MASTER SS_Contractor Questions and Answers_3 on Amendment 0008 12may2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W81K0421R0002Amendment0008
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army Medical Command
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation number W81K0421R0002 for Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) System - Athletic Trainers (ATs). The solicitation is seeking proposals for athletic training services to support the H2F program across multiple military installations in the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Key details include that the Service Contract Act and Executive Order 13706 on paid sick leave do not apply, 1871 hours per FTE must be used for pricing, past performance references can include relevant task orders, and fully burdened hourly rates must be provided in all pricing tables. Clarification is also provided on proposal submission requirements and formats.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W81K0421R0002-0008 Conformed.pdf | ||
| W81K0421R0002-0008.pdf |
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
Questions_Answers
| Question # | Document | Pg # | Para # | Questions VERSION 3 | Answers | |
| 1 | 1. The government has stated that this is not a Service Contract Act solicitation, however, has referenced that EO 13706 - Paid Sick Leave applies. This would not be applicable unless the contract is SCA Covered. Can the government please clarify? A. a. If not paid sick leave covered/SCA covered, the 1,871 billable hours per FTE would need to be increased closer to 1,920 | The SCA and EO13706 do not apply to this contract because these positions are considered professional positions. For the sake of evaluation purposes, we are requiring all offerors to use 1871 hours for the AT positions as these are the hours used by the government when developing their independent government estimate. Having standard hours across all offerors ensures the government is evaluating like proposals. | ||||
| 2 | 2. Will the pricing submission require Schedule B and Exhibit L to be completed or just Exhibit L? | Yes both Schedule B and all tabs listed in Exhibit L. | ||||
| 3 | 3. What is the government considering the Total Evaluated Price? Is it the current and future installations or just the current? | Current and future installations | ||||
| 4 | 4. Is there currently telework happing? If so, what % of work as would impact pricing on what we would need to offer for reimbursement to the workers (i.e., internet/phone)? | No telework is happening presently for ATs. Government cannot predict future teleworking percentages. | ||||
| 5 | 5. Are contractors permitted and expected to provide services prior to the performance start date of the contract and if so, for personnel who are ready prior to the commencement phase in period, may their labor hours be invoiced? | There is a transition period of 60 days. Full performance is not required during that time. Cost for any work performed during the transition period as outlined in PWS section 1.8.3 will not be separately priced. Cost for the transition period shall be built into the AT rate’s proposed on this contract. | ||||
| 6 | AT Exhibit L Pricing Spreadsheet | The Exhibit L Pricing Spreadsheet in amendment 0004 shows six tabs for Base Year and Options 1-5, but only shows four tabs for Future Locations pricing FY23-FY26. Would the Government please confirm that this is the correct number of tabs for Future Locations pricing? Also just to be clear would the Government confirm that Future Locations Fiscal Year 23 equates to Option Year 1, etc.? | It is the correct number of tabs for Future Locations pricing. The Future Locations tabs do not equate to an option year; rather, they equate to the Fiscal Year for which that location could possibly be added. These are not option years. As stated in paragraphs 1.1.2 and 1.4.1 of the Performance Work Statement, “[a]ny future modification to add additional locations, which are not guaranteed, will be priced in accordance with the contractor proposed pricing found on Exhibit L at the time of the original contract award,” and “[f]uture H2F Performance Teams are expected to expand to various military installations within the continental United States and potentially Alaska and Hawaii at a projected rate of 6-10 BDEs annually starting in FY23.” Therefore, offerors must complete the pricing sheet (Exhibit L, base plus option year tabs and the Future Locations tabs of the RFP). | |||
| 7 | Q&A 82 | Amendment 4 | N/A | N/A | The Government states: "The PWS sets forth the scope of magnitude and complexity that is required, therefore, the offeror shall submit projects similar to those required by the PWS." Since the government will use some baseline for evaluating relevancy consistently across offerors, will the Government please provide this general information to offerors concerning the three elements, so offerors can determine which of their references are most relevant to this solicitation? Question #82 provides some suggestions for ways the Government could consistently define relevancy. | Under 2. Factor 2 - Performance Risk (Present and Past Performance, paragraph c(2), Relevancy is addressed. In this section it states that: Relevancy is not separately rated; however, in Table 2 of the addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2, it identifies the criteria used to establish what is relevant. The primary elements of relevance include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/ teaming. |
