Attachment 21 RCP Consolidated QA 07.13.2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Recovery Coordination Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HT0011-20-R-0023
- Issued by
- Defense Health Agency
About this file
This document summarizes questions and answers related to a solicitation for Recovery Coordination Program support services. The solicitation seeks proposals for professional, administrative, and management services including support for programs related to transition of care, caregiver support, education and employment initiatives, operation warfighter internships, the national resource directory, military adaptive sports, and warrior games coaching. Key details include that the solicitation is a 100% small business set-aside issued by the Defense Health Agency, with an incumbent contractor performing some current aspects of the work. The response date was extended to provide over 30 days for proposal submission. Clarification was provided on evaluation criteria and levels of effort required.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 30
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RCP Q&A
| Question | REFERENCE | |||||
| (e.g. PWS, RFI, PARA #, PG #) | QUESTION/COMMENT | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | Solicitation Changed? (Yes or No) | Change made | ||
| 1 | PWS 1.12 Key Personnel on pgs. 12-13 | Will the Government please specify the anticipated level of effort for the Senior Program Manager - Recovery Coordination Program (RCP) and the Quality Assurance Analyst as it has for the other key personnel positions? | The solicitation attachments provide Estimated Workload Data. The offeror is not constrained by the information provided in the table and may propose alternate labor categories and/or hours as the offeror determines are appropriate to accomplish the tasks in the PWS. The offeror's proposed level of effort should be consistent with the technical approach proposed as well as the price and non/price aspects of the offeror's proposed approach. Any offer should be based on reqquirements within the PWS. The attachment is only put in place for offerors to ascertain the approximate or historical information for this task. This is for informational purposes and is not to be construed as either mandatory or necessarily the best technical approach. The Government will not provide any more details regarding level of effort. | No | No | |
| 2 | PWS 5.6 Operational Research, Statistical Analysis, and Reporting on pg. 32 and PWS 5.12 Program related qualitative and scientific studies and initiatives on pg. 38 | Subtasks in PWS 5.6 (5.6.6., 5.6.7, 5.6.8) and PWS 5.12 (5.12.1, 5.12.2., 5.12.3) seem very similar. Is this repetition intentional (i.e., are these distinct tasks)? | The Government will remove entire PWS Section 5.12 as it is repetitive with PWS 5.6 . The Government will change PWS 5.6.7 to reflect what is written in PWS 5.12.2. Additionally, the Government is Reserving the Associated CLIN. | Yes | ||
| 3 | General | Is this a new requirement? | Yes, this is a new requirement. However, some aspects of this requirement are currently being performed by an incumbent contractor. | No | ||
| 4 | General | Would the Government please identify the incumbent contractor(s) and provide the contract numbers? | There is an incumbent contractor performing some aspects of the work. The contractor is Armed Forces Services Corporation Magellan Federal. The contract number is HT0011-19-C-0006. | No | ||
| 5 | RFP ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1, (b)(1) Questions on pg. 44 | The RFP states, "Late or follow-up/additional questions will not be accepted or acknowledged after this date and time." Will the Government please allow offerors to submit, and will the Government please respond to, follow-up questions after the first round of questions and answers? The lack of a Draft RFP, coupled with the short question timeline (2 business days), appear to favor the company teamed with the incumbent contractor(s). This will allow Offerors sufficient time to analyze the answers and determine whether further clarification is needed to submit compliant proposals. | No. The Government will not allow an additional round of questions and answers. The solicitation was issued on Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 07:05 p.m. Eastern; giving offerors more than 3 days to draft questions. Additionally, a presolicitation was posted to Beta SAM on May 26, 2020; therefore all prospective offerors have had access to the same information. The Government reserves the right to make amendments to the solicitation and reserves the right to extend the proposal due date and time. | No | ||
| 6 | RFP - SF 1449 Box 8 on pg. 1 -Proposal Due Date | Will the Government please consider extending the proposal deadline two weeks to 8/5/20 given that there was no Draft RFP and the 4th of July holiday weekend is approaching? This will allow Offerors more time to craft compliant, best value proposals. | The Government has extending the proposal deadline. The solicitation was issued on Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 07:05 p.m. Eastern; with a proposal due date of July 22, 2020 at 09:00 a.m. Eastern, giving offerors more than 30 days to draft best value proposals. Additionally, a presolicitation was posted to Beta SAM on May 26, 2020. The Government reserves the right to make amendments to the solicitation and reserves the right to extend the proposal due date and time in the future. | Yes | ||
| 7 | PWS 5.18.2 on pg. 47 | PWS 5.18.2 under the OPTIONAL MASP task states, "The contractor shall describe the level of experience of the proposed staff in the proposal." Will the Government please clarify where in the proposal Offerors are supposed to do this? | The Offerors are not supposed to write to this in the proposal. The PWS will be corrected and the solicitation amended to remove: "The contractor shall describe the level of experience of the proposed staff in the proposal." | Yes | Yes | |
| 8 | RFP Attachments | RFP Attachment 5 and 6 seem to be missing. Is that intentional? If not, will the Government please provide them? | Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 are intentionally missing. There are currently no Attachments 5 and Attachment 6 and are in a "Reserved" status. This is a flaw in the contract writing system and will remain. | No | ||
| 9 | RFP - 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEVIATION 2018-O0018) (MAR 2020) on pg. 41-42 |
RFP - ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 on pg. 44 RFP - 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEVIATION 2018-O0018) (MAR 2020) states: "(e) Multiple offers. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items (provided that the alternative line items are consistent with subpart 4.10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation), or alternative commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately." It also states, "(h) Multiple awards. The Government may accept any item or group of items of an offer, unless the offeror qualifies the offer by specific limitations. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the offer."
