MT-1_preproposal_conference_slides_w_QnA_FINAL.pdf

MT-1 Pre-Proposal Conference Industry

Webinar March 11, 2014

Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration

Risk Analysis Division

Good Afternoon and Welcome

Roll Call We ask that mute you phones at this time Questions should be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect

Thank you!

Hosted by Industry Liaison Program

FEMA-Industry@fema.dhs.gov

Agenda Time Topic

12:00 Welcome and opening remarks

12:15 Risk MAP and MT-1 Processing Services Overview

12:45 Contractual Information

1:00 Break / Lunch – submit your questions

2:00 Response to questions and closing

Opening Remarks

Freda McDonald– Contracting Officer

Risk MAP Overview

Joshua Smith– Risk Analysis Division

Risk MAP Overview Through collaboration with State, Local, and Tribal entities, Risk MAP will deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that reduces risk to life and property.

Reduce Risk to

Lives and Property

Promote Community

Mitigation Action

Increase Awareness of Flood Risk

Collaborate across all levels of government

Enhance delivery of Risk MAP Products

Support that allows communities to identify risks and promote:

Community resiliency Sustainability Reduced need for federal disaster assistance

MITIGATION PLANNING

Tools to understand how flood risk has changed

Continuous engagement with communities

Enable communities to communicate flood risk to constituents

Deliver High-Quality

Risk Data

Understandable Flood Maps Credible data—reliable, accurate, watershed-based Illustrations of possible Flood

Depths Usable Flood Risk

Assessments

Pr od uc ts

G oa ls

Pr oc es se s

Risk MAP Goals

Mitigation, NDRF & President’s Direction on Preparedness and Mitigation

More Resilient Nation

BW-12 and Risk MAP: On the Right Path

Authorizes Mapping Program

Identify, review, update, maintain and publish National Flood Insurance Policy Rate Maps

• 100-year floodplain

• 500-year floodplain

Develop National Flood Insurance Program flood data on a watershed basis

Establish a Scientific Resolution Panel

Create a USACE/FEMA Taskforce

Complete a study on Levees

Engage local communities about flood risks

BW-12 and Mapping: Additions

Create a Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC)

Include climate study and future conditions study in map updates to areas of residual risk, including areas that are protected dams

Improve interagency coordination and studies

Future Risk MAP Contract Structure

HMTAP CDS

PM Risk

MAP

PTS

CTPs

MT-1

Note: This slide doesn’t depict CERC, which will also engage with MT-1, PTS, CDS, etc.

Provider Support by Functional Area

Provider PM IT Planning/ Program ming

Risk MAP Production

Dissemi nation and Use

LOMC

Assess

Planning

HMTAP TARC

PTS X X * X

(MT-2) X X X

CERC X X X X X

MT-1s X X

RM PM X * X * X *

RM CDS X X X

Functional Areas

X indicates primary responsibility, * represents significant support

Universal Objectives Strong, flexible, tailored Regional Support High levels of cooperation and integration Strong Program and Contract Management Assist with design, implementation and communication of statute, regulatory, policy and process changes (e.g. BW-12, PPD-8, etc) Support rapid disaster response and recovery efforts

CERC Overview Responsible for Community Engagement and Risk

Communications Has primary responsibility for achieving Mitigation Actions Heavy Regional Support role Extensive coordination with PTS and PM contractors will be required Details can be found at https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=for m&id=55578ccfdfc0562ff8861ca66a000c54&tab=core &_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=55578ccfdfc0562ff8861ca66a000c54&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=55578ccfdfc0562ff8861ca66a000c54&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=55578ccfdfc0562ff8861ca66a000c54&tab=core&_cview=0

Connections

Community Outreach

Community Engagement

Existing Outreach

Community Engagement

Advances awareness and general action by reaching communities with the right message at the right time

Advances specific mitigation actions by building relationships and delivering products and services tailored to meet community priorities

NEW

What Will We Accomplish with Community Engagement?