| 8 | Q&A 4 | Amendment 1 | N/A | N/A | The Government states: "Since the current requirement will not be awarded as an IDIQ, but rather a FFP, C Type contract, these are the types of contracts that would be most relevant. However, if you are going to submit an IDIQ as a reference, the applicable task orders issued off that IDIQ must be submitted as well since these are FFP and this will validate how much actual work was performed on that contract.” All other factors being equal, wouldn’t the execution and administration of multiple TOs supporting multiple missions and customers demonstrate more complexity than a single “C” type contract? This is the same reason Federal Contracting Activities constantly look for contracts that they can consolidate (i.e. so they have fewer to administer). That said, will the Government please reconsider this answer as it appears to capriciously lower the value of IDIQ contracts in relation to this solicitation? This is even more true given that Amendment 04 has changed this contract to something that more closely resembles a “D” type contract. That is, since so many BDEs/Locations are now optional, based on funding, and will be exercised in fashion similar to new TOs. | NOTE: The answer to this question will superceed any answers given on previously posted Q and A's concerning this topic. The definition of the word "contract" in the RFP will be changed to read: "The word “contract,” as defined herein, for the purpose of present and past performance submissions under this solicitation, includes Firm Fixed Priced contracts and individual task orders issued off of IDIQ contracts, but does not include blanket purchase agreements or basic ordering agreements." Both FFP contracts and task orders are equal in relevance. Combining multiple task orders issued under the same IDIQ would be acceptable but combining multiple task orders issued under multiple different IDIQs would not be acceptable. This requirement is for a firm fixed price contract under a single award for a single mission across multiple geographic locations. Your past performance should be as close to this as possible. |
| 9 | Q&A 8 | Amendment 1 | N/A | N/A | The Government's response to this question does not answer what was asked. Subfactor 1B, Key Point #2 requires offerors to address recruiting and retention plans. |
A) Accordingly, will the Government please clarify why Subfactor 1B, Key Point #3 seemingly asks for the same information?
B) At the end of the instructions for Subfactor 1B, Key Point #3 there is a random and unexplained item “(retention/recruiting plan)", is the Government asking offerors to repeat themselves from Key Point #2 again in Key Point #3?
C) Is this “(retention/recruiting plan)" a required element of Subfactor 1B, Key Point #3 or does it only need to be addressed in Subfactor 1B, Key Point #2? There is different context between the two.
In Key Point 2 (Qualified Personnel), allows vendors the chance to describe the process/proven process for recruiting qualified personnel to fill vacancies, and hard-to-fill remote positions and procedures and techniques to retain those qualified personnel.
Key Point 3 (Training and Education) allows vendors the chance to describe their training and education approach to allow the FTEs to maintain their current licensing and validate FTE licensure. Vendors may use their training and education program as part of their retention/recruiting plan.
| 10 | Q&As 169, 221, and 234 of Amendment 4 and RFP 52.212-2 Addendum page 165, para 1.b. | Amendment 4 | 165 | 1.b. | Will the government please reconcile the conflicting information between these Q&As and 52.212-2? These Q&As indicate that TOs are acceptable past performance references whereas 52.212-2 states that TOs are not acceptable. In the context of acceptable contract references under this RFP, 52.212-2 defines the word “contract” to exclude TOs, stating: “The word “contract,” as defined herein, for the purpose of present and past performance submissions under this solicitation, does not include individual delivery orders, task orders, or blanket purchase agreements or basic ordering agreements”. | See answer to Question #8 |
| 11 | Q&As 108, 147, 312 (Amd 04) and Q&A 35 (Amend 5/6) | Amendment 4 & 5/6 | N/A | N/A | The Answer to Question 312 specifically addresses that the Service Contract Labor Standards do not apply. This is further reinforced by the expectation that FAR 52.222-46 is applicable to both Lead and Non-Lead AT positions, setting the expectation that both Lead and Non-Lead AT positions are "professional" and as such should be categorized under the Fair Labor Standards Act (AFLSA) as "Salaried Exempt". However, there is a contradiction in another Q&A response and the RFP itself. The answer to Question 108 states that "The executive order is for CONUS. Overseas is no longer applicable." The answer is in response to the applicability of EO 13706 and suggests, based on the fact that the RFP has CONUS work effort, and now with Amd 4, exclusively CONUS work effort, that EO 13706 does apply. The problem with that suggestion is that it is in direct contradiction to the answer to Question 312. There are only four scenarios where EO 13706 is applicable, and the only possible one applicable to this RFP is the invocation of the Service Contract Act (SCA), also referred to as the Service Contract Labor Standards. Further, the explanation provided for the use of an 1871 manyear for calculating a Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate includes "Sick Leave" which is an industry understood implication of the invocation of EO 13706 and SCA. |
A) Will the government please reconcile the conflicting information provided by Q&As 108 and 312 and clarify whether the SCA, and by association, EO 13706 are applicable to this RFP?
| B) If the Government is exempting the applicability of the SCA, and by association, EO 13706, then ATs are classified as "Salaried Exempt" personnel. If this is the case, will the Government please allow offerors to determine their own methods for calculating Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates? Part of an offeror's calculation includes determining the number of productive hours/year to use in their buildup which can be specified within Volume IV. | A). The SCA and EO13706 do not apply to this contract because these positions are considered professional positions. B). The offeror is allowed to calculate their own fully burdened rates, however for the sake of evaluation purposes, we are requiring all offerors to use 1871 hours for the AT positions as these are the hours used by the government when developing their independent government estimate. Having standard hours across all offerors ensures the government is evaluating like proposals. | ||||||
| 12 | Exhibit L | Amendment 4 | N/A | N/A | Reference Columns L and M of the Pricing Spreadsheet. It is understood that purpose of the "Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate" is to establish a value basis of "consideration" (credit/decrement from the monthly FFP value) when/if the contractor fails to meet the 30-day vacancy window allowed. Further, that such value is not Evaluated but is contractually binding upon an award. All contractors determine their productive man-year in different ways depending upon how their Paid/Unpaid Leave is factored. The basis could be as low as maybe 1820 to as high as 1960. An alternative approach could be to apply a percent vacant against the monthly/FTE rate for the affected position. For example, if the 30-day window is missed, and the total vacancy days for a position is 31 or greater days, than the "consideration" due is determined based on the total days vacant / total days in contract period * the contract period rate for that FTE. As an example, a position goes vacant 45 days, and the contract period is 12 months or 365 days, and the per period rate is $60,000 ($5,000/month * 12 months) - the consideration is 45 / 365 * 60,000 = $7,397.26. This alternative approach would incentivize vacancy fills within 30 days, and eliminate columns L and M. If the Government wants to determine "reasonableness", will the Government please ask offerors to specify their hourly man-year basis of calculation in Volume IV and not dictate such? | ||
| No, in accordance with the instructions to offerors, Solicitation Amendment 0004 at page 57, paragraph (iv)(1), offerors are required to complete Exhibit L, Pricing Spreadsheet in its entirety by providing fully burdened hourly rates. Furthermore, as stated in paragraphs 1.1.2 and 1.4.1 of the Performance Work Statement, “[a]ny future modification to add additional locations, which are not guaranteed, will be priced in accordance with the contractor proposed pricing found on Exhibit L at the time of the original contract award,” and “[f]uture H2F Performance Teams are expected to expand to various military installations within the continental United States and potentially Alaska and Hawaii at a projected rate of 6-10 BDEs annually starting in FY23.” Therefore, offerors must complete the pricing sheet (Exhibit L, base plus option year tabs and the Future Locations tabs of the RFP). Columns L and M of the base and option years worksheets of the Pricing Spreadsheet require offerors to propose a “Fully-burdened Hourly Rate for Lead AT” and a “Fully-burdened Hourly Rate for AT,” respectively. | |||||||
| 13 | Q&A 1 (Amd 05/06) | Amendment 05/06 | N/A | N/A | Q&A #1 from Amendment 05/06 states “…In order to submit the rest of your volumes via https://safe.apps.mil/ (DoD Safe) you must contact the above NLT 14 May 2021 at 12:00PM CST and include your Company Name, Proposal Number, Cage Code, Duns Number, and the overall proposal price. Upon receipt of this information, the Government will provide instructions for an invite for contractors to drop off their full proposals through the DoD Safe website. Note: The SAFE drop off will occur after 12:00PM as the Government must send an invite after receiving your email …”. Since the proposal due date/time on the SF1449 is 12:00PM, this would result in offerors submitting late proposals. Will the Government please revise this timeline so that SAFE codes/instructions are received by offerors sufficiently in advance of the due date/time for the SAFE proposal submittals? | Your proposal will not be late as long as the email asked for is sent with the correct information. On amendment 0007 the RFP due date was changed to Friday, 21 May 2021 at 3pm local time. The instructions for submittal remain the same. As long as the email is received by the due date on the SF 1449 your proposal will be on-time and not considered late. | |
| 14 | Q&A 1 (Amd 05/06) 52-212-1 Proposal Organization Chart | Amendment 05/06 | 137/138 | 1.f. | The proposal organization chart/table on Page 137/138 of the Conformed RFP does not align with Answer 1 from the Q&A provided with Amendment 5/6. For example, this chart indicates that PRAQs should be in offeror’s proposals, it indicates that a SAFE upload of Volume III is required, Volume I should be sanitized, etc. Accordingly, will the Government please revise the proposal organization chart/table on Page 137/138 of the Conformed RFP to be consistent with answers provided? | Yes, 52.212-1 has been revised. Revised In Amendment 0007 dated 7 Apr 2021. | |