RFP - ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 states, "Only one contract award is anticipated resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP)," and, "(e) Multiple offers. Offerors shall submit only one offer presenting terms and conditions and commercial items/services for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. In the event an Offeror submits more than one offer, only the last offer submitted prior to the due date and time for offers will be considered for evaluation."
| Will the Government please clarify the number of offers an offer can submit and the number of anticipated awards? | The Government will amend the solicitation language. Only one contract award is anticipated. Offerors shall submit only one offer presenting terms and conditions and commercial items/services for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. In the event an Offeror submits more than one offer, only the last offer received by the Government prior to the due date and time for offers will be considered for evaluation." | Yes | |
| 10 | RFP Factor 1, Technical, Sub-factor 1, Technical Approach | ||
| on pgs. 54-55 | Will the Government please clarify the rationale for having Offerors only propose technical approaches for five areas: Communication and Outreach, Caregiver Support, Education and Employment Initiative, National Resource Directory, and Information Technology, especially in light of the fact that three of these five bullets (Caregiver Support, Education and Employment Initiative, and National Resource Directory) are associated with OPTIONAL PWS tasks AND Offerors are required to provide the Volume 3 labor mix and level of effort for completion of ALL PWS tasks? | The Government has chosen those areas that represent discriminators that will be used in the evaluation of proposals. and those areas that have a direct impact on service members. The areas stated in the solicitation evaluation criteria are the only areas that will be evaluated. | No |
| 11 | RFP Factor 1, Technical, Sub-factor 1, Technical Approach | ||
| on pgs. 54-55 | Will the Government please clarify the PWS tasks that need to be addressed in the technical approach? | Please refer to the Addendum to 52.212-1. Specifically (m)(1) Volume 1, Technical Instructions and (i) Technical Approach Narrative. (i) Technical Approach Narrative states: "The Technical approach narrative must be written to demonstrate a clear understanding of each bulleted area below. The Technical approach narrative must be written to demonstrate each offeror’s competency in each bulleted area below. The technical approach narrative must provide convincing rational of how the work will be accomplished and not simply restate or rephrase the bulleted tasks. The technical approach narrative must also detail a work plan or methodology that ensures achievement of each of the bulleted requirements as listed below:" Then there are bullet points and areas that each offeror must address in the technical approach. See the Addendum to 52.212-1 for those areas specified.The Addendum to 52.212-1 is too lengthy to fit in this text box; so you must refer back to the solicitation Instructions to Offerors. | No |
| 12 | RFP Factor 1, Technical, Sub-factor 1, Technical Approach | ||
| on pgs. 54-55 | The RFP states, "Sub-factor 1, Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the Volume 1 technical approach narrative, as well as the Volume 3 (Price) labor mix and level of effort. The Volume 3 labor mix and level of effort will be evaluated to determine if the labor mix and level of effort proposed is appropriate for completion of ALL the PWS tasks." |
| Will the Government please clarify whether the Offeror is supposed to address ALL of the PWS tasks (including the optional tasks) in the Volume 1 technical approach narrative? | Offerors should not address ALL of the PWS tasks (including the optional tasks) in the Volume 1 technical approach narrative. Please refer to Addendum to 52.212-1, (m)(1) Volume, Technical Instructions for what needs to be included in the technical approach narrative. The entire Addendum to 52.212-1 will not fit in this text box. so you must refer back to the solicitation Instructions to Offerors. The Government does not plan to evaluate the entirety of the tasks in the PWS. The Government will only evaluate what is specified in FAR 52.212-2 and the Addendum to 52.212-2. | No | |||
| 13 | RFP Sub-factor 3, Key Personnel on pg. 56 | Will the Government please confirm that it expects to receive key personnel resumes for all 12 key personnel positions (including those associated with OPTIONAL PWS tasks)? | As indicated in the Addendum to 52.212-1, specifically (m)(1)(iii) Key Personnel, "The offeror shall include resumes of all Key Personnel included in PWS Section 1.12," and "There are 12 positions that are designated as Key Personnel." | No | |
| 14 | RFP ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, pg. 54 |
RFP pg. 58 - 59, para (i) RFP ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 on pg. 54 states: "Only proposals receiving ratings of “Acceptable” or better in the Technical (and sub-factors); Neutral Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence or Substantial Confidence in the Past Performance factor and determined to be fair and reasonable in Price will be considered for award." It also states: "Factor 1, Technical. The Government will consider the ratings and relative importance of each of the sub-factors below in determining the overall rating for this factor. An “Unacceptable” rating in any sub-factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor."
This seems to imply that Factor 1 will have an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCETABLE rating.
Yet, RFP pg. 58 says, " Rating Standards for Non-Cost Factor 1 of Technical and Sub-factor 1 - Technical Approach follow in the table below. Sub-factor 2 Transition Plans, and Sub-factor 3 Key Personnel will be evaluated utilizing only an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE Adjectival Rating and Description as outlined in the table below."
| Will the Government please clarify how Factor 1, Technical, and particularly Subfactor 1 - Technical approach, will be evaluated? | Sub-factor 1 - Technical Approach will be assigned one of the following Adjectival Ratings in the table: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The overall Factor 1 - Technical will be assigned one of the following Adjectival Ratings in the table: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. Sub-factor 2 - Transition Plan will be evaluated and assigned only one of the following Adjectival Ratings in the table: Acceptable or Unacceptable. Sub-factor 3 - Key Personnel will be evaluated and assigned only one of the following Adjectival Ratings in the table: Acceptable or Unacceptable. Please refer back to the solicitation, and direct your attention to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items (Oct 2014) and the Addendum to 52.212-2 for how the Government will evaluate Factor 1, Technical and Sub-factor 1 - Technical Approach. | No | |||
| 15 | Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions, para (i) on pg. 58-59 | Will the Government please clarify how these definitions will be used in the evaluation? To which evaluation factors and subfactors do they apply given that subfactors will be evaluated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE? | The Source Selection Evaluation Board will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of each proposal against the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirement stated in the evaluation criteria. The Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions of strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and risks identified as the result of the proposal evaluation will be documented in the contract file. The Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions will apply to the overall Factor 1 - Technical, and Sub-factor 1 - Technical Approach. The Sub-factor 2 - Transition Plan and Sub-factor 3 - Key Personnel, will be evaluated using the Adjectival Ratings of Acceptable and Unacceptable. | No | |
| 16 | PWS 4.5 Facilities on pg. 24-25 | PWS 4.5 specifies that the contractor shall furnish facilities necessary to perform to the specification of the PWS at a variety of locations in order to perform the Caregiver Support (PWS 5.13), E2I (PWS 5.15), and the OWF (PWS 5.16) tasks. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the fact that establishing offices/facilities in all of these locations may be cost prohibitive for a small business, will the Government please allow employee home offices to function as "contractor facilities" in a work from home model? | PWS 4.5 Facilities has been changed to "Reserved." The work performed under the contract will be performed at the locations identified in the PWS, some work may be performed at the govt sites and other work may be accomplished at contractor facilities or some work may be accomplished via telework and virtually. All telework or virtual work will be at the descretion of the government. Additionally, the Government has changed PWS 3.2 in regards to Facilities. | Yes | |
| 17 | PWS 1.6.1.1 Transition-In Period, on pg. 5 |
RFP Subfactor 2, Transition Plan on pg. 55 PWS 1.6.1.1 states, "There is a scheduled 30 day transition in period. However, the contractor shall have all personnel on board day 1 of the period of performance start date and shall be prepared to be responsible for the entire PWS performance. The contractor shall provide a transition-in plan to include, but not limited to:
• Demonstration of a reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition in period including how the contractor plans to staff all positions on first day of contract period of performance"
The RFP states, "Demonstration of a reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition in period including how the contractor plans to staff all positions on first day of contract period of performance," and, on page 55, "Sub-factor 2, Transition Plan (Incoming). The Transition Plan (Incoming) will be evaluated on an ACCEPTABLE OR UNACCEPTABLE basis. The Government will evaluate the Transition Plan (Incoming) for: • a reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition in period including how the contractor plans to staff all positions on first day of contract period of performance"
Will the Government please explain the point of having a 30-day transition-in if all staff are required to be on contract day 1? This requirement appears to favor the contractor teamed with the incumbent contractor(s).
