QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 3.14.2012.pdf

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO

HSFEMW-12-R-0001

3/14/2012

Q1: Reference: General. Per FAR 15.206 Amending the Solicitation, Subparagraph (a) we understand that revisions made to the RFP requirements or terms and conditions must be finalized in an amendment to the RFP. We are concerned that the Government has provided proposal instructions with the Questions and Answers documents that have not been included in an RFP amendment and may therefore not be considered binding in terms of the acquisition process. We respectfully request that the Government incorporate all Questions and Answers releases into an RFP amendment, or more specifically, incorporate the following into an RFP amendment:

• 3/2/12 Questions and Answers #21

• 3/8/12 Questions and Answers #12, #30, #37, #38,

• 3/12/12 Questions and Answers #5

A: The RFP will be amended to incorporate the answers to the Questions and Responses dated 3/2/12, 3/8/12 and 3/12/12.

Q2: RFP Section G.3(b) appears to have an extra carriage return which resulted in paragraph (2) being annotated in middle of paragraph (1) and added a paragraph (4). Can the Government please validate the paragraph number in RFP Section G.3(b)?

A: That observation is correct. The clause will be amended to delete the erroneous numbering of paragraphs, which will correct the references to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(c) as exemptions to fair opportunity.

Q3: Reference: Amendment 0001 G.3 Task Order Procedures. It appears the Government has inserted a new (b)(2) into G.3, which indicates the Government intends to limit task order fair opportunity based on recent contractor past performance on this contract. We agree that G.2 (b)(3) Exceptions to Fair Opportunity Consideration and G.2 (c)(4) Small Business Set-Aside Tasks are clearly valid criteria for potentially limiting fair opportunity; however, G.2 (b)(2) is less clearly so. What, exactly, will be the evaluation criteria levied on recent past performance under this contract used to determine whether or not a contractor will be permitted to propose on a task order? We recommend instead that recent past performance on this contract be used only during submitted task order proposal evaluations, rather than as a determining factor in whether or not a contractor will be given fair opportunity to propose on a task order.

A: Please see Q2 above. Clause G3 will be corrected via an amendment, which will resolve the issue in this question.

Q4: Reference: Amendment 0001 H.6 Labor Category Qualifications. Does the Government intend to provide functional descriptions for the labor categories? It is very difficult to price the more “general” labor categories, like Analyst, Consultant, SME, etc.

For instance, SMEs will be priced differently, depending on the specific subject matter.

A: SME Labor Categories and the Project Manager will be exempt from Clause H.6 Labor Category Qualifications. Qualifications for the project Manager are stated in Section 1.3.1 of the SOW. Offerors should use their own discretion in filling the labor categories in the RFP, including the SME Labor Categories.

Q5: Reference: Amendment 0001 Attachment 3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions. It remains unclear whether:

(a) the Prime Contractor’s proposal should include a single set of rates that will cover the entire team per FAR 52.216-29 (c)(2), i.e. the subcontractors will perform at or below the proposed set of team rates;

(b) the Prime Contractor’s proposal should include separate rates for the Prime Contractor and each of the subcontractors per FAR 52.216-29 (c)(1), or

(c) the offeror may choose to propose as described in either (a) or (b) or any combination thereof, per FAR 52.216-29 (c)(3).

If (a) applies, then are we correct in assuming that Subcontractor proprietary rate build info, either in narrative and/or dollar value form, (sealed packages) is NOT required, as the Government intends to evaluate only the team ceiling rates?

If (b) applies, then are we correct in assuming that Subcontractor proprietary rate build info, either in narrative and/or dollar value form, (sealed packages) IS required, as the Government intends to separately evaluate Prime Contractor rates and each subcontractors’ rates?

A: FAR 52.216-29(b) applies. Subcontractor proprietary rate build information in narrative form may be submitted in sealed packages if desired, or may be submitted with the prime’s information.

Q6: Reference: Amendment 0001 Attachment 3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions BASE OR OPT PERIOD table and 3/8/12 Questions and Responses, #3. Please confirm that Offerors are to price the key position ”Project Manager” in the spreadsheet under the labor category titled “Program Manager III” in the sample pricing format.

A: See the response to Q3 above.

Q7: Reference: RFP Amendment 0001 Section H.6 Labor Category Qualifications; and 3/8/12 Questions and Responses, #3. The referenced Government response states the following: “For proposal preparation purposes, offerors should utilize guidance for the labor category entitled Program Manager III for the Project Manager position in this RFP.” Section H.6 guidance for a Level 3 labor category conflicts with the labor category guidance provided in Attachment 1 Statement of Work, Section 1.3.1 Project Manager. Please clarify which labor category requirements offerors should utilize for the Project Manager.

A: See the response to Q3 above.

Q8: Reference: Amendment 0001 Attachment 3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions; 3/8/12 Questions and Responses, #45; and 3/12/12 Questions and Responses, #5. Please confirm that offerors are to total their proposed pricing by summing the rates proposed for cleared personnel performing on a Government site.

A: That is correct. The Cost/Price Proposal Instructions will be amended accordingly.

Q9: Reference: Amendment 0001 Attachment 2—Technical Proposal Instructions, Item 4—Initial Task Orders and Attachment 4—Technical Evaluation Criteria, Item 4–Initial Task Orders. Neither the instructions nor the evaluation criteria address the Project Management Plan due with the initial task order proposal responses. These requirements appear in the deliverables section of each initial task order attachment, and we understand that these documents are excluded from the page count. Please clarify how the Project Management Plans will be evaluated.

A: Please note the answer to this question changes information previously provided about the Project Management Plan. The Project Management Plan deliverable will NOT required as part of the Technical Proposal. Instead, it will be a deliverable after award of the Task Order. The RFP will be amended accordingly.

Q10: Reference: Amendment 0001 Attachment 3 Cost/Price Proposal Instructions.

Given that proposals are now due 3/28/12, is it still accurate for the Contractor to assume that for pricing purposes a 4/1/12 start date should be used? If 4/1/12 is no longer accurate, what start date should Offerors assume for pricing purposes?

A: Offerors may assume a 6/1/2012 start date. The RFP will be amended accordingly.

Q11: Reference: Amendment 0001 Attachment 4 Technical Evaluation Criteria paragraph 5 Personnel and 3/2/12 Questions and Responses #24. Per the Government’s response to the referenced question, please remove the reference to “Office Location” from the list of personnel evaluation criteria in Attachment 4.

A: The Reference to Office Location will be deleted from Attachment 4 via an amendment.

Q12: Regarding the answers to questions posted March 12, 2012, The answer to Q4 and Q5 states to use offerors offsite (Government facility) rate to calculate the total price.

This contradicts the amendment 1 which states to use cleared, on-site (Contractor’s facility). Please clarify which assumption the offerors should be using.

A: Offerors should use off-site (Government facility) rates to calculate total price. The RFP will be corrected via an amement.

Q13: In RFP Amendment 0001, Attachment 3, Item 3 states that “[f]or evaluation purposes, offerors should use their proposed labor rates for cleared personnel working on-site (contractor’s facility) to calculate the total proposed contract amount…”.

Response to Question #4 released 3/12/12 states that “[i]f an offeror has both on-site and off-site rates for cleared personnel, the offeror should use the rates for cleared, off-site (Government facility) personnel to calculate total price.” Can the Government please resolve this discrepancy of whether to use company or Government site rates for the pricing table?

A: Please see the answer to Q4 above.

Q14: How is the Government going to address the competitive advantage of those Offerors whose accounting systems have multiple approved indirect rates for company versus Government site as opposed to Offerors whose accounting systems have only one approved set of indirect rates without distinction for company versus Government site?

As it stands now, the offeror who only has one set of indirect rates has a competitive advantage since that Offeror’s fully burdened proposed labor rates includes both company and Government site work versus an offeror who has multiple sets of indirect rates and would be required to bid the higher rate that does not blend in any Government site work where there is no facility cost. We recommend that the Government consider some allocation of hours to the various pricing scenarios to neutralize any advantage that one offeror may have over another offeror such as the example below:

• 25% Non-cleared Staff, Government Site

• 25% Non-cleared Staff, Company Site

• 25% Cleared Staff, Government Site

• 25% Cleared Staff, Company Site

A: The instructions will remain to use rates for cleared, off-site (Government facility) rates to calculate the total price

Q15: Can the Government please validate the following labor categories and the level assigned in the RFP pricing table?

• Communications Spec (1)

• Communications Spec, Jr. (2)

• Data Management Spec. (1)

• Data Management Spec., Jr. (2)

• Data Management Spec., Sr. (2)

• Environmental Spec. (1)

• Environmental Spec., Jr. (2)

• Graphic Artist (1)

• Graphic Artist, Jr. (2)

A: The Levels associated with these Labor Categories (reference Clause H.6) will be amended to address that comment.

Q16: The Government specified the two highest levels for the Task Lead (3) and Task Lead, Sr. (4) labor categories but did not do so for the Program Manager I, III, and III labor categories which were assigned Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Program Managers are typically at a higher echelon than Task Leads. The Level 4 description best matches the typical duties of a Program Manager position. Given that the Program Manager positions perform a different function than other RFP labor categories, would the Government consider providing labor classifications that are specific to the Program Manager I, II, and III labor categories?

A: With the exception of the Project Manager position discussed in Q4 above, and described in Section 1.3.1 of the SOW, the Government will not provide additional labor classification information for the Program Manager I, II and III labor categories.

Q17: The Government specified four levels of the SME labor category in the RFP pricing table and assigned labor qualifications 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the various levels. SMEs are subject matter experts in a particular field – SMEs are not typically entry level positions. A “level 1” SME would typically require a minimum of 8 years of experience in their field of expertise. Given the unique nature of the SME labor categories, would the Government consider providing labor classifications similar to below?

• SME I (1) – A minimum of 8 years focused experience in a designated subject matter. Requires a Bachelors or equivalent.

• SME II (2) – A minimum of 10 years focused experience in a designated subject matter. Requires a Bachelors or equivalent.

• SME III (3) – A minimum of 12 years focused experience in a designated subject matter. Requires a Bachelors or equivalent.

• SME IV (4) – A minimum of 14 years focused experience in a designated subject matter. Requires a Bachelors or equivalent.

A: The SME Labor categories will not be subject to the Labor Category Qualifications contained in Clause H.6. Offerors may use their own discretion in defining and pricing the SME I-IV Labor Categories. The RFP will be amended accordingly.

Q18: The Government specified the same labor category qualification level for both the Training Developer IV (4) and Training Developer V (4). Would the Government consider combining the two labor categories into one labor category since they perform same or similar work with the same qualifications?

A: Offerors may treat those combined hours as one labor category, or they may propose different rates, depending on their own labor category/rate structure.