Questions and Responses-Final.pdf

Amendment 0002

HT001123R0109 DHAPP PM

Questions and Responses

1) Please confirm the positions identified in Attachment 5 – Estimated Level of Effort, can be filled via remote telework.

Response: Refer to revised Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.7.1 for required place of performance. Personnel are required to work on-site with some telework allowed in accordance with DHA Telework policy, except as otherwise excepted in the PWS.

2) Attachment 5 – Estimated Level of Effort, addresses two Desk Officer positions that require

French and Spanish speaking officers, please advise if there are any other languages that may be required to fulfill the totality of the DHA/DHAPP scope of work.

Response: No other languages are required.

3) Please confirm that tables of contents or glossaries provided in the proposal will be excluded from the page limitations for each volume.

Response: Table of contents and glossaries are not necessary; however, they are not excluded.

Volume 1 includes Appendices and Attachments; Volume 2 should not require a table of content or glossary and Volume 3 has no page limit.

4) Please confirm that the required Subcontractor Past Performance Consent Letter (Attachment

4) is excluded from the 3-page limit for Volume 2.

Response: Attachment 4 is excluded from the page limit for Volume 2.

5) The following positions are listed in the PWS and in Attachment 3 (LOE) but are missing from Attachment 5, Qualifications:

• Research Analysts

• Senior Desk Officer

• Desk Officer, Spanish Speaking

• Desk Officer, French Speaking

• Desk Officers

• Office Operations Manager

• MIHTP Administrator

These qualifications are needed in order to complete the Staffing Matrix required in the RFP (page 12). Could the Government provide the qualifications for these positions?

Response: For clarifications, Attachment 3 is Qualifications and Attachment 5 is Level of Effort. Refer to revised Attachment 3.

6) The RFP states the staffing matrix/recruiting plan “must also include a brief summary of experience (6-8 bullets) outlining their education and experience in accordance with PWS Part 5 and shall be no more than ten (10) pages in length.” Could the Government clarify whether the allocated 10 pages are only for the Staffing Matrix, or whether the 10-page allocation is for the entire Sub-factor 1 section, including the Staffing Matrix, Recruiting Plan, and Staffing Approach?

Response: The evaluation criteria for Sub-factor 1 has been revised. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Sub-factor 1.

7) The RFP requires Letters of Intent for Subcontractor Personnel under Sub-factor 1, which has a page limit of 10 pages. Would the Government consider allowing the Letters of Intent to be excluded from the 10-page limit?

Response: The requirement for Letters of intent has been revised. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Sub-factor 1.1-Volume 1.

8) The RFP requires Subcontractor Past Performance Consent Forms under Factor 2: Past Performance, which has a page limit of 3 pages. Would the Government consider allowing the Subcontractor Past Performance Consent Forms to be excluded from the 3-page limit?

Response: The consent forms are excluded from the page limit. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-Volume 2.

9) There does not appear to be a CLIN 4003 on the SF 1449 or the price sheet. Could the Government please confirm CLIN 4003 is needed?

Response: CLIN 4003 does not exist. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-Volume 3.

10) In the PWS, the Deliverable Schedule Table 7.5 states that CDRL (1) Quality Control Plan must be submitted within 10 days of contract award and updated quarterly thereafter.

However, the RFP Instructions under Sub-Factor 2 – Operations states that the Quality Control Plan shall be submitted with the Proposal. Could the Government clarify what the delivery date is for the initial Quality Control Plan?

Response: The Quality Control plan submitted IAW Sub-factor 2 is a draft copy. The draft copy shall be submitted with the proposal for review and once approved, the awardee will submit the final copy IAW PWS 1.10.1 and CDRL 1. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Sub-factor 2.

11) PWS Section 1.9 states that the “Contractor will be responsible for providing software, such as Qualtrics or equivalent, miscellaneous office supplies, job-related trainings (to include Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) or Hostile Environment Awareness Training (HEAT), shipping, and conference preparations which are essential to perform these services. The Contractor will also be responsible for providing communication equipment, such as mobile devices and any related hardware and Wi-Fi services.” In addition, PWS 4.3 states that the following materials and equipment are required to be provided by the Contractor: “mobile devices with capability of minimum 32 GB data storage, camera, apps, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, browser, hotspot capability, unlimited data, international dialing capability, and model no greater than 2 years post-release. The mobile drive should have voice and data service to support international calling.” Will the Government reimburse the costs for these materials and equipment? If yes, could the Government provide a CLIN or line item for that expense?