| PWS Section 1.6.1.1 has been changed to remove "However, the contractor shall have all personnel on board day 1 of the period of performance start date and shall be prepared to be responsible for the entire PWS performance." | Yes |
| 18 | PWS 1.6.1.1 Transition-In Period, on pg. 5 |
RFP Subfactor 2, Transition Plan on pg. 55 PWS 1.6.1.1 states, "There is a scheduled 30 day transition in period. However, the contractor shall have all personnel on board day 1 of the period of performance start date and shall be prepared to be responsible for the entire PWS performance. The contractor shall provide a transition-in plan to include, but not limited to:
• Demonstration of a reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition in period including how the contractor plans to staff all positions on first day of contract period of performance"
The RFP states, "Demonstration of a reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition in period including how the contractor plans to staff all positions on first day of contract period of performance," and, on page 55, "Sub-factor 2, Transition Plan (Incoming). The Transition Plan (Incoming) will be evaluated on an ACCEPTABLE OR UNACCEPTABLE basis. The Government will evaluate the Transition Plan (Incoming) for: • a reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition in period including how the contractor plans to staff all positions on first day of contract period of performance"
| Given the timeframes required to onboard staff, obtain CACs, etc. will the Government please clarify how the incoming contractor can reasonably be expected to, "be prepared to be responsible for the entire PWS performance" on day 1? | PWS Section 1.6.1.1 has been changed to remove "However, the contractor shall have all personnel on board day 1 of the period of performance start date and shall be prepared to be responsible for the entire PWS performance." | Yes | ||||
| 19 | PWS 1.6.1.2 Transition-Out Period on pg. 6 | PWS 1.6.1.2 states, "With regard to the successor Contractor’s access to incumbent employees, the contractor shall permit a recruitment notice be placed in each facility." Will the Government permit the contractor transitioning-in to place a recruitment notice in each facility? | No, a contractor cannot place a recruitment notice in any facilities. The following sentence has been removed from PWS 1.6.1.2. "With regard to the successor Contractor's access to incumbent employees, the contractor shall permit a recruitment notice be placed in each facility." | Yes | ||
| 20 | RFP Atch. 15 - Pricing Sheet & PWS 5.13 - 5.19 on pgs. 38-49 | At what point does the Government intend to exercise Optional CLINS (X009 - X0015)? | The Government reserves the right to exercise or not exercise any Optional CLINs at contract award or throughout the duration of the period of performance. | No | ||
| 21 | RFP Atch. 15 - Pricing Sheet & PWS 5.13 - 5.19 on pgs. 38-49 | Will the Government exercise Optional CLINs individually or all Optional CLINs at once? | The Government reserves the right to exercise all Optional CLINs at once or individually. | No | ||
| 22 | RFP Atch. 15 - Pricing Sheet - CLIN Breakdown Tab | Will the Government please clarify what NAICS code information is to be entered in Column F? Typically a NAICS code is determined by the contract vs. by the contractor. | The Government has assigned NAICS code 541611 to the solicitation. The intent of Column F is for the offeror to determine what NAICS code the prime will assign to each of its subcontrators; with the prime assigning each subcontract the NAICS code and corresponding size standard that best describes the principal purpose of the subcontract. | No | ||
| 23 | RFP Atch. 15 - Pricing Sheet - CLINS Total | Are indirect burdens/rate (G&A or M&H) to be included in the plug number provided by the Government? If yes, is there a requirement to disclose those rates? | If this question is in reference to the Travel plug in value, this plug in number provided by the Government does not include indirect burdens or indirect rates. Please refer to the Travel CLIN description which states, "Only direct travel costs preapproved and incurred may be billed." Please refer to the PWS, Section 1.8 which states, "Except, the Government will not allow any burden rates applied to travel costs. No burdens, indirect rates, or G&A may be charged to travel. Only direct travel costs that the COR has preapproved, and that the COR finds allowable and allocable may be charged to the contract. All travel (other than local travel) requires Government preapproval/authorization and notification to the COR. The Government is providing a fixed price not to exceed travel line item." | No | ||
| 24 | PWS 5.19.1 Warrior Games (pg 49) & PRS 19 Warrior Games (pg 69) | 5.19.1 says "14 sports categories, 2 trainers per category, x4 services = 56 coaches", but that calculation = 112 coaches. Can the government confirm that per PRS 19 a maximum of 56 coach/trainers are required to support 5.19.1. | PWS Attachment 10 Estimated Workload Data Table has been changed. PWS 5.19.1 has been changed. The Contractor shall provide trainers experienced in preparing athletes for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and SOCOM for Warrior Game events, to support RSMs identified with athletic potential during participation in the Warrior Games. The Contractor shall provide training for all Warrior Game event categories to support an average of 250 Wounded Warrior Game participants (12 sports categories, 2 trainers per category, x 4 services = 96 coaches). The sport categories are subject to change depending on the number of eligible competitors and other factors and include but not limited to: archery, cycling, shooting, sitting volleyball, swimming, track, field, wheelchair basketball, indoor rowing, power-lifting, wheelchair rugby, and golf. Participants may compete in more than one category. | Yes | ||
| 25 | PWS 5.18.2 MTFs/Installations (pg 47) | This section say "The contractor shall describe the level of experience of the proposed staff in the proposal" but if the current site coordinators are to be mostly retained, this information is only known to the current contractor, and creates an unfair advantage. Would the government consider removing this requirement. | The Offerors are not supposed to write to this in the proposal. The PWS will be corrected and the solicitation amended to remove: "The contractor shall describe the level of experience of the proposed staff in the proposal." | Yes | Yes | |
