NIEHS20140003_RFP_AMENDMENT_2.pdf

SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM INTERAGENCY CENTER FOR

THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TOXICOLOGICAL METHODS (NICEATM)

RFP # NIHES20140003

AMENDMENT #2 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

AS A RESULT OF THIS AMENDMENT THE RESPONSE DATE FOR THE RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

REMAINS UNCHANGED AT OCTOBER 17, 2014 (10/17/2014).

1. With the release of amendment 1, the Government has now assigned all technical approach evaluation points

(300) to the bidder’s response to Sample Project 1 (200 points) and Sample Project 2 (100) points. The proposal instructions within Section L of the RFP and Attachment 8 make it clear the bidders should also define their approach to each of the tasks specified in the SOW (Attachment 3). Will the Government also evaluate the bidders approach to each of the tasks detailed in the SOW? If so, can the Government specify the points assigned to this portion of the technical approach and/or how the response to SOW task areas will be evaluated?

Unlike Sample Task #1, there are no stated page limits or any other details provided for this sample task.

Accordingly, please confirm that the addition of this second sample task was intentional and if so, please specify the page limitations and any other necessary requirements for this task.

R1. Sample task #2 has been eliminated. The evaluation criteria in Section M, has been revised to reflect the change and redistribute the points under technical approach.

2. Amendment 1 provided a new set of evaluation criteria and additional proposal instructions, including a new sample task requirement. Given the significant changes required to accommodate these updates, we request that the Government consider an extension beyond the one week extension already provided.

R2. In light of the elimination of sample task #2, there is no further extension to the proposal response date.

3. Page 71 of the RFP, Section B. states “you must include an index, appropriately referenced, of all the certified cost or pricing data and information accompanying or identified in the proposal.” Will a detailed Table of Contents satisfy this requirement? If not, will an index of all direct labor, indirect cost elements, and fee satisfy this requirement, or are there other elements that need to be indexed?

R3. Yes, a table of contents is acceptable provided it contains the elements as stated throughout the RFP.

4. The response to Section J, Question 3 suggests that Option 2 should be equal to 10,170 hours, which is identical to the hours for Option 3a – Option to Extend Services. Please confirm that Option 2 includes the following hours by labor category:

• 1620 hours for Technical Professional (Key Personnel) (as opposed to 0 hours)

• 5700 hours for Technical Professional Support

• 1900 hours for Technical Support (as opposed to 3800 hours)

• 950 hours for Administrative Support (as opposed to 