Response: No. This requirement will result in a Firm-fixed price contract with fixed-price line items. All costs associated with providing the service shall be included in CLIN 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-Volume 3.

12) Can the Government provide clarification on whether the placeholder number in attachment 2 encompasses both travel and ODC expenses?

Response: The plug-in amounts are for travel only.

13) Is the total fixed amount for both Travel and ODCs a fixed amount or are offerors allowed to deviate from the plug number?

Response: There are no plug-in amounts for ODCs, only travel. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-Volume 3.

14) Can the Government confirm that each Volume's Cover Page, Table of Contents, Figure Listing, Acronym Listing and Executive Summary will not be counted against the given page limits for each volume?

Response: Proposals shall be submitted IAW Addendum to the FAR 52.212-1 (b) Submission of offers, to include the format and content required. Any content submitted outside of the ones required for submission will be counted against the page limits for each volume will be viewed as failure to comply and excess pages will not be evaluated.

15) Given no font limitations are provided, can the Government please confirm that times new roman font, no less than 10 point, with no less than 8 point for tables and graphics will be acceptable?

Response: Proposal format has been provided. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1- Proposal Format and Content.

16) Will the Government expand the page limit for the past performance volume to 2 pages per past performance write up?

Response: No. Past performance shall be an outline of recent and relevant performance.

Refer to Attachment 8-Past Performance Reference.

17) In Instruction to Offerors, Proposal Content, Item 5 the Government states “If considering a joint-venture or teaming arrangement, the primary offeror must demonstrate that the affiliate will perform more than 50% of the resulting contract.” The term “affiliate” appears to be misplaced in this requirement. Can the Government please confirm that the intent of this paragraph is to state that in compliance with FAR 52.219-14, the 8(a) Prime Contractor in a teaming arrangement (to include joint ventures) must perform 50% or more of the labor costs of the resulting contract?

Response: Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-Joint Venture and Teaming Agreements

18) The solicitation states that "Any proposal with an overall “Unacceptable” rating will be eliminated from competition." Will Marginally rated Factor 1 proposals be considered for award?

Response: The ratings table has been revised. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2- Factor 1.

19) Factor 1 states that "Technical sub-factors must receive an adjectival rating of Acceptable or higher (Table A-1) to be considered for award" and that “a rating of Unacceptable under any sub-factor renders the entire proposal Unacceptable and ineligible for award” as well as "Any proposal with an overall “Unacceptable” rating will be eliminated from competition." Can the Government confirm that if any sub-factor receives a rating of marginal, that the overarching Factor 1 Rating will be deemed Unacceptable?

Response: The ratings table has been revised. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2- Factor 1.

20) Will the Government please also modify the evaluation criteria to allow an Offeror’s Factor 1 subfactor ratings to contribute to the Government’s performance-tradeoff evaluation such that

– if Offerors receive subfactor ratings of Outstanding and/or Good, they will be ranked higher in the overarching evaluation?

Response: The Technical ratings table has been revised. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Factor 1.

21) PWS Section 1.12.1 states that both a Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager are Key Personnel, however, there is no reference to an Alternate Program Manager within Attachment 3 or Attachment 5. Can the Government please confirm that the Alternate PM is not considered to be a Key Personnel and that a letter of intent is not required for the Alternate PM?

Response: The Alternate PM is not considered a Key Personnel and a letter of intent is not required.

22) In comparing the qualifications listed in attachment 3 and the estimated level of effort within attachment 5, we identified multiple discrepancies - 1) in how positions are being referred to,

2) where qualifications were not provided for certain LCATs, and 3) where certain LCATs were not listed within attachment 5 that had qualifications listed within attachment 3. Can the Government please provide an updated Attachment 3 and Attachment 5 to ensure that the LCATs are being referred to in the same way, and to ensure that all LCATs have qualifications defined?

Response: Refer to response in question #5.