| 26 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications (pg#6) | The senior project manager - MASP and senior program manager - Warrior Games position requires a PMP certification, can the government provide further information for that requirement. | The government will change PMP Ceritification from required to desired for MASP Senior Project Manager and Senior Program Manager Warrior Games. | Yes | Yes | |
| 27 | Solicitation Page 48, (ii) Estimated Level of Effort | "(ii) Estimated level of Effort says "estimate is only put in place for Offerors to ascertain the approximate or estimated level of effort for this requirement." and "You are not bound to offer these labor categories or quantities, rather you are expected to provide your best solution…". Can the government provide some clarity on this statement/section vs. section (h) in the ITO on pg 42 that says, "Unless otherwise provided in the schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified"? | The government intends to amend the solicitation and address (h) Multiple awards in FAR 52.212-1. "(h) Multiple awards. The Government may accept any item or group of items of an offer, unless the offeror qualifies the offer by specific limitations. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the offer." will be changed in the Addendum to 52.212-1 to say" (h) Multiple awards. only one contract award is anticipated resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP); however, the Government reserves the right to withdraw, modify, or eliminate various aspects of the requirement determined to be too costly or impractical prior to award." (h) should not be confused with or interpreted to preclude the instructions provided in (ii) Estimated Level of Effort. | Yes | ||
| 28 | PWS 4.3 Materials (pg 23) | Can the government clarify the "furnish all materials to include, but not limited to…." by providing a specific list of materials/items that will need to be produced by the contractor. | No, the Government cannot furnish a specific list of materials/ items other than what is provided in PWS 4.3 Materials and stated in the PWS Sections 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3. | Yes | ||
| 29 | General | If incumbent personnel are to be retained and acquired by the winning bidder during the incumbent capture process, will the government consider removing the Day 1 requirement and allow for representative resumes. | No. The Government will not consider removing the Day 1 requirement. | No | ||
| 30 | PWS 5.18.2 MTFs/Installations (pg 47) | Contractor is required to describe level of experience of proposed MASP Site Coordinators; we believe that any incumbent site coordinators would be retained. If so, only the current incumbent contractor would have this information giving them an unfair advantage for this criteria. Will the government consider removing this requirement? | The Offerors are not supposed to write to this in the proposal. The PWS will be corrected and the solicitation amended to remove: "The contractor shall describe the level of experience of the proposed staff in the proposal." | Yes | Yes | |
| 31 | HT0011-20-R-0023 Solicitation |
52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEVIATION 2018-O0018) (MAR 2020)
(m) Offer Content and Format.
| Title pages, glossaries, and tables of content do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. | Will the government consider adding “compliance matrix” to the list of items ("title pages, glossaries, and tables of content") that are excluded from page limitations for their respective volumes. | No. The Government will not consider adding "compliance matrix" to the list of items that are excluded from page limitations for their respective volumes. | No |
| 32 | HT0011-20-R-0023 Solicitation�52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEVIATION 2018-O0018) (MAR 2020) |
(m) Offer Content and Format
(2) Volume 2, Past Performance Instructions.
| ***Each Reference (and associated submitted Past Performance Questionnaire) may only cite one (1) contract number. If the contract is an IDIQ contract or a Blanket Purchase Agreement, only one (1) delivery/task order or call order (under BPA) may be cited. A reference is defined as 1 contract or order; not a long term contract (i.e. 5 years) and various follow on contracts, i.e. bridge contracts. If a single reference (and associated PPQ) provides more than (1) one contract number or more than (1) one associated order, that entire reference will not be provided to the evaluation team, will not be evaluated, and the offeror’s past performance rating may be negatively impacted.*** | Limiting a small business to 1 delivery or call order on a BPA or IDIQ will certainly impact the dollar size of the past performance offerors, in particular small businesses, will be able to cite. For example, a small business might have an IDIQ subcontract valued at 5M that operates as a single operating team, but that 5M might be divided up among 10 task orders, the largest one valued at 700K. In this scenario a small business that has relevant past performance in terms of scope will be at a severe disadvantage since size and scope will not be realistically comparable if the small business is limited / restricted to a single task order. Will the government consider re-wording this paragraph to, | |||||
| "Each Reference (and associated submitted Past Performance Questionnaire) may only cite one (1) contract number. If the contract is an IDIQ contract or a Blanket Purchase Agreement, only one (1) delivery/task order or call order (under BPA) may be cited unless a group of task orders have been delivered within the past three (3) years under one operating team that reports to a single COR. A reference is defined as 1 contract; not a long term contract (i.e. 5 years) and various follow on contracts, i.e. bridge contracts. If a single reference (and associated PPQ) provides more than (1) one contract number, that entire reference will not be provided to the evaluation team, will not be evaluated, and the offeror’s past performance rating may be negatively impacted."? | No. The Government will not revise or re-word the past performance requirement. | No | ||||
| 33 | Pg. 9 Travel CLINs (Base + All Options) | All Travel CLINs indicate the following: "Only direct travel costs preapproved and incurred may be billed." Given the large amount of anticipated travel, will the government accept indirect costs as well, if an offer has a disclosed and approved rate by DCAA? | No. The Government will not accept indirect costs. The Government will not accept indirect costs even if the offeror has a disclosed and approved rate by DCAA. | No | ||
| 34 | Pg. 49 (4) Volume 4 – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Instructions; Teaming Partners | Can the Government please clarify the following statement: "If the Agency determines that the Offeror or one of its proposed subcontractors and/or Teaming Partners have held a contract within the preceding five years and/or currently holds a contract then the proposal will be found noncompliant, the proposal will not be forwarded for evaluation and the Offeror will be ineligible for award." Can the government clarify which contracts they are referring to in this sentence as it reads as just any contract? Are there certain types of contracts that should be identified in that statement? | This means if an offeror does not disclose a contract or task order within the terms of the OCI solicitation instruction to the Government in their proposal, and the Agency determines that the Offeror or one of its proposed subcontractors and/or Teaming Partners have held a contract within the preceding five years and/or currently holds a contract then the proposal will be found noncompliant, the proposal will not be forwarded for evaluation and the Offeror will be ineligible for award. All contracts or contractual agreements should be identified to the Government including, contracts, task or delivery orders, Blanket Purchase Agreements and call orders. | No | ||
| 35 | RFP Evaluation Sub-factor 3, Key Personnel, pages 56-58 | It appears that some of the designated Key Personnel are associated with “Optional Tasks.” What is the plan for timing of award of the optional tasks? | The Government may or may not exercise the Optional CLINs at contract award or throughout the duration of the period of performance. | No | ||
| 36 | RFP Instructions 2 iv, pages 47-48 | Are the Subcontractor Past Performance Consent Forms counted in page count? | Yes. The Subcontractor Past Performance Consent Forms are counted in the Past Performance volume page limit of 30 pages. | No | ||
| 37 | PWS Paragragh 1.9, 4.1, 4.3 | Paragragh 1.9 states ODC is "Not Applicable". In addition to the Travel ODC which the government has provided plug values, there are numerous references to materials such as business cards, banners, brochures, shipping and printing. Will the government provide similar ODC plug values for the various material costs associated with performance of the PWS ? | The Government will not provide similar ODC plug values for the various material costs associated with performance of the PWS. | No | ||
| 38 | PWS Paragragh 1.12 | The FTE value for the Quality Assurance Analyst Key Person is missing. Can the government confirm this should be 1 FTE? | YES, PWS 1.12 Key personnel (Contractor) Quality Assurance Analyst Confirmed is 1 FTE. | Yes | Yes | |
| 39 | Attachment 9 | When comparing the qualifications for the Key Personnel from this solicitation to past solicitations for this same program, the government has significantly increased the qualifications of Key Personnel without similar significant changes in the scope of the work. For example, the requirement for five (5) Key Personnel to have PMP certifications did not previously exist. While a Program Management Plan was added as a deliverable to this requirement (Deliverable 10), the use of five (5) PMP qualified candidates to manage this appears to be unduly retrictive and excessive and would increase the cost to the government. Would the government provide rationale for the increased qualifications to enable bidders to source the Key Personnel more effectively and/or reduce the qualifications to align with current program requirements? | 1.This contract was created de novo. As a result these requirements reflect current and future needs FY 2020 and beyond. 2.DHA requires industy standards to run national level programs and these requirments are reflected in the qualifications for the positions. 3. Government will change PMP to desired, not required for Senior Project Manager- Education and Employment Initiative (E2I) Senior Project Manager- Caregiver Support Senior Project Manager- Military Adaptive Sports Program (MASP) Senior Program Manager- Warrior Games | Yes | ||
| 40 | Addendum to 52.212-1/RFP Instructions Vol 2 Past Performance Instructions (part i) p. 47 | The incumbent contract for this solicitation is a single-award contract that has had multiple contract extensions over a time period of greater than 5 years. Can the government clarify how a contract such as this should be referenced with respect to the instruction on page 47 of the solicitation that "A reference is defined as 1 contract or order; not a long term contract (i.e. 5 years) and various follow on contracts, i.e. bridge contracts." | As an example: Acme held a bridge contract with the Air Force: Contract number: FA0011-19-C-0001 with Period of performance 01/01/2019 to 06/30/2019 Title: Cats and Dogs. Acme held another Air Force bridge contract: FA0011-19-C-1234, Period of Performance 07/01/2019 to 11/31/2019, Title: Cats and Dogs. If Acme wants to use each of these contracts in their Past performance volume proposal submission, they must use 2 references to do so. Reference #1 would be for contract FA0011-19-C-0001. Reference #2 would be for contract FA0011-19-C-1234. To clarify, an offeror cannot use a long term contract (i.e. 5 year period of performance), and a bridge contract for the same work as 1 reference. Various contracts or task orders cannot be combined into 1 reference even if they were for the same scope of work. 1 Reference is 1 contract or 1 task order only; not multiple contract numbers and not multiple task orders. | No | ||
| 41 | Addendum to 52.212-1/RFP Instructions Vol 1 Technical Instructions (par iii) Key Personnel p. 46 | Key Personnel Resumes. The government has made it clear that there are 12 positions that are designated as Key Personnel, will the government only accept 1 resume and 1 key personnel letter of intent (if applicable) per position? | The offeror shall include 1 resume for each Key Personnel. The offeror shall include 1 letter of intent for those Key Personnel who are not current employees of the prime offeror. | No | ||
