contract for processing MT-1 applications? Who has done so in the past two years?

A12: There is currently no separate MT-1 contract. MT-1 processing has been procured through the Risk MAP Production and Technical Services contracts since March of 2009.

Q13: Section C, pg. C-3, reference Obj. 2 – FEMA has requested contractors demonstrate how they will, “achieve a significant reduction in the overall cost of processing MT-1s.” Since we are not permitted to reference actual dollars in the Technical Volume, may we make reference to a “percentage of cost savings” or “percentage reduction in cost,” in the Technical Volume?

A13: This is acceptable.

Q14: Section C, pg. C-3, reference Question 45 – Would FEMA please identify where the final LOMC product is to be submitted (e.g., Engineering Library)?

A14: Final LOMC products must be archived with the CDS contractor.

Q15: Do all staff on this project need security clearance with FEMA (reference I-12(c))?

A15: Yes

Q16: Please clarify if there is a FEMA estimated Contract Award date.

A16: FEMA intends to award this contract as soon as possible.

Q17: Please confirm that given the NAICS code for this acquisition of 541990 ( All other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services), the scope of this MT-1 Processing Services contract would fall under the category of a service contract, and therefore the non-manufacturer provision of FAR 52.219-5 would not apply.

A17: The NAIC code is correct. FAR 52.219-5 is not in the solicitation and is a reserved clause.

Q18: Section G.5, pg. G-3 - Please clarify if award to an offer which includes both a small business prime and other firms as subcontracting teaming partners constitutes Subcontract Consent in accordance with FAR Clause 52.244-2.

A18: The business arrangement in this question is unclear. However, both Section G.5 and FAR 52.244-2 apply to this solicitation.

Q19: Section G.7, pg. G-5 - Please clarify the manner in which the invoice format cited in this section relates to the pricing structure outlined in Section B. The invoice format to be precisely followed does not seem to correlate with the Section B Pricing Structure.

A19: Section G.7 indicated the invoice or voucher detail necessary for payment of “cost and fees(s).” If such payments are requested, this detail is necessary.

Q20: Section L.7, pg. L-10 - Please clarify how Material Costs should be addressed given the FFP basis for MT-1/eLOMA transactions.

A20: This question is unclear. However, offers should provide detailed cost information including material cost on all line items.

Q21: Would employees that are not in direct contact with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or DHS IT Systems be required to be US citizens and/or Permanent Residents?

A21: See answer to Question 15.

Q22: Do all employees, who would be working on this contract, need to go through the HSAR 052.204- 71 background check, including EQUIP? Would vendors be required to pass through the same requirements?

A22: See answer to Question 15.

Q23: CLIN 0003 of the solicitation is for Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise with a SME level of effort of 2800 hours. Is this LOE for both Program Management and SME or just SME efforts? If just SME, will FEMA provide a LOE for Program Management efforts?

A23: The 2,800 hour estimate is for SME support only, and should be considered a maximum. The LOE for Program Management is estimated at 4,000 hours and again should be considered a maximum.

Q24: Page L-7 (Page 55 of “HSFE60-14-R-0001_amd_1.pdf”) and Attachment 5: Organization’s Performance Questionnaire - Reference: L-6 states, “In addition to information submitted directly by the contractor, they may have up to three (3) Organization’s Performance Questionnaire forms submitted, Attachment 5 (submission instructions on form). Forms submitted after the date specified on the form or directly from the offeror will not be accepted.” Attachment 5 states, “Desired Response Date: March 19, 2014” - Given the word “desired” was used with the response date, will FEMA allow questionnaires to be submitted by the due date of the proposal (March 28, 2014) or a day or two prior to the March 28th due date?

A24: All documents must be provided by the close of the solicitation.

Q25: Contract performance that ended earlier than three (3) years from the date that the current solicitation was issued is not considered relevant.” - Does this limitation apply to the PPQ only or to Past Performance references as well?

A25: It applies to the PPQ past performance questionnaire. For past performance, we reserve the right to review any and all information concerning past performance.

Q26: There are conflicting instructions for submission of the electronic version of the proposal. One section requires files for both volumes on the same media; another place requires they remain separate;

a third statement requires both volumes be combined in a single PDF for submission. Would the government please clarify submission instructions for the electronic copies?

A26: Both volumes may be on the same media and should not be in a single volume PDF.

Q27: The nomenclature for submission marking does not match the SF33. The RFP number is provided differently. Would the government please confirm the submission should be identified using the RFP number as it appears on the SF33 (HSFE60-14-R-0001)?

A27: Solicitation number is HSFE60-14-R-0001

Q28: Page L-9, 2.3 Cost Summary: “This report should include the following information: i. Contract Number; ii. Point of Contact (POC); iii. Period of Performance; iv. Program and Phase.” Question: Please define each of these items and explain how items i through iv relate to the cost summary and WBS.

A28: You should provide the information applicable to your proposal.

Q29: Reference: On page L-5 under Section L.7 Instructions to Offerers, FEMA states, “For the electronic copies, both volumes must be included on the same disk or thumb drive.” On page L-7 under 1.0 General Business Proposal Instructions, FEMA states, “If any information is considered proprietary by the subcontractor, that information shall be submitted under separate cover directly to the government.” The RFP allows proprietary information to be sent under separate cover, but requires both volumes of the proposal to be included on the same disk or thumb drive. How should the proprietary information be submitted electronically?

A29: Prime contractor proprietary information may be submitted on the same electronic media, but must be labeled as such. Subcontractors may submit proprietary information separately.

Q30: Page L-5 - Section L.7 (last sentence of the first paragraph), says that for electronic copies, both volumes must be included on the same disk or thumb drive. However, page L-6 says to include 9 electronic copies of the technical volume and 3 electronic copies of the business volume. Should we submit each volume on separate disks or thumb drives?

A30: See Amendment.

Q31: In building your unit costs for CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001, can we include cost for ODCs items used directly in our MT-1 production such as purchased or leased data sets?

A31: See Amendment.

Q32: Are there minimum vendor insurance coverage requirements?

A32: See Clause HSAR 3052.228-70, INSURANCE.