23) At .25 FTE level of effort, the role and responsibility of a Program Manager is restricted to more administratively related tasks such as coordinating timecards, ensuring availability of personnel, coordinating training requirements, and communicating with the Government. If it is the Government's intention that this position have experience in the use of Antire; and knowledge of concepts, principles, techniques, and practices of HIV/AIDs prevention, care, and treatment - this will lead to unnecessary costs for this position. Given that all other personnel on contract will carry this knowledge and expertise for their technical role and responsibility, it is recommended that these two specific requirements be removed from Attachment 3 Qualifications for the Program Manager.

24) Can the Government confirm that an offeror's approach to managing the contract and work tasks will be evaluated as part of subfactor 2?

Response: All requirements under Part 1 of the PWS will be evaluated for Sub-factor 2.

25) The Instructions section states: “The technical proposal shall include a narrative of the offerors technical approach and a detailed description of the items being evaluated in compliance with the PWS and this solicitation.” The Evaluation criteria section states: "The proposal must demonstrate an adequate approach to achieving the objectives and scope of work required in accordance with PWS Part 1." The evaluation criteria is tied to the objectives in PWS Section 1.4 and the Scope description in PWS Section 1.5. The instructions are tied to the tasks in PWS Section 5. Can the Government please clarify the appropriate PWS Sections that need to be responded to as part of sub-factor 2? Will the Government modify the evaluation criteria to include those PWS tasks?

Response: The solicitation instructions are not tied to any section of the PWS. The evaluation criteria for Sub-factor 2 includes all requirements of PWS Part 1. The evaluation criteria will not be modified.

26) Because this program supports foreign militaries with their prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS during normal and contingency efforts, travel to austere and insecure environments is required. Can the Government confirm that extraction insurance and/or hazard pay is required due to travel to austere and insecure locations?

Response: Travel may include austere, but not insecure locations, and will be in accordance with DoD and DFARS 252.225-7040 in attachment 7.7. Contractor is responsible for following applicable USG rules and regulations surrounding travel for contract employees.

27) Can the Government please confirm that PWS Attachment 7.6-7.8 are all applicable to the requirement?

Response: Yes, they are applicable.

28) Given that questions are due 10 calendar days prior to the due date of the proposal, this does not allow for much time for the Government to 1) respond to questions prior to the due date, and 2) for industry/offerors to update/modify their proposals in response to any modifications to the RFP itself. Will the Government please issue an extension to reflect a date that is two weeks after the issuance of answers to those questions.

Response: Solicitation question deadline was revised via Amendment 0001. An extension will be provided via Amendment 0002.

29) Within the staffing/key personnel instructions it states "The proposal must demonstrate an adequate approach to staffing personnel for the scope of work required and include a staffing matrix/recruiting plan that will ensure achievement of task objectives in accordance with PWS Part 5. The staffing matrix/recruiting plan shall illustrate how the personnel expected to work under the resulting contract meets the special qualifications in Attachment 3- Qualifications. The plan must also include a brief summary of experience (6-8 bullets) outlining their education and experience in accordance with PWS Part 5 and shall be no more than ten (10) pages in length. Summaries shall provide for each personnel expected to work under the resulting contract. Letters of intent are required for personnel not employed with the prime offeror and is an employee of a proposed subcontractor, teaming partner or outside entity of the prime. Personnel expected to work under the resulting contract must be available at the time of award."

The Competition in Contracting Act requires that solicitations permit full and open competition; restrictive language and solicitation provisions are allowable only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency's needs and the government's interests. At this time, there is a concern with the Agency’s solicitation requirement for the Prime Offeror to include LOIs for ALL (key and non-key) personnel not presently employed by the Offeror. This evaluation criteria is both unduly restrictive, and favors the incumbent contractor. It is unreasonable to believe any other 8(a) small business, other than the incumbent, would have a bench in excess of 32+ personnel with both the availability and qualifications to perform services at the time of this proposal submission. Also, some of the positions may be designated as SCA, therefore, subject to EO 14055 Non-displacement of Qualified Workers Under Services Contracts. We believe the following would be sufficient specifications/requirements for the Agency to fairly evaluate an offeror's Staffing/Key Personnel and recommend that Government revise this sub-factor language to reflect the below:

"The proposal must demonstrate an adequate approach to staffing personnel for the scope of work required and include a staffing matrix/recruiting plan that will ensure achievement of task objectives in accordance with PWS Part 5. The staffing matrix/recruiting plan shall illustrate how the offeror intends to ensure that an adequate workforce is available upon Day 1, with the appropriate skills and qualifications necessary to effectively accomplish the objectives of the PWS. Letters of intent and summaries of experience are only required for individuals who are identified as Key Personnel within PWS Section 1.12. Offeror must specifically address their plans for the use and retention of incumbent staff and discuss the ability to recruit, obtain, and retain the personnel necessary to ensure stable operations."

Response: The proposed revisions have been accepted with minor changes. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Sub-factor 1.

30) Limiting the recency criteria to three years is restrictive to possible offerors who have highly relevant past performance and maintain the experience gained through that past performance.

Will the Government please modify the recency criteria to include contracts that have ended within the past five years?

Response: Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Factor 2.

31) The U.S. Government Accountability Office has recognized that agencies may attribute to an Offeror the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company, if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect contract performance (Iyabak Const., LLC, B-409196, Feb. 6, 2014 and Wolf Creek Federal Services, Inc., February 6, 2014). Can the Government please confirm that affiliate past performance will be considered when submitted by the Offeror as long as Offeror is able to demonstrate how the affiliate will contribute to the performance of the contract (i.e., workforce, management, facilities or other resources, etc.) and a firm commitment of meaningful participation in the eventual contract?

Response: Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Factor 2. Past performance references may be those of the offeror, combination of references of the offeror and/or the offeror’s proposed subcontractors and/or teaming partners..

32) The government states the staffing matrix/recruiting plan provided in the proposal "must also include a brief summary of experience (6-8 bullets) outlining their education..." Is it the Government's intent to require personnel be identified for each LCAT and Resumes be provided with the proposal package for evaluation of Sub-factor 1? This requirement would provide the incumbent access to Source Selection information relevant to this contract resulting in an unfair competitive advantage and in violation of FAR 9.505(b)(2).

Response: The incumbent is not involved in the source selection process, nor will they have access to any source selection sensitive information. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Sub-factor 1.

33) The government states "Letters of Intent are required for personnel not employed with the prime offeror and is an employee of a proposed subcontractor, teaming partner or outside entity of the prime." Is it the government's intent to have Letters of intent provided and employees identified at time of proposal submission?

Response: Yes. Refer to response in question #7.

34) The PWS states that the Travel Coordinator "will manage the travel logistics for the contracted team. This consists of requesting air itineraries, lodging and ground transportation using the DOD designated Travel Management System." Third party contractors do not have access to the Defense Travel system, will offeror's company travel system work as a substitute to the designated system?

Response: Contractor employees will not need access to or utilize the Defense Travel System (DTS) for scheduling/requesting travel. The contractor may use any commercial website for scheduling travel; however, all travel will be scheduled IAW PWS 1.8.

35) Due to the low anticipated LOE, part time status, will the travel coordinator position be required to work only the Govt site or will they be able to work on the contractor site or remotely.

Response: Refer to response in question #1.

36) Due to the low anticipated LOE, part time status, will the Science Editor position be required to work only the Govt site, or will they be able to work on the contractor site or remotely?

37) Due to the low anticipated LOE, part time status, will the MIHTP Administration position be required to work only the Govt site or will they be able to work on the contractor site or remotely.

38) Is it the Government's intent that all LCATs' place of performance, other than the ICPI Data Analyst, be located in San Diego, CA?

Response: Yes.

39) Can the Government clarify as to how the Government calculated 1833 hours per FTE given the 11 Federal Holidays provided in the PWS? Based on similar solicitations where 11 Federal Holidays are provided, an FTE is typically calculated as 1912 hours.

Response: The 1833 hours represents the productive hours of full-time work: 2080hrs minus the anticipated vacation days, sick days, other administrative days (167hrs) and holidays (80hrs).

40) RFP Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1 states "staffing matrix/recruiting plan shall illustrate how the personnel expected to work under the resulting contract meets the special qualifications in Attachment 3-Qualifications". However, for some Labor Categories in Attachment 5 there is no clean alignment to Attachment 3. Please confirm if Senior Strategic Information Technical Advisor listed in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Strategic Information Advisor III in Attachment 3.

Response: The Senior Strategic Information Technical Advisor in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Strategic Information Advisor III in Attachment 3. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2-Sub-factor 1 and Revised Attachment 3.

41) Please confirm if the Senior Epidemiologist Advisor III in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Senior Epidemiologist Advisor II in Attachment 3."

Response: Epidemiology positions have been realigned. Refer to revised Attachment 3 and Attachment 5.

42) Please confirm if the Senior Epidemiologist Advisor II in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Senior Epidemiologist Advisor I in Attachment 3."

Response: Refer to response in question #41.

43) Please confirm if the Senior Epidemiologist Advisor I in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Senior Epidemiologist Advisor in Attachment 3."

44) Please confirm if the Senior Epidemiologist I in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Senior Epidemiologist in Attachment 3."

45) Please confirm if the Desk Officer/ Military International HIV Training Program (MIHTP) Project Coordinator II in Attachment 5 is equivalent to the Desk Officer/MIHTP Project Coordinator I in Attachment 3."

Response: The Desk Officer/MIHTP Project Coordinator II in Attachment 5 is equivalent to Senior Desk Officer II/ Military International HIV Training Program (MIHTP) Project Coordinator in the Attachment 3. Refer to Revised Attachment 3.

46) "RFP Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1 states ""staffing matrix/recruiting plan shall illustrate how the personnel expected to work under the resulting contract meets the special qualifications in Attachment 3-Qualifications"" There are Labor Categories in Attachment 5 that are not listed within Attachment 3, such as:

- Research Analysts

- Senior Desk Officer II

- Desk Officer II (Spanish Speaking)

- Desk Officer II (French Speaking)

- Office Operations Manager

- MIHTP Administration

47) This sections state that Offerors may submit their price by filling in the SF1449 Contract

Line Items (CLINs) OR completing the Pricing Sheet. Furthermore, the instructions indicate that the Total Evaluated Price includes the 6-month option at Option year 4 prices. However, the Pricing Sheet has CLINs for the 6-month attachment but the SF1449 does not. Please clarify what price information the Offerors are to submit.

Response: All options, including the six-month extension, shall be evaluated at award IAW FAR 52.217-5. The method for evaluating the extension is to multiply an additional six months of requirements by the offered monthly price of the last option period.

48) The Attachment 2 has a tab for Labor Breakdown but there is no subdivisions by contract year. Please confirm that Offerors are expected to complete this tab for all labor for all evaluated contract periods, including the 6 -month option to extend.

Response: Yes. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-2- Factor 3.

49) Page 15 states offerors are to be valid for 90 days while in the Price evaluation section on Page 16, the stated validity of offers is 180 days. Please confirm which one is correct.

Response: Updated. Refer to revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-Period of acceptance of offers.

50) Clause 252.225-7976 pertains to personnel working in Japan. The travel destinations and the place of performance does not include locations in Japan. Please explain why this clause is included.

Response: Clause removed.

51) Is this a new procurement or follow-on?

Response: Follow-on

52) If this is an existing contract, can you please share the incumbent name and contract number?

Response: Seneca Telecommunications HT001123C0089

53) What will be the anticipated set-aside for this opportunity?

Response: Refer to Addendum to FAR 52.212-1

54) What will be the estimated budget for this contract?

Response: Review the solicitation and PWS to determine anticipate cost of performance.

55) Is the Government planning to release this contract on a specific contract vehicle or open market?

Response: Open Market

56) Is there any other source/link/website where we should be following this opportunity in order to have a full spectrum of its scope and do ability?

Response: The solicitation is posted via SAM.gov.

57) Under section 3.4 the government will provide equipment but the contractor for NAICS 541611 1.9 Contractor Requirements: The Contractor will be responsible for providing software, such as Qualtrics or equivalent, miscellaneous office supplies, job-related trainings (to include Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) or Hostile Environment Awareness Training (HEAT), shipping, and conference preparations which are essential to perform these services. Please, clarify?

Response: The Government will provide the equipment listed in PWS 3.4 and the Contractor will be responsible for acquiring of all other materials required as listed in PWS 1.9 and Part 4.

58) Is the government able to share the current number of contractors on-site for the current contract?

Response: Refer to Attachment 5 of the solicitation

59) Will government consider Telework outside of San Diego county with weekly or monthly visits?