| 42 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications | In the event that incumbent staff in key personnel roles do not meet the minimum years of experience, will they be "grandfathered in" and be allowed to continue in the role should the awardee look to retain them? | No. All contractor personnel in key personnel roles must meet the minimum years of experience in this current solicitation and through the life of the contract award. | No | ||
| 43 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications | In the event that incumbent staff in key personnel roles do not meet the minimum degree/education/certification requirements, will they be "grandfathered in" and be allowed to continue in the role should the awardee look to retain them? | No. All contractor personnel in key personnel roles must meet the minimum degree/education/certification requirements in this current solicitation and through the life of the contract award. | No | ||
| 44 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications (pg#1) | For the Senior program manager, one of the qualifications is Lean Six Sigma; however, there does not seem to be any duties that align to that requirement. Can the government explain the reasoning / need for this requirement? | The government will remove the Lean Six Sigma certification. | Yes | Yes | |
| 45 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications (pg#2) | Senior Project Manager - Operation War Fighter (OWF). It appears that the qualifications far exceed the program scope and services provided. ((Master's Degree, or greater, in Counseling (MA, MS, PhD), National Counselor Examination (NCE) or the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE) certification required)). Can the government further explain why these certifications are required for this position? | 1.This contract was created de novo. As a result these requirements reflect current and future needs FY 2020 and beyond. 2.DHA requires industy standards to run national level programs and these requirments are reflected in the qualifications for the positions. Qualifications were deveopled based on the needs of the program to provide for evidence based vocational best practices for this critically important program. | No | ||
| 46 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications (pg#6) | For the Operations Research System Analysis (ORSA): (Quality Assurance) the government requirements are very specific and restrictive. Would the government consider accepting a Masters degree that is equivalent in experience to the Operations Research and Management Science? For example, Mathematics, Data Science or Statistics? | The Government has revised the Operations Research System Analysis (ORSA) (Quality Assurance Degree requirement to Master's Degree in Operations Research and Management Science, or Master's degree in Business Intelligence or Master's degree in Business Analytics. No. The Government will not consider accepting a Master's degree that is equivalent in experience to the Operations Research and Management Science, such as Math, Data Science or Statistics. | Yes | ||
| 47 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications (pg#6) | Can the government provide additional detail for the PMP requirement for the Senior Project Manager - MASP and Senior Program Manager - Warrior Games? | Government will change Senior Project Manager - MASP and Senior Program Manager - Warrior Games PMP to desired not required. | Yes | Yes | |
| 48 | Attachment 9 - Key Personnel Qualifications | It appears that the solicitation's experience and credential requirements for many of the key personnel positions differ from the current contract. Can the governement explain why the requirements for the key personnel positions in this PWS are significantly more prescriptive than the current contract/PWS and the PWS from the 2016 competition which was canceled? More specifically how have the roles and responsibilities changed such that they require the added educational and certification requirements? | 1.This contract was created de novo. As a result these requirements reflect current and future needs FY 2020 and beyond. 2.DHA requires industy standards to run national level programs and these requirements are reflected in the qualifications for the positions. The Recovery Coordination Program now resides within DHA quidance and direction; incorpating the High Reliabity Organization Model and requires individuals with additonal qualitifactions and skills than previous solicitations. | No | ||
| 49 | PWS 3.5 Materials (pg 22) | Government indicates in PWS 3.5 that they will provide a printing policy during phase in, but PWS 4.3 states that printing costs must be included in FFP. Can government please provide printing policy to ensure bidders can accurately price printing services? | There is no printing policy. PWS 3.5: The government will change the language to say; "The Government will provide, as part of the Phase-in process, access to the shared drive to view Standard Operating Procedures and policies." | Yes | ||
| 50 | PWS 4.3 Materials (pg 23) | Given materials must be priced within the FFP portion of the contract, can the government provide a definitive list of materials that must be produced by contractor? Current language is open ended ie. "furnish all materials to include, but not limited to…" | NO, the government will not provide a definitive list of materials that must be produced by the contractor. | No | ||
| 51 | PWS 5.18.2 MTFs/Installations (pg 47) | Contractor is required to describe level of experience of proposed MASP Site Coordinators; however, it is our assumption that the majority of the incumbent site coordinators would be retained. Only the current incumbent contractor and its small business prime teaming partner would have this information giving them an unfair advantage for this criteria. Will the government consider removing this requirement? | The Offerors are not supposed to write to this in the proposal. The PWS will be corrected and the solicitation amended to remove: "The contractor shall describe the level of experience of the proposed staff in the proposal." | Yes | Yes | |
