TEPL Questions Round 2.pdf

Question # Document Section # (If available)

Page Number

Industry Question/Comment Government Response

A modification was issued on April 06, 2021 with CA-1 TEP and CA-2 TEP. The Instructions Tab in each spreadsheet states, “Within the work sheet any cell colored "blue" contains a formula and should not be edited. In the 'CPFF Total Labor Hours Proposed' tab, formulas in white cells should update automatically if instructions are followed.”

Quote only - No response required.

In each spreadsheet beginning in Year 5, subtotal labor columns AC, AG, AK, AO, and AS (which are colored blue and should not be edited), the formulas in each cell are linked to rates not associated with the applicable year.

Quote only - No response required.

Will the Government please review the cells in each of the columns, AC, AG, AK, AO and AS and update the formulas as necessary?

This has been corrected and will be reflected in the final RFP.

2 CA-1 and CA-2 Please correct the spelling of Patuxent River in column B of the spreadsheets, CA-1, and CA-2.

This has been corrected and will be reflected in the final RFP.

M 3.0/Page 112 DFRP, Section 3.0 PRICE/COST states "In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the Offeror’s proposed direct labor rates for current employees or contingent hires and compare them to payroll verification or Letters of Intent. For prospective hires, the Government will utilize the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) database or other substantiated data, comparing the proposed labor rates to the average labor rate in industry, commensurate with the Junior, Journey or Senior level designation, or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed."

Quote only - No response required.

1 CA-1 and CA-2

DRFP & SAM

Special Notice

(2) Attachments In the SAM Special Notice released on 6 April 2021, Notice Attachments CA-1_TEPL & CA- 2_TEPL instructions list the requirement for "entering the name of the proposed individual for that position" on the Base - OY 9 Tab (column F- Employee Name).

No response required.

CA-1_TEPL & Due to the potentially unfair competitive nature of the requirement for listing current employees inclusive of payroll verification and Letters of Intent (LOIs) or Contingent Offers inclusive of salary for Non-Key personnel would the government please clarify if they are asking for names of ALL 89 proposed positions in the base year? If yes, how this will be evaluated as it relates to the percentage of named employees vs.

prospective hires only? As well, will the Final RFP clarify in Section M what those evaluation factors will consist of (as a strength or weakness and to what degree)?

The Government does not require names for all required positions. Offerors may propose either current employees, contingent hires or prospective hires. The required cost substantiation for the proposed labor rates for each of those categories is described in Section L, Part B, Section 3.3.2.1. Strengths and weaknesses, as defined in the RFP, would only apply to the Technical evaluation. In the Cost evaluation, any proposed rate that is not fully substantiated with rationale may be subject to adjustment during cost realism analysis.

CA-2_TEPL If offerors are expected to provide names for only those KEY personnel positions with LOIs or Contingent Offers inclusive of salary, will this be clarified in the Final RFP?

There are no Key labor categories defined in the solicitation so all proposed personnel would fall under non-Key labor categories

4 Thank you for providing answers to industry’s questions so quickly. With regard to the issue raised in question 10, it is SA-TECH’s opinion that making Past Performance acceptable/unacceptable is a good approach for increasing competition. It is very difficult for a non-incumbent to score as high as an incumbent on an adjectival rating scale and, if the RFP is changed to require that, some bidders (including us) may opt to not compete. We have experienced other RFPs that used the acceptable/unacceptable approach with no issues, especially when combined with both relevancy and performance confident assessment ratings such as those in your draft RFP.

Response - After careful consideration, the Government has revised the Past Performance Confidence Assessment ratings and they will be reflected in the final RFP.