| 15 | 52.212-1 / Q&A 26 of Amendment 5/6 | Conformed RFP Amendment 6 / Q&A 26 of Amendment 5/6 | 137 | 1.b. | The proposal submission requirements/instructions of Page 137 of the conformed RFP do not incorporate the Government’s answer to Question # 26 of Amendment 5/6 regarding how graphics would be counted. Will the Government please revise the RFP to align with the answers provided in Amendment 5/6? | Yes, 52.212-1 has been revised. Revised In Amendment 0007 dated 7 Apr 2021. | |
| 16 | 52.212-1 / Q&A 91 and 170 of Amendment 4 | Conformed RFP Amendment 4 Q&A 91 and 170 of Amendment 5/6 | 137 | 1.b. | The proposal submission requirements/instructions of Page 137 do not incorporate the Government’s answers to Questions # 91 or 170 of Amendment 4 regarding the font size allowable for graphics. Will the Government please revise the RFP to align with the answers provided in Amendment 4? | Yes, 52.212-1 has been revised. Revised In Amendment 0007 dated 7 Apr 2021. | |
| 17 | Amend 5/6 | Amend 5/6 | N/A | N/A | Many offerors submitted company information “and the overall proposal price” on 5 May because the due date/time for this information, based on Amendment 4, was 10:00 AM, 5 May. Amendment 5/6 changed the due date/time for this information to 14 May, just 20 minutes before it was due. Thus many vendors had already provided it. Will the Government please confirm that offerors may change their total proposed price/costs from what they submitted on 5 May. | ||
| This requirement was already changed on Amendment 0007. Please refer to this amendment. | |||||||
| 18 | PWS | PWS | 127 | 6.1 | Will the government please clarify when the Monthly Status Report requirement at PWS 6.1 is to commence? Is this report applicable during the transition period or is it only required after the start of performance? | The monthly status report will commence at the start of perfomance. | |
| 19 | Q&A #2 | Q1 | Q1 | Would the government consider removing the requirement to send the offeror’s final evaluated price in an email prior to the due date and time? This is extremely proprietary information that is typically sent through a more secure mechanism. | No, the Government's email system is secure. | ||
| 20 | QA | Can we use 1864 hours per FTE instead of 1871 hours? | No, 1871 is the required number of hours for the government. | ||||
| 21 | QA | 41 U.S.C. § 6702(a) appears to require coverage of the Service Contract Act to this requirement, but a previous amendment stated it did not. Please clarify whether the SCA/SCLS applies. | See answer to Question #1 and #8 | ||||
| 22 | QA | Please clarify the correct naming convention needed for the proposal files? Are you still looking for Copy numbers (copy 1 of 2)? If so exactly how do you want these files titled by copy? Example: |
Emailed - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 (Copy 1 of 4) DOD SAFE # 1 - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 SANITIZED (Copy 2 of 4) DOD SAFE #2 - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 UN-SANITIZED (Copy 2 of 4) HARDCOPY #1 - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 SANITIZED (Copy 3 of 4) HARDCOPY #2 - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 UN-SANITIZED (Copy 3 of 4) CD #1 - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 SANITIZED (Copy 4 of 4)
| CD #2 - VOL. III Factor 2. Present and Past Performance 5 MAY 2021 UN-SANITIZED (Copy 4 of 4) | The only requirment is that each volume shall be clearly labeled with its title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 1, copy 1 of 2, etc). The examples that you have provided are acceptable. | ||
| 23 | QA | Can the governement please clarify the hard copy totals? Is the below correct? VOL I – 1 un-sanitized binder & 1 un-sanitized CD |
VOL II – 1 un-sanitized binder and 1 sanitized binder & 1 un-sanitized CD and 1 sanitized CD VOL III - 1 un-sanitized binder and 1 sanitized binder & 1 un-sanitized CD and 1 sanitized CD
| VOL IV - 1 un-sanitized binder & 1 un-sanitized CD Totaling - 6 Binders and 6 CD's | Please see the addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 in the RFP. | |||||
| 24 | QA | The government states that attachment 5 - Compensation Plan should be included at the end of the Volume IV Price Proposal. The government also states that excel can be used for attachment 5. Does the government want the compensation plan included in the VOL IV or as a seperate attachement? If included in the VOL IV is the use of landscape permitted as the table will have too many colomns to be legible and within the standard portrait page view. | The compensation plan should be included in VOL IV in EXCEL format and landscape is acceptable. | |||
| 25 | Amendment 07 | 2 | 1.a. | Page 2 of Amendment 07 states: "Each volume shall be submitted electronically on https://safe.apps.mil/submittal, along with one (1) hard copy, and one (1) un-sanitized read-only CD-R and one (1) sanitized (no identifying names or symbols of your company) read-only CD-R." This instruction does not align with Answer 1 from the Q&A provided with Amendment 5/6. For example, Q&A #1 (Amd 5/6) indicates that Volumes 1 and 4 are to be provided in an unsantized format only. Accordingly, will the Government please revise the proposal instructions in 52.212-1 to be consistent with Q&A #1 or clarify if the instructions have changed? | See revised 52.212-1. | |
| 26 | ||||||
| 27 |
Prepared by US ARMY &D W81K04-21-R-0002 / H2F Page &P OF &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .