BACAPS_Industry_QAs_6-9-15.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Business Management and Analytics, Cost Analysis, and Portfolio Support (BACAPS) Competitive 8(a) Set Aside
- Solicitation number
- M67854-15-R-4803
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
Updated list of Industry Q As
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
15-R-4803 QA's
| QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR SOLICITATION M67854-15-R-4803 (BACAPS) | |||||
| SOLICITATION SECTION | DOCUMENT/PAGE/PARAGRAPH/ | ||||
| LINE NUMBER | VENDOR QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |||
| 1 | RFP | RFP/21/ | The explanation of FAR 52.212-2 says “the following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: See Addendum 1 to Evaluation Plan” yet there is no Evaluation Plan and there is no Addendum 1. Please clarify this reference. | Addendum 1 to Eval Plan is located right below FAR clause 52.212-2. Starts on Page 21 and ends on Page 36. | |
| 2 | RFP | RFP/21 | Under the explanation of FAR 52.212-2 (b) discusses “adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base requirement.” But, there are no options associated with this solicitation. Please clarify how total price will be evaluated. | This is the standard language in the FAR clause. Page 34, of the RFP states: "Price will be calculated by adding up the total Task Order price for each SLIN (or CLIN if no SLINs) and ODCs/Travel. Next, only the lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for Technical Approach and Past Performance." | |
| 3 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/24/4.a.i | The description of Section 1 of the Technical Volume requires the bidder state that they ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND AND SHALL PERFORM a list of PWS tasks. But, several of the PWS tasks are not included in this list (e.g. 4.1 thru 4.5), please clarify. | The remaining PWS tasks are noted under 4a)ii), which states: "Within a 35 page limit, provide a technical approach in accordance with Exhibit C and D (Task Order Matrix and Task Order PWS) which demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the table of critical items in Figure 1 below." (See pages 25-27). | |
| 4 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/28/4.b.ii | The instructions for Section 2 – Customer Assessments places a “One Page Limit per customer assessment” but the Past Performance Questionnaire is a five page template. Would the Government please remove the One Page limit? | The instructions state: "The Offeror shall submit with its proposal a list of the customer POCs (with contact information to include phone number and email address) that received a Past Performance Questionnaire." The past performance questionnaire is not submitted as part of the customer assessment; therefore, the page limit of one page per customer assessment is appropriate. | |
| 5 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/30/4.c.iii | The bold text on this page states “Labor rates are fixed for all contract year periods” yet no such periods are defined in the RFP. From the structure of the solicitation it appears the resulting IDIQ is a single 45 month period. Please clarify the use of contract year periods. | The ordering period has been incorporated in Attachment 1, Base ID/IQ PWS and Exhibit D, TO PWS. The base ID/IQ is for 4 years and 10 months with the first ordering period a length of 10 months. | |
| 6 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/32/4.d.ii | The directions regarding Section Two – Compensation Plan do not specify how to deal with subcontractor data. The data the Government requests is highly company proprietary and is normally provided through a separate submission directly to the government. Please provide a mechanism to protect subcontractor data and direction on how to deal with this within the stated page limit. | Subcontractors may submit their Compensation Plans directly to the Contract Specialist using the MCSC_ISI@usmc.mil email address. | |
| 7 | RFP | Evaluation Criteria/35/ | This section on Past Performance Evaluation states that an Offeror without a record of Past Performance will be given a Neutral rating. But, under the Instruction to Offerors, Volume 2, Section 1 requires that the prime Offeror submit two past performance citations as a prime. Wouldn’t a failure to do so result in a non-compliant proposal not a Neutral rating? Please clarify how an Offeror can be given a Neutral rating and still be compliant. | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 8 | RFP | FAR Clauses/57/ | In the text for 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995) (a) it refers to “the Schedule” but no such Schedule appears to be provided. Please clarify what Schedule this refers to. | The schedule refers to the CLIN schedule listed in the RFP. | |
| 9 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 1 | CLIN 0003 references Exhibit C. Exhibit C does not include a CLIN 0003. Is there supposed to be a CLIN 0003 on Exhibit C? | No, CLIN 0003 is not included in Exhibit C. The description for CLIN 0003 has been updatedin Amendment 0001 and the reference to Exhibit C has been removed. | |
| 10 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 2 | CLIN 0004 references Exhibit C. Exhibit C does not include a CLIN 0004. Is there supposed to be a CLIN 0004 on Exhibit C? | CLIN 0004 is an information CLIN only. No, there is no CLIN 0004 on Exhibit C, but there are SLINs under this Informaton CLIN on Exhibit C. The description for CLIN 0004 has been updated in Amendment 0001 and the reference to Exhibit C has been removed. | |
| 11 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 6/Para. 1 | CLIN 0004AC on the SF1449 is titled MOS-MCTIMS. CLIN 0004AC on Exhibit C is titled MMAS. Please Clarify? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 12 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 9/Para. 2 | CLIN 0004AK on the SF 1449 is titled MOS-SPS. On Exhibit C, there is no MOS-SPS, but there is SPS listed as CLIN 0005AG. Please clarify? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 13 | BACAPS Task Order | Exhibit C | Some of the programs marked in blue on Exhibit C are not listed in the SF1449 even though Exhibit C has work identified for them. In particular, DCIPS and the IT Roadmap are not listed. Will the government be revising either Exhibit C or the SF1449? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 14 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 23/Para. 1 | Paragraph 1 instructs offerors to submit in MS Office 2003 or newer format. Paragraph c states that the submission should be MS Office 2007 or PDF. What is the desired form of submission? | Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 format and/or PDF. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 15 | SF1449 | SF1449/Page 33 | The evaluation criteria states that the compensation plans will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. This FAR clause is not included in the list of incorporated FAR clauses on page 19 nor does it appear to have been incorporated by full text. Please clarify? | FAR 52.222-46 has been incorporated on Amendment 0001. | |
| 16 | SF1449 Attachment 1 | Attachment 1/Line 32 | The PWS states that the contractor should be prepared to support two to three new programs each year. Will a modification or new task order be issued for the added programs? | This will be accomplished through a new task order. | |
| 17 | RFP | Compensation Plan/pg 33 | If this is a requirement, recommend submission of this type of confidential information be contained in the Pricing Volume vice Technical Volume. Please clarify. | This submission is requested under Volume 4 - Model Contract/Representations & Certifications Volume, not Volume 3, Pricing Volume. | |
| 18 | Addendum 1, Instructions to Offerors | Solicitation/ Pg 24-25/ Par 4 a) ii) | The Critical Items on pg 25 (Figure 1) of the solicitation include items for PWS Sections that are marked as Reserved in Exhibit D - Task Order PWS. Will critical items associated with PWS 4.4 be used in evaluating the response to the Task Order PWS? | The Government's intent is to be able to lock the service provider into set FFP labor category and rates. It would be anticipated, based on historical support, that the Tasks within the Base IDIQ PWS that are not specifically on the Task Order PWS would be accomplished by the existing labor categories and rates, if they were requested at a later date. By definition, a task being on the Base IDIQ (Indefinite delivery, Indefinite Quantity) allows the Government the ability to order it, if needed. Should the need arise where a task order requires a labor category and rate that is not currently on contract, the Government will negotiate a change to add that labor category in accordance with FAR 52.212-4(c). As each delivery order will be negotiated separately based on the labor categories and rates fixed at contract award, this should not be an issue. |
The possibility of needing additional labor categories post award was considered prior to release of the solicitation. Hence, the task order PWS offerors are proposing on provides a significant representation of work expected, and, thereby, providing an order which should encapsulate the majority of labor categories and rates necessary for this contract overall.
| 19 | Exhibit C | Exhibit C - Task Order Matrix | A number of projects do not have "X"'s in the Annual PCE Update row. Is this correct? | Annual PCE updates for all managed projects identified. See updated Exhibit C, TO Matrix. |
| 20 | Exhibit C | Exhibit C - Task Order Matrix | Exhibit C includes "X"'s in work products related to Section 4.4 of the PWS. These sections are marked as reserved in Exhibit D - Task Order PWS. Should these work products be included in Exhibit C? | Tasks 4.4 have been included. See updated Exhibit D, TO PWS. |
| 21 | Exhibit D | Exhibit D - Task Order PWS | The Cost Analysis Command Oversight (PWS 4.4) tasks have been marked Reserved in the Task Order PWS. How will the government be able to fully evaluate the cost analysis capabilities of the vendor without requiring the vendor to address these capabilities in the Technical Volume Section Two? These requirements require significant cost analysis experience and knowledge of USMC processes. | Tasks 4.4 have been included. See updated Exhibit D, TO PWS. |
| 22 | Addendum 1, Instructions to Offerors | Solicitation/ Pg 28/ Par 4 b) i) | Is the requirement for past performance worth at least $2M per year applicable to only the contractor Prime, or to subs as well? | It is applicable to both. |
| 23 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 2-Past Performance Volume;
i) Section One-Recent and Relevant Past Performance
| Solicitation / Page 28, Paragraph 2 | The solicitations states relevant/recent Department of Defense DOD Contracts/task orders and/or subcontracts. Would the Government accept Department of Homeland Security efforts as relevant? Will the Government accept U.S. Coast Guard contracts/task orders as relevant? | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001. Relevant/recent Federal, commercial or other customers' past performance will be accepted. |
| 24 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 2-Past Performance Volume;
i) Section One-Recent and Relevant Past Performance
| Solicitation / Page 28, Paragraph 2 | Solicitation states, * Relevant is defined as efforts worth at least $2M/year, with similar size, scope, complexity. Considering the SB size standards for prime vendors to bid this effort, we believe the 2M/year requirement for Past Performance is too high for SB bidders to qualify. Would the government considering relaxing the requirements with a lower dollar value or removing it altogether? | The size standard for the NAICS code selected was $27.5 million. That means $27.5M in average annual reciepts. $2M is a realistic amount based on the anticipated award amount and historical performance provided and well within the bounds of the NAICS code selected. |
| 25 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 3-Pricing Volume;
i) Section One, A
| Solicitation/Page 29 | The Government is asking for separate lines in a T&M listing of labor category rates. Typically multi-year FFP contracts that use T&M rates for ceilings, the rates incorporated into the contract are to be used for the entire team. Having rates only for the company providing the specific category reduces flexibility as contract personnel turnover which inevitably occurs. This increases contract risk. Will the Government allow a single set of rates for the entire team (Prime and Subcontractors)? | The Government is not requesting T&M rates. This is FFP contract. Rates are requested for both the Prime and any Subcontractors. |
| 26 | Instructions to Offerors; and |
Instructions to Offerors;
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section One, C Solicitation / Page 22 Solicitation /Page 33
| Page 22 indicates that the Government is requesting a 120 day validity period for proposals. Page 31 indicates the Government is requesting a validity period of 90 days. Will the Government confirm which validity period they would like proposals to have? | Page 21 has been corrected. Proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days. See Amendment 0001. |
| 27 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section One, G
| Solicitation page 32 | The Government is requiring that Offerors provide financial statements covering the organizations which will be performing the contract. Will the Government confirm how many years of financial statements are wanted from the Prime and how many from each Subcontractor? | Page 32 of the RFP has been updated as follows: "Submit copies of your latest available financial statement covering the organization(s), which will perform the contract. Multiple years of financial statements are not required or requested." |
| 28 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract) Section Two, B;
| Solicitation page 32 | The Solicitation says the Government wants fringe benefits to be presented both as “an hourly rate as well as an itemized list”. Will the Government clarify if they want 1) The total fringe paid by the Offeror presented as a rate per hour and an itemized list of the components to fringe? Or 2) An itemized list of all benefits contained in the Fringe with the associated cost presented in an hourly rate. | The Government requests 1) The total fringe paid by the Offeror presented as a rate per hour and an itemized list of the components to fringe. |
| 29 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section Two, B
| Solicitation page 32 | Will the Government confirm or provide how they want the hourly rate calculated, so that Offerors are providing the same calculated rates for evaluation? | The Government wants the fully burdened rate; specific break out is not required for price. However, the Government requires additional information when proposing compensation. Please see answer to Question #28. |
| 30 | Evaluation Criteria |
Applicable to the Compensation Plan
| Solicitation page 33 | The Government indicates that the evaluation criteria for the Professional Compensation Plan will be Pass/Fail. Will the Government provide some clarity as to what minimum criteria must be met to receive a pass and what criteria would cause a failure? | As stated on page 34 of the RFP: "An Acceptable Plan provides compensation levels that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed and indicates the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives and to meet the requirements of the solicitation." |
| 31 | Evaluation Criteria |
Applicable to Past Performance
| Solicitation page 34 | The Government indicates that non-DOD examples submitted will be reviewed as not relevant. In the next paragraph, the Government indicates that they reserve the right to use other sources to include Federal, State and local Government Agencies. Will the Government accept non-DOD past performance references if they relate to the work being performed under this solicitation? | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001. Relevant/recent Federal, commercial or other customers' past performance will be accepted. |
| 32 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
Instructions to Offerors
4. Instructions for Content
v) Section Five – Corporate Experience BACAPS_Amendment_0001_RFP_M67854-15-R-4803-0001.pdf
Paragraph 1
Lines 4 - 6
“For the above section, the Government is only interested in the Offeror’s performance as a unit, and not in the performance of its individual members or subcontractors.”
Paragraph 2
Lines 4 – 5
“the Offeror may provide corporate experience examples from team members or major subcontractors” If the Offeror may provide corporate experience examples from team members or major subcontractors, then the previous statement appears to be inaccurate.
| Please clarify what is meant by the phrase: “the Government is only interested in the Offeror’s performance as a unit, and not in the performance of its individual members or subcontractors.”? | Lines 4 - 6 have been removed from the RFP. See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 33 | RFP Amendment 0001 | ADDENDUM 1 TO EVAL PLAN |
Instructions to Offerors
4. Instructions for Content
v) Section Five – Corporate Experience With the amendment the government added an additional section, Section 5, and it appears that the information in the third paragraph requiring offerors to provide at least three to five examples of corporate experience, is duplicated in the past performance requirement in Volume 2, can the government please clarify what is required in section 5 and what is required in the Past Performance Volume.
Can you please provide clarification?
This is not a duplication. Corporate Experience and Past Performance have specific, but separate criteria that need to be met; however, an Offeror may have an example of Corporate Experience that also meet the criteria for Past Performance. There is no restriction to providing the same example for both sections.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .