Pre-Proposal_Conference_Additional_Q As.pdf

Solicitation #MCC‐16‐RFQ‐0008 – Legal Advisory Services Information Session

November 4, 2015

11:00 AM – 12:00 PM

ADDITIONAL Q&As FROM THE SESSION

Q18. For the multiple awards approach, why not do a traditional multiple award IDIQ and let all offerors compete accordingly?

R18. The Government has determined that if we need to make multiple awards, the categorization approach described at Section M.1 would best meet our needs.

Q19. Where does Section K come in if you’ve already filled out all your reps and certs online? Would you attach the whole thing? Can you just say yes, we have done this in SAM already? State it in the cover letter maybe, or in Volume III?

R19. Please provide a brief statement in the Volume III Cover Letter regarding your company’s System for Award Management (SAM) Registration status, including whether the representations and certifications contained therein are up‐to‐date. Either way, the Offeror’s Reps and Certs shall be included in Volume III – Price/Business Quote.

In accordance with FAR 52.212‐3(b)(2), if the reps and certs currently posted in SAM have been entered or updated in the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation as of the date of your offer, you may complete only Section (b)(2) of the clause, indicating any exceptions as applicable.

Q20. Do you want the names of each proposed individual in the price template?

R20. Yes, with the understanding that the individuals cited in the proposal will be the contract‐level points‐of‐contact (POCs). Each task order will presumably have different teams/individuals and not necessarily the same individuals listed at the contract level. The most important piece of the price template is really the hourly rate for each labor category, as that will be the ceiling rate (subject to negotiation at the task order level).

Q21. Please provide clarification on the “local counsel” labor rates.

R21. We understand that the local counsel rates will vary widely based on country‐specific conditions;

the contract level rates will serve as ceiling rates which will be negotiated at the task order level based on country‐specific factors.

Q22. Regarding the individual names on the price template, isn’t that directly correlated to the task order (i.e., country per country, the staffing could/would be different)?

R22. At the contract level, we are looking for corporate POCs, which may or may not be different at the task order level. Task order solicitations will have a similar price template, on which the Contractor will indicate the names of their proposed personnel for the specific project. These names may differ from the contract‐level POCs.

Q23. If we want to add different labor categories that will benefit the contract, can we, and how do we define them? How do we provide/distinguish pricing for these additional categories?

R23. MCC would like to clarify that it expects to receive pricing on all of the labor categories identified in the price template (e.g., Partner, Associate, etc.). However, per Section L.3.3 of the RFQ, the Offeror may propose additional labor categories at its discretion if it will benefit the contract and/or accommodate the Offeror’s technical approach. Any additional labor categories should be accompanied by a written explanation of why they are being proposed. All labor categories – both existing and additional – must be accompanied by a narrative description, including the company’s minimum education and experience requirements for that category. The reason behind this request is that a “Partner” in one company might mean something different in another company; having this information will help the Government better evaluate the proposed labor rates.

Q24. How do I link additional labor categories to the pricing volume? What happens, for instance, if I add a Budget Analyst but can’t correlate it to “Local Counsel” or “Partner?” I would have to add it to the template, which would make my price template different from everyone else’s. How would this be accounted for in the evaluation factors?

R24. To clarify, any additional labor categories don’t necessarily need to correlate/fit into the existing categories; they can be in addition to the existing categories. It will not disadvantage a Quoter to add labor categories as long as there is a clear connection between the labor category and the contract requirements. Price will be evaluated in accordance with RFQ Section M.2(c).

Q24a. If, by adding new labor categories, my rates lead to a drastically different price, should I link them to existing labor categories to establish the rates?

R24a. No. To clarify, MCC will only evaluate hourly labor rates at the contract level. In the price template, estimated number of hours (third column from the left) and total price (right‐most column) may be left blank for the purposes of this solicitation. The total estimated number of hours were provided for informational purposes only. Total price – including estimated hours/level of effort – will be evaluated at the task order level, when the specific project scope is defined.

Q25. Can you give us more information on how the technical capability evaluation factor will be weighed against other factors? I know it’s weighted more heavily than the others, but can you offer more specific information?

R25. MCC will use adjectival ratings (per Section M.4) for its evaluation, so we won’t be assigning percentages or any other numerical weighting. Per Section M.2 of the solicitation, the evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. More specific information is not available. Quoters are reminded that this is a simplified acquisition and per FAR 13.106‐1(a)(2), “Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor…”

Q26a. How long has MCC’s OGC been using this framework for legal services?

R26a. We have been using outside counsel since 2005/2006. We have been using an IDIQ contract vehicle for procuring these services since approximately 2007.

Q26b. Please remind us, who are the three incumbents?

R26b. The three incumbents are Pierce Atwood, Baker Botts and Hills Stern & Morley.

Q27. Is this a re‐compete of the old contract, or is this a completely separate requirement?

R27. This is a re‐compete of the old IDIQ contracts with essentially the same scope of work; only Task 3

(Legal Research, Advice and Training on Development Assistance Legal, Policy and Operational Issues) is new to this requirement.

Q28. In reference to Attachment 2, Price Template, the RFQ has a line for travel under the ODCs CLIN.

How would you estimate travel costs without knowing the requirement? Every country is different and may require different travel expenses.

R28. It wasn’t our intent to ask for specific travel costs at this point in time; the CLIN structure in

Attachment 2 will be more appropriate at the task order level, when the specific requirement is defined.

Quoters are not expected to provide estimated costs for CLIN 0002 (Other Direct Costs) at this time;

these rows may be left blank.

Q29. The numbers in the template are just examples, correct?

R29. The estimated number of hours in the price template are for informational purposes only; they reflect MCC’s best estimate of the overall level of effort over the contract period. These estimates encompass any and all task orders that may be issued against the contract(s). The Quoter is not expected to break down these hours among the respective labor categories. At the task order level, the

Contractor(s) will be requested to provide their estimated level of effort for the particular requirement.