| 52 | PWS 5.19.1 Warrior Games (pg 49) & PRS 19 Warrior Games (pg 69) | This section lists 7 sports categories for the Warrior Games but then states the contractor will provide support for: "14 sports categories, 2 trainers per category, x 4 Services = 56 coaches". Did the government intend to indicate 7 sports categories which would result in 56 coaches based on the formula provided OR 14 sports categories which would be 112 coaches? | Dodwarriorgames.com identifies 12 Categories, the PWS 5.19.1 and PRS 18 (changed from PRS 19 in PWS) will be updated to reflect the 12 identified sports categores "12 sports categories, 2 trainers per category, x 4 Services = 96 coaches" | Yes | ||
| 53 | General | Typically, a significant number of incumbent personnel are retained/re-badged when a program moves from an incumbent contractor to a new contractor to maintain continuity. This solicitation requires that 12 key personnel be identified and have signed letters of intent in a bidder's proposal. It is unlikely that incumbent key personnel will sign letters of intent with a non-incumbent bidder, even assuming those key personnel meet the new qualifications. As such, a non-incumbent would be forced to propose 12 new key personnel to replace incumbent key personnel, even if retaining certain incumbent key personnel would be more advantageous for the Government. Given this, will the government consider removing the requirement for specific resumes and letters of intent for some or all key positions and allowing representative resumes? | No. The Government will not change this requirement for specific resumes and letters of intent. Historically from an acquisition perspective, the Government has seen many incumbent employees provide their specific resumes and letters of intent to multiple offerors at one time. | No | ||
| 54 | Solicitation Page 42, (h) Multiple Awards | Multiple awards, states that “Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified.” Could the Government please clarify what is meant by “the Schedule” in this paragraph? | The government intends to amend the solicitation and address (h) Multiple awards in FAR 52.212-1. "(h) Multiple awards. The Government may accept any item or group of items of an offer, unless the offeror qualifies the offer by specific limitations. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the offer." will be changed in the Addendum to 52.212-1 to say" (h) Multiple awards. only one contract award is anticipated resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP); however, the Government reserves the right to withdraw, modify, or eliminate various aspects of the requirement determined to be too costly or impractical prior to award." | Yes | ||
| 55 | Solicitation Page 48, (ii) Estimated Level of Effort | Estimated Level of Effort, states “Please note that the Government estimate is only put in place for Offerors to ascertain the approximate or estimated level of effort for this requirement. However, this is not to be construed as either mandatory or necessarily the best technical approach.” Can the Government please reconcile (or clarify) this statement and the instructions on page 42 (h) Multiple awards, which states that offers may not be submitted for less than the quantities specified? | The government intends to amend the solicitation and address (h) Multiple awards in FAR 52.212-1. "(h) Multiple awards. The Government may accept any item or group of items of an offer, unless the offeror qualifies the offer by specific limitations. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the offer." will be changed in the Addendum to 52.212-1 to say" (h) Multiple awards. only one contract award is anticipated resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP); however, the Government reserves the right to withdraw, modify, or eliminate various aspects of the requirement determined to be too costly or impractical prior to award." (h) should not be confused with or interpreted to preclude the instructions provided in (ii) Estimated Level of Effort. | Yes | ||
| 56 | PG 56, Sub-factor 3, Key Personnel, #5 and Attachment 9 Key Personnel pg 3. | In regards to Key Personnel, did the Government intend to state Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) rather than "Intermittent Verification and Validation (IV&V)"? | In regards to Key Personnel, the Government did intend to state Independent Verification and Validation (IV & V) and corrections will be made to Attachment #9 Key Personnel and Evaluation Critieria. | Yes | Yes | |
| 57 | Recovery Coordination Program Key Personnel, Attachment 9 | 1. Would the government consider Licensed Clinical Social Work in lieu of the National Counselor Examination (NCE) or the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE) certification required since within industry it is a similar functional expertise. | No, government will not accept LCSW in lieu of NCE or NCMHCE certification, However, the government has changed the requirement to the following: • Master’s Degree or greater in Counseling (MA, MS, PhD) with a National Counselor Examination (NCE) certification, OR Master’s Degree or greater in Counseling (MA, MS, PhD) with a National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE) certification, OR a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) with an Association of Social Work Board (ASWB) certification OR LCSW with National Counselor Examination (NCE) certification, OR LCSW with the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE) certification. | Yes | ||
| 58 | Recovery Coordination Program Key Personnel, Attachment 10 | 2. Could the government provide an industry standard reference that indicates Quality Assurance Certification is required for Quality Assurance Managers with 5 years of experience. This certification appears to give the incumbent an unfair advantage and resume’s are pass/fail. | No, the government will not provide an industry standard reference that indicates Quality Assurance Certification is required for Quality Assurance Managers with 5 years of experience. The government requires the Quality Assurance Analyst to have a Quality Assurance Certification. Certification is a formal recognition that an individual has demonstrated proficiency within, and comprehension of, the specific body of knowledge for quality. | No |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .