Amendment_0001.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

1. This modification is issued to provide answers to the following questions that have been received:

a. Question 1: Does this solicitation contain requirements similar to work performed currently or in the past, or will this be a new requirement? If possible, can you please provide the most recent contract or task order number?

Answer: This solicitation is a follow on requirement to EA-133F-14-CQ-0016 which is currently being performed by NTVI Communications, Inc.

b. Question 2: Is there an incumbent contractor?

Answer: The incumbent is NTVI Communications, Inc.

c. Question 3: For the Senior Scientist labor category, the requirement is for three scientists. Is there flexibility to have more than three (such as a pool) scientists which would allow for more broad representation of knowledge for the potential wide array of topics to be reviewed?

Answer: Although consistency is encouraged for reviews that are similar in nature, the contractor may have a pool of candidates to draw from to serve as Senior Scientists as long as the candidates meet the minimum qualifications outlined for the Senior Scientist position. The number of Senior Scientists working on any one review may exceed three. However, it is expected the Contractor would provide reasoning as to why the number of Senior Scientists needs to exceed three.

d. Question 4: Can vendors submit CPARS evaluation forms for their referenced past performance contract(s) in lieu of the Past Performance Evaluation Form?

Answer: Interested vendors should still send the Past Performance Evaluation Forms to clients to submit to the Contract Specialist. The Government may contact other sources to obtain information on a vendor’s past performance, including CPARS.

e. Question 5: Can vendors submit two separate task orders awarded under a single IDIQ contract as 2 of the 5 required past performance contracts

Answer: Yes. However, if a single entry for the entire IDIQ could be used that demonstrates the relevancy to this requirement that would also be acceptable. Up to five contracts performed in the last three years should be submitted, not a minimum of five.

f. Question 6: Is there an existing pool of peer reviewers that the awarded contractor will work with or will the awarded contractor be responsible for selecting an entirely new pool of expert peer reviewers, or a combination of both?

Answer: Any current pool of peer reviewers is maintained by the current contractor, NTVI Communications. The current contract does not obligate NTVI Communications to share any information on potential reviewers.

g. Question 7: Page 65 of the RFQ states that, “These reviewers shall conduct short-term, narrowly focused assignments requiring approximately 1-4 weeks of scheduled time, as specified in the task order PWSs and ToRs.” Could the Government clarify if this statement refers to 1-4 weeks of full time work (i.e.

40-160 hours), or part time? If part time, could the Government provide an estimated number of hours?

Answer: The amount of time needed will vary depending on the review. It is more likely that a review will require full time support during the review which is generally three to five days in length. Pre-review and post-review work could be accomplished on a part-time basis depending on the review.

h. Question 8: Is the current incumbent’s contract awarded under a sole-source contract or was it competed? This question applies to both current and prior contract that the incumbent may have held for performing IEPRs.

Answer: The current contract resulted from a competitive acquisition.

i. Question 9: The RFQ states on page 59 that the non-price portion of the quote shall not exceed 35 pages. Please clarify, does this page limit exclude the cover page, the table of contents, and list of acronyms.

Answer: No, the 35 page limit does not include the cover page, table of contents, or a list of acronyms.

j. Question 10: Please confirm vendors are required to include 5 recent, relevant past performance contracts and that the reference to providing two past performances at DOC/NOAA is not a requirement.

Answer: Vendors shall provide up to five recent, relevant past performance contracts. Fewer than five may be provided. Vendors are not required to provide at least two relevant projects contracted with DOC/NOAA. The sentence on page 60 of the RFQ referencing projects contracted with DOC/NOAA has been deleted.

k. Question 11: The RFQ requires information regarding a smooth transitioning of the contract if a new contractor is selected. To help develop a quote, please provide a list of NOAA’s ongoing Independent Peer Reviews along with the schedule for their completion as well as efforts that the current contractor has subcontracted out (e.g., Technical Team, External Experts).

This information will provide a level playing field and enables a new offeror to develop viable and realistic transitioning steps, including an appropriate time-table for on-ramping of a new contractor. If available and appropriate, please provide a list of off-ramping steps the incumbent is required to take under the current contract.

Answer: Any appropriate information regarding current reviews, upcoming reviews, or timeframes for transitioning will be shared with the successful vendor after award of the IDIQ. Information pertaining to the incumbent contractor's business arrangements will not be provided.

l. Question 12: The RFQ states that “Vendors that are newly formed entities or otherwise lack relevant prior prime contracts should provide relevant past performance information for key personnel.” We assume that past performance of either key personnel or subcontractors would be acceptable.

Please clarify.

Answer: Past performance information on subcontractors would be acceptable.

m. Question 13: Can the Government provide an excel version of the pricing template for vendors to complete?

Answer: Yes. An excel version has been uploaded for vendors to use.

n. Question 14: The qualification requirements for the Program Manager is a BS plus 5 years and for the Senior Scientist is an MS and 3 years of experience.

Since each year of education is usually equivalent to 2 years of experience, it seems the PM’s qualifications are lower than those for the associate scientist who reports to the PM. Please clarify. Considering the importance of NFMS IEPRs as well as the role the PM as the Key Personnel, a higher level of education (PhD or at least MS) may be warranted.

Answer: The education requirements reflected for each position in the PWS are appropriate and reflect the minimum required level of education.

o. Question 15: From a comparison of final and draft versions of the Performance Work Statement, it appears that the qualification requirements for all positions have been lowered (e.g., generally from PhD/MS to MS/BS).

Does this indicate that the NOAA NMFS IEPR process has matured to the point that a high level of qualification and expertise are no longer required?

Please clarify.

Answer: Changes made to the PWS that appears as attachment one were done in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology to ensure the requirement accurately reflects the programmatic need.

p. Question 16: Would the government consider the addition of another labor category for Tech Editor? Alternatively, the current qualification requirements for the Administrative Support Specialist could be elevated to allow for the inclusion of Tech Editor support under this labor category. It is possible that the tech editing function is currently performed by others at higher-level labor category (e.g., PM, Research Scientist). Please clarify.

Answer: An additional labor category for a Technical Editor will not be added.

Interested vendors can discuss how they would handle any anticipated technical editing needs in their individual quotes.

q. Question 17: The labor Category of “Associate Scientist” on PP 74, which establishes the qualifications requirements, appears to be the same as “Scientist/Engineer” at 1,430 hours on Page 76. The use of two titles may be a typo. Please clarify.

Answer: Scientist/Engineer has been changed to Senior Scientist and Scientist has been changed to Associate Scientist. A revised Request for Quotes (RFQ) is included with the Amendment.

r. Question 18: The pricing schedule for all 5 CLINs provides the number of hours for each labor category under the T&M portion. The number of hours for each labor category is different and slightly exceed the government FTE definition. Pls. confirm that the vendors should use a consistent FTE hours or those stated for specific individuals.

Answer: The number of hours listed for each labor category is an estimated number of hours. Some labor categories may require more than one individual which can result in the total estimated hours exceeding what is generally considered to be full time.

s. Question 19: Attachment 3 includes a sample of a Task Order level PWS, TOR, etc. It appears that this sample is provided for information purposes only with no specific action on the part of the vendors. Please clarify.

Answer: That is correct; no specific action needs to be taken by a vendor. The sample PWS is for information purposes only.

t. Question 20: The Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire forms state they must be returned by May 31, 2019. Should this date be July 12, 2019?

Answer: The Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire form has been updated showing a due date of July 12, 2019. This change is captured in the revised RFQ.

u. Question 21: Can the due date and time for quotes and past performance questionnaires be extended by 10 business days?

Answer: No. An extension is not granted. The due date and time for quotes remains unchanged on July 12, 2019 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

2. Vendors are reminded of the requirement to acknowledge receipt of this amendment. End Amendment 0001

200 GRANBY STREET

NORFOLK, VA 23510