1. Understand specific community needs and capabilities via research, analytics, and experience

2. Bundle information, products and incentives for a community (One FEMA)

3. Enable a relationship owner to build a long term relationship with a key official

4. Collaborate with community officials to define an execution plan

In order to…..

1. Build and advance community relationships toward locally beneficial outcomes

2. Increase initiation and completion of mitigation actions by communities

3. Enable concept of “whole community”

We will accomplish…

PTS Overview Objective 1 - Produce regulatory and non-regulatory Risk MAP products

Objective 2 - Provide technical support to FEMA, CTPs, and other program stakeholders

Objective 3 - Produce LOMRs (MT-2s) in a cost-efficient manner

PTS Overview Continued Objective 4 - Provide PTS for FEMA’s Risk Reduction and HMA

Programs Objective 5 - Provide technical services, assistance, and research services Details can be found at https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3f94d b765e46c93fdbfe7c94501276ae&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3f94db765e46c93fdbfe7c94501276ae&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3f94db765e46c93fdbfe7c94501276ae&tab=core&_cview=0

MT-1 Processing Overview Objective 1 – Produce quality MT-1s in a timely manner

• Responsible for the delivery of all Letters of Map Amendment

• Coordinate w/ other contractors (e.g. CDS Contractor) to administer full process

• Performance heavily incentivized through Award Fee Process

Objective 2 – Achieve a significant reduction in the overall cost of processing MT-1s

• Annual processing cost reductions are expected

MT-1 Processing Overview Continued Objective 3 – Support the continued growth and utilization of online tools

• Significantly reduce or eliminate paper-submissions and case files over the life of the contract

Objective 4 – Provide Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise

• Support Risk MAP program wide initiatives, providing expertise to ensure comprehensive and seamless program delivery.

MT-1 Support – The Future The MT-1 solicitation addresses both current activities and the vision to allow Risk MAP to continue to evolve and be successful.

Develop solutions that are innovative, proven, easy to implement, and effective.

• Continuously improve processes and find efficiencies in how we operate.

Ensure stakeholder satisfaction within elements of MT-1 Processing Services, and support increasing risk awareness and mitigation actions.

Program End-State Vision FEMA is seeking Industry inputs and solutions to achieving significant progress towards an end-state vision

Examples include:

• Changes stemming from BW-12, PPD-8, etc have been seamlessly incorporated, increasing the effectiveness of mitigation programs

• Flood Mapping program has identified accurate and updated flood hazards for all

NFIP communities

• Develop and Leverage datasets to reduce the need for MT-1 processing

• Each Risk MAP,HMTAP, and TARC project results in a measurable increase in risk awareness and communities taking mitigation action to increase resilience

• Unified contractor efforts achieve a mitigation wide shared metric

These are just examples. We are seeking industry input on what else is possible.

Contractual Information Freda McDonald Contracting Officer

Important Considerations The award is expected to include a base year plus four one-year options for a total performance period of five years.

Programmatic budgets have been greatly reduced and further cuts are possible. Significant efficiencies and innovation must be delivered.

Significant programmatic information has been placed on the virtual library for industry consideration in relation to the solicitation.

• The Virtual library can be found at http://virtuallibrary.asigovt.com/Risk-Map-

PM/MT-1_Processing/SitePages/Home.aspx http://virtuallibrary.asigovt.com/Risk-Map-PM/MT-1_Processing/SitePages/Home.aspx

Organizational Conflict of Interest Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plans will be required as part of the solicitation.

Plans will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Questions and Answers

Q1 - Is FEMA expecting to see different unit prices based on case volume?

A1 – Yes, FEMA has established the CLIN structure presuming that there are economies of scale.

Q2 - Do we invoice FEMA on receipt or completion of MT-1 requests? How does

FEMA define “completion” of an MT-1 case?

A2 – Invoicing must be done on completion. FEMA considers an MT-1 case completed after a determination has been issued and the case-file has been archived, or a case has been suspended in accordance with FEMA guidance.

Q3 - Not all eLOMAs require an audit, but all eLOMAs require some administrative effort (e.g., distribution, filing). Should all eLOMAs be counted in SLIN-001B, or only audited eLOMAs?

A3 – All efforts to process eLOMAs, or similar digital submissions, should be captured in SLIN-001B.

Q4 - Are the Award Fee Evaluation Criteria (Metrics) final?

A4 – The Award Fee metrics and performance thresholds may be updated in the future, however, FEMA intends to enforce the proposed metrics at a minimum.

Q5 - Is the Quality Assurance Plan discussed on page L-7 of the RFP to be submitted as a separate document, or is it included in the 25-page limit?

A5 – Offerors should describe their approach to quality assurance at a high level within the 25-page limit. A formal Quality Assurance Plan is expected as a contract deliverable (see amendment).

Q6 - In the pricing of the MT-1s, since this a competitive procurement, is there a requirement to break down how the cost of processing MT-1s and eLOMAs was developed or is a unit price only required?

A6 – There is no requirement to demonstrate how costs are broken down;

however, any assumptions must be documented.

Q7 - Can you clarify what costs should be included in CLIN 0005 – ODCs? Are these costs only associated with CLIN 0003?

A7 – That is correct, see amendment.

Q8 - The pricing instructions provided seem to be more geared to a production contract for parts. Considering the scope of this contract is for services, mostly at a cost per unit, we do not believe a WBS is needed. Can FEMA comment on this?

A8 – An overall WBS for the contract is required, as stated on page L-9 of the solicitation.

Q9 - Please confirm if it is FEMA’s intent for this solicitation to result in a single award.

A9 – FEMA anticipates issuing a single award as a result of this solicitation.

Q10 - Will all MT-1 Transaction Inputs/Outputs occur via the MIP?

A10 – The MIP is the official system of record today, however Offerors may propose using alternate solutions.

Q11 - Is there a Data Item Description (DID) for MT-1 and eLOMA deliverables?

A11 – Sample deliverables (e.g. final determination letters) are available on fema.gov; msc.fema.gov and on the virtual library at http://virtuallibrary.asigovt.com/Risk-Map-PM/MT- 1_Processing/SitePages/Home.aspx

Q12 - Is there a Headquarters Standard Operating Procedure related to MT-1 processing that can be released to Offerors?

A12 – General information on MT-1 processing is available on fema.gov and the virtual library (see address above). FEMA anticipates Offeror’s describing their approach to processing MT-1s as part of their proposal.

Q13 - If possible, please provide MT-1 Transaction volumes, by type, for the past five years as a basis for pricing. If available, a monthly breakout would be helpful to assist in overall staffing determinations. Of particular interest would be any available metrics related to: eLOMA overall Volumes; percentage of eLOMAs that are ‘accepted;’ Percentage of MT-1’s that are based on fill; Number of OAS (Out as Shown) issued; Number of LODR (Letter of Determination Review) are issued; Percentage of MT-1 requiring additional applicant information; Percentage of MT-1 transactions that are cancelled.

A13 – FEMA will not make this detailed information available, however approximately 5,000 eLOMAs are submitted annually, with approximately 92% “approved,” approximately 8% of MT-1s are based on fill; less than 25 LODRs are issued annually; and approximately 12% of cases are dropped. FEMA will not provide information on the percentage of MT-1 cases requiring additional information or percentage of cases that are “Out As Shown” at this time.

Q14 - Section B, pg. B-1 - Please clarify the distinctions between CLIN 0003 (Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise) and CLIN 0004 (Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise).

A14 – CLIN 0004 is the fixed fee for services rendered under CLIN 0003.

Q15 - Section B, pg. B-2 - In the situation where there are multiple parcels included within the same MT-1 case (e.g., subdivision analysis), how will quantity be determined for the purposes of pricing and invoicing? Will the Firm Fixed Price be applied per property, or per case? In the event of ‘per case’ pricing, please provide historic volumes related to numbers of properties processed, in addition to the number of cases.

A15 – Pricing and invoicing is done per case. FEMA does not have information regarding the relative percentage of multi-property MT-1s vs. single-property MT-1s.

Q16 – Section C, pg. C-2 - Please clarify the nature of Regional Support as it relates to MT-1 processing as highlighted within Universal Objective B.

A16 – FEMA will not prescribe the approach or a comprehensive list of Regional Support services. Historically, the MT-1 provider has coordinated with Regions on controversial cases, Congressional inquiries, potential floodplain management violations, etc.

Q17 – Section D, pg. C-3 - For Objective 3, please clarify the nature of the audits of online submissions and the online training requirements associated with this MT-1 solicitation.

A17 – FEMA will not prescribe the approach to auditing online submissions and training users to increase quality, efficiency, etc.

Q18 – Section G.3, pg. G-1 - Please clarify the specific contract deliverables/ artifacts which are anticipated to be subject to the Data Management Program Requirements cited in this section, assuming Offerors will be proposing the use of existing commercial (COTS) products to enhance processing efficiencies.

A18 – See question 11.

Q19 - Section H.2, pg. H-1 - Please clarify whether the MT-1 Contractor will have access/entry rights to the EVMS maintained by the Risk MAP Program Management Services contractor, or will need to provide a separate EVMS solely for MT-1.

A19 – The MT-1 contractor must provide EV information to the Program Management contractor. Given the nature and method of procuring this work, the data can be provided in a monthly excel report.

Q20 – Section L.7, pg. L-7 - Please clarify whether the Quality Assurance (QA) Plan is included in the 25 page limit associated with the Technical Proposal.

A20 – See question 5, see amendment.

Q21 - Since this contract is predominantly firm-fixed price, should it be subject to EVMS requirements increasing the admin cost?

A21 – See question 19.

Q22 - Please confirm that we only need to submit a PDF formatted file for the electronic copies of the technical proposal and business proposal.

A22 –That is acceptable for the technical proposal; however MS Excel or similar files must be included for the business proposal.

Q23 - Will cases that are dropped due to lack of follow-up by requestors to submit additional data within the required timeframe, be considered a completed case?

A23 – See question 2.

Q24 - Will LODR’s be considered as LOMA cases or be processed under CLIN 3?

A24 – LODRs should be considered LOMA cases therefore billed under CLIN 1.

Q25 - The current MT-1 process is well defined. Do you anticipate making any changes that may affect the cost before the contract is awarded? Will FEMA be issuing a document with any new anticipated processes?

A25 – FEMA does not anticipate altering the current MT-1 process prior to this contract award. If any changes are made, FEMA will include this information in the virtual library, and amend this solicitation as warranted.

Q26 - Please clarify the role that the MT-1 contractor has regarding instruction, outreach and help-desk services to MT-1 applicants.

A26 – The MT-1 contractor will be expected to support the CDS contractor, who administers the FEMA Map Information eXchange – FMIX (“help-desk”) with questions escalated based on technical complexity, uniqueness, etc. The MT-1 contractor will also be expected to support the CERC contractor, as needed, with outreach information.

Q27 - Please clarify the nature of services to be provided (if any) by the MT-1 contractor in support of MT-1 fee collection/processing.

A27 – The MT-1 contractor will closely coordinate, and support, the CDS contractor with fee administration.

Q28 – Section B.2 Total Estimated Cost/Prices - Reference: “CLIN 0003 – Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise – Cost (Section C, objective

4) - Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)” and “CLIN 0004 – Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise – Fixed Fee CLIN 0003 (Section C, objective 4) – Cost- Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF).” Also refer to CLIN 1003 and 1004, 2003 and 2004, 3003 and 3004, and 4003 and 4004.

A28 – Presuming the question is “Are these CLINs related?” – CLIN 000X is for the base year, CLIN 100X for Option Year 1, 200X for Option Year 2, etc.

Q29 - Section B.2 Total Estimated Cost/Prices - Reference: “CLIN 0006 – Transition and Mobilization, Base Year – Firm-Fixed –Price (FFP)” - In the absence of a scope for CLIN 0006, what costs does FEMA envision will be included in the transition and mobilization costs?

A29 – The costs necessary to successfully complete transition of in-flight work as needed. Offerors should assume that all MT-1 cases open at the time of award will be completed by the legacy providers and mobilize staff in advance of beginning operations.

Q30 - Page L-5 (Page 53 of “HSFE60-14-R-0001_amd_1.pdf”) - Reference:

“Technical proposals may be no longer than twenty-five (25) 8 1/2” x 11” pages.” “Cover pages (unless they contain substantive information), tab pages, resumes and past performance questionnaires will not count as part of the 25-page total.” - Will a cover/transmittal letter count towards 25 pages if it does not include substantive information?

A30 – That is correct. A cover letter without substantive information will not count against the page limit.

Q31 - Page L-6 (Page 54 of “HSFE60-14-R-0001_amd_1.pdf”) - Reference:

“Prepare the electronic text submissions in Microsoft Word or compatible format and charts and graphs in Microsoft Excel or compatible format. Tables may use either Word or Excel formats.” - Many firms use Adobe InDesign, a desktop publishing software application, to prepare proposals. Using Word or Excel for certain sections would make the proposal layout process time consuming and challenging. Would it be acceptable to complete the Technical Proposal and portions of the Business Proposal (non-cost items) in InDesign and submit the InDesign files? InDesign allows the user to track changes.

A31 –FEMA will not prescribe or endorse the software used; so long as it meets the other requirements.

Q32 - Would FEMA consider removing this requirement from the RFP and accepting a PDF of the Technical Proposal and Business Proposal, along with all cost information provided in Excel?

A32 – FEMA will accept a PDF of the Technical Proposal and Business Proposal, along with all cost information provided in Excel.

Q33 – Page L-9, Part C: Background Questions - Reference: “Will you require the use of any government property in the performance of this work?” - Is the MIP considered government property?

A33 – The MIP is an authenticated user website (see hazards.fema.gov). FEMA will ensure that the MT-1 contractor has access to this tool.

Q34 – Federal Business Opportunities Website (FBO.gov) - Reference: “Note:

This opportunity allows for electronic responses. Click here to submit a response.” - Is FEMA requiring that firms upload all files to the FBO site along with providing hard copies and electronic versions?

A34 – No, this is not required.

Q35 - Attachment 1 - Award Fee Plan, Page 12 - Annex 3 Evaluation Criteria -

Reference: Award Fee Plan for Metric 1 and 2 - The thresholds for Metrics 1 and 2 for Adjectival Ratings - Good, Very Good, and Excellent need to be clarified. In each of those rating categories the Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned is a percentage range, however the thresholds in the descriptions for these categories only provides a single threshold score, therefore it is unclear what percent of the Award Fee Pool would be earned. For example: under Metric 1 in the Excellent rating category, the description states 95% of cases are processed in 35 days or less. So if you are at 35 days do you receive 91% or 100% of the Award Fee Pool?

A35 – FEMA intends to prorate the award fee between the various thresholds.

Q36 - Is there an organizational conflict of interest if the prime of the Customer and Data Services (CDS) contract joins a small business team to pursue this contract?

A36 – FEMA will evaluate all potential OCIs and OCI mitigation plans on a case-by-case basis; but at its surface this does not appear to be an unmitigatable OCI.

Q37 – What national data set(s) will FEMA supply as part of this contract?

A37 – Its unclear exactly what is defined as a “national data set.” FEMA will provide authenticated access to source systems such as the Mapping Information Platform, and the Risk MAP SharePoint portal site.

Q38 – The costs to be included in CLIN 0003 – Program Management and Subject Matter Expertise – Costs, include Program Management and Subject Matter Experts which are not positions/occupational codes in the Service Contract Act. Since the Service Contract Act positions/occupational codes cannot be used, how should the contractor bid costs of Program Management and Subject Matter Experts?

A38 – Offerors may chose which labor categories will be used to meet this requirement, and must document this information in the basis of estimate.

Q39 – Please provide a list of any GFE equipment or datasets.

A39 – See question 37. In addition, FEMA will not be providing any other GFE.

Q40 - Is the project director considered key personnel and what other positions are considered key personnel?

A40 – The project director is considered key personnel. The Offeror has discretion on which other positions/personnel are designated as key personnel.

Q41 - When is the final report due? Currently the requirement states a draft report is due to the COR 30 days prior to the final report; however, it goes on to say that the final report is due 30 days after submission of the draft final report to the COR? Unfortunately, no specific date or reference point is provided (e.g., final report due 30 days after the end of the final contract or contract extension).

A41 – The final report is due 30 days after the end of the final contract or contract extension.

Q42 - Please confirm that MT-1 Processing is not a critical task and does not require around the clock processing?

A42 – MT-1 Processing is not deemed a critical task, Offerors have discretion on how ensure contract objectives are met.

Q43- Can we assume the QASP is excluded from page count?

A43 – The QASP is a government provided document. Presuming that the intention was to ask about Quality Assurance Plan, see question 5.

Q44 - Please provide the projected growth estimate for MT-1 LOMCs over the next five years.

A44 – FEMA has no official growth estimate for MT-1s over the next five years.

See question 13 for additional information.

Q45 - Define where and in what format (if there is a specific format) the final

LOMC product will reside (e.g., the MIP, Engineering Library, etc.).

A45 – FEMA has not established a formal format for final LOMC products. Hard copy and soft copy (e.g. PDFs) have been used in the past.

Q46 - Are there any special handling requirements, such as expedited MT-1 requests, Congressional responses, etc. that respondents are to address and price? If so, please define the requirement and provide an estimated number of these requests and instruct respondents as to which CLIN or CLINs pricing for this requirements should be factored.

A46 – There are no special handling requirements at this time. All MT-1 processing would be in CLIN 1.

Q47 - Please define the format in which the Offeror will receive the MT-1s from the LOMC Clearinghouse (i.e., paper or electronic); if electronic, define the file format?

A47 – Files from the LOMC Clearinghouse are delivered electronically and the vast majority are PDF format. On occasion jpeg, tiff and other electronic formats are used.

Q48 - The Mapping Information Portal (MIP) is not mentioned in the list of systems/contractors in which we will need to coordinate with for production. Is the MIP considered to be a required system? Please define what other systems or tools, if any, the contractor is required to use to process MT-1 LOMCs (e.g., CFAS, etc.). For all required systems or tools, define what data is to be input into systems/tools, responsibilities for use (i.e., user roles), restrictions on use, etc. Also, define the maintenance schedule or other anticipated downtimes of any required tools that a contractor must be aware of to formulate a solution.

A48 – See question 10. Additional information on the MIP can be found at hazards.fema.gov.

Q49 - Please define the number of cases that require additional data.

A49 – See question 13.

Q50 - Define any FEMA required business processes that must be considered in developing the solution (e.g., processing of dockets, case monitoring, fee waivers, etc.)

A50 – FEMA has stated the minimum requirements in this solicitation. Offerors have broad discretion on how to meet the objectives stated. However, processing of dockets, case monitoring, processing of potential violations, fee waivers, etc. are all required business processes.

Q51 - Define any required business processes on how the Offeror will be collecting fees and transmitting them to FEMA.

A51 – See question 27.

Q52 - Define any regulatory or program policy changes in process or recently finalized that might impact the MT-1 Process and a contractor’s proposed solution, for example: processing MT-1 LOMCs in Zone D floodplain.

A52 – None at this time.

Q53 - Please confirm that for the electronic CD submission that PDF format is considered “compatible format.”

A53 – That is correct.

Q54 - Please provide information regarding the Earned Value Management

System that will be maintained by the Program Management Services contractor so the effort to use it can be estimated.

A54 – See question 19.

Q55 - Please clarify the connection between Attachment 1 and attachment 4 and the requirements to submit a Performance Requirements Matrix (Attachment 4) and a Quality Assurance Plan (attachment 1). The discussion in Attachment 4 refers to Metrics below, but there are no metrics listed there. Rather Metrics are provided in Attachment 1. Is Attachment 1 notional? Does the Quality Assurance Plan, Award Fee Plan, and/or PRM count in the page count for the technical proposal?

A55 – See question 4 on metrics. See question 5 on QAP. The Award Fee Plan and QASP (see question 43) are documents provided by the government.

Q56 - Is there a requirement for Offerors to mail determination documents, additional data letters, informational letters/enclosures, and other case-related correspondence?

A56 –At this time yes, as the MT-1 application forms do not require an email address for official correspondence. Mailing of letters is a required process.

Q57 - Will the contractor be restrained to the current FEMA guidance outlined in the MT-1 Processing and Procedures Manual and the Document Control Procedures Manual?

A57 – The Contractor will not be restrained and FEMA will consider proposed changes to the Document Control Procedures Manual.

Q58 - Will all documents and products created require 508 compliance?

A58 – All documents delivered to applicants must be 508 compliant. Interim or internal documents are not required to be 508 compliant.

Q59 - Who initiates Mass LOMAs? How many properties/structures are included within a Mass LOMA? How many Mass LOMAs does FEMA anticipate being processed and/or received in a year?

A59 – Mass LOMAs can be initiated by anyone (communities, FEMA, etc.). A mass LOMA can be of any size. FEMA has no official projection of the number of Mass LOMAs, but to date has done 3.

Q60 - Of the estimated 27,500 annual cases that FEMA requires all Offerors to bid, please provide the estimated percentage of the number of MT-1 cases comparatively between LOMAs, CLOMAs, LOMR-Fs, CLOMR-Fs; single lot vs.

multi-lot vs. portions of property; detailed vs. approximate flood zones (i.e., Zone A); coastal; alluvial fans; Zone AO; floodway; and any other special case types in the total sum.

A60 – See question 13. However, CLOMAs, and CLOMR-Fs received are approximately 1% of total MT-1 receipts, LOMAs account for approximately 90% of total MT-1 receipts, LOMR-Fs account for approximately 8% of total MT-1 receipts, and, other cases (such as LOMR-VZ) account for approximately 1%.

Q61 - For MT-1 applications that are in a Zone A area (or where the effective FIRM does not have a published BFE) are we to assume that part of the contractor’s scope is to develop a BFE?

A61 – That is correct.

Q62 - Will the Government provide a definitive list of current MT-1 related and

CDS-hosted systems that FEMA expects everyone to work with?

A62 – See questions 10 & 26.

Q63 - Will the Government provide a roadmap for future MT-1 related systems planned by CDS?

A63 – No, there isn’t one at this time.

Q64 - Is the QA Plan to be submitted as part of Factor 3 – Past Performance? Or should it be a separate attachment? Is the QA Plan exempt from the 25 page limit?

A64 – The QA Plan should not be submitted as part of Factor 3. See question 5 for more information on QAP.

Q65 - Based on these sections, is the Offeror to have an EVMS that will then be maintained by the Program Management Services Contractor? Please clarify.

A65 – See question 19.

Q66 - Section B provides a Not-to-Exceed amount for each of the Other Direct

Costs (ODCs) Reimbursable CLINs. Section L required detailed substantiation of Other Direct Costs. Is the Offeror required to substantiate the NTE amount provided in Section B. Please clarify.

A66 – The Offeror must establish their proposed ODCs. If these exceed the NTE amount, a justification must be submitted.

Please submit additional questions utilizing the chat function.

• We will collect the questions, and work during the break to provide appropriate answers

All questions and formal answers will be posted to FedBizOps

Questions may be submitted between now and 12:00 PM (noon)

Eastern Daylight Time on March 12, 2004.

Late questions will be answered at the option of the

Government.

60 Minute Break Submit additional text questions for review and response, following the break, via the online webinar chat room

Closing Remarks

Thank you for your participation!