RFP_HSSS01-11-R-1001 - Vendor Questions and Answers Sep 30.docx

For contract administration and reporting it may be beneficial for the sub-CLIN structure to correspond to the 5 Technical Categories (TCs) (i.e. AA: Subscriber equipment, AB: Infrastructure Equipment, AC: Infrastructure (Implementation) Services, AD: O&M Services, AE: Test Equipment.

Q: Would the Government consider modifying the proposed CLIN structure to reflect sub CLINS that correspond to the TCs?

Concur. The RFP will be modified.

Travel

In response to a separate question under Section B.3 (Pricing), section B-3 was modified to provide that under a T&M order, labor, material and travel will be reimbursed pursuant to FAR 52.212-4 Alt 1.

Neither 52.212-4 nor 52.212-4 Alt 1 contain references to the FAR Part 31 cost principals. In addition, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) do not apply to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items and it seems logical that these FAR Part 12 contracts should likewise not be subject to the FAR Part 31 Cost Principles.

Q: Would the Government consider deleting the references to the cited sections of FAR Part 31 in clause H-10? Alternatively, would the Government consider having these cited FAR Part 31 sections apply only to T&M orders?

Agreed. The RFP will be modified.

Travel

Obtaining prior approval for travel makes sense in T&M orders, because the Government can use this approval to manage the costs incurred on a T&M project. However in a fixed priced order, the Contractor has the risk of performing required travel within the value of the fixed priced order and advance approval of travel by the Government seems to provide no cost benefits. In addition this provision adds requirements to both the Contractor and Government to request and approve multiple travel requirements under potentially multiple concurrent projects.

Q: Would the Government consider making the requirement for advance approval of travel only apply to T&M orders.

Agreed. The RFP will be modified.

Part 2 Instruction 2.7 (d) Paper Copies state that “paper copies of voluminous commercial catalogs or GSA schedules need NOT be provided as long as they are available electronically”. Is the intent to electronically submit large Catalogs and GSA Schedules on CDs and email or can we just submit them on the CDs?

“Available electronically” referred to documents available on an internet site where the catalog or GSA Schedule may be viewed (you would simply provide the internet address). If your document is not available on an internet site you may submit a copy on a CD. Attempts to email the document will probably failed due to size restrictions (5MB per email) so we will work with documents on the internet (preferred) or submitted on a CD.

1. Repeating a previously submitted question – “Will the Government please confirm that it is their intent to have bidders use GSA Schedules to establish a baseline for price reasonableness purposes only?” It is important to determining if task orders awarded on DHS TacCom are not considered as “buying off of a GSA Schedule” and that the collection and payment of the Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) is not applicable. Or, is it DHS’ intent that for services (labor categories) and products having pricing derived from a vendor’s GSA Schedule(s) for DHS TacCom, that the sales of these items on any subsequent task order be considered a GSA Schedule sale? If so, it is imperative that contract and task order pricing distinguish between Schedule and non-Schedule items. Additionally, for price evaluation, it is necessary to consider that some vendors using the DHS preferred GSA Schedule pricing will have the IFF included in their rates, while vendors using some other pricing approach will not. All schedule vendors must embed within their published Schedule prices a 0.75% fee that the vendor then collects from the ordering offices and refunds to GSA on a quarterly basis.

3. Please confirm that it is permissible for a single vendor to have some labor categories and products priced using multiple GSA Schedules, others from commercial price lists, and still others being derived from cost build-up.

1 & 2. TacCom orders are not considered GSA Schedule Orders – the IFF is not applicable.

3. The source of pricing is the offerors determination – GSA Schedules (discounted) were cited as a preference to facilitate pricing now and during the out-years. Although a preference, if available, it is not required.

Question: Per FAR 19.5 and attached supporting documents, the government has been made aware that there is a reasonable expectation that two or more small businesses can meet the minimum requirements set forth in this RFP and therefore request the implementation of a small business track inside of TC2.

Based on review of the company profiles submitted, we find that all identified firms are resellers and not manufacturers. The FAR states at 19.502-2(c), “[F]or small business set-asides other than for construction or services, any concern proposing to furnish a product that it did not itself manufacture must furnish the product of a small business manufacturer unless the SBA has granted either a waiver or exception to the nonmanufacturer rule…” Review of SBA’s listing of waivers (updated September 20, 2011); the only waiver under NAICS code 334220 is for Product Service Code 5820 - Televisions. Based on our information, that neither a waiver nor exception exists for the equipment required in TC2 and the rule of two not being met, there is no basis for a small business set aside in TC2.

On the Contractor Performance Customer Survey, one of our customers seems to have a problem actually signing the survey, in past where signature is needed we would include their email address in the signature section, is that acceptable in this case?

The signature should provide the complete name – sometimes an email address is an initial and truncated last name. They may type their name in lieu of a signature.

Understanding that the small business track was added to include TC1 Subscriber Equipment, we wanted to make sure that language was added into the factors for award that was omitted above.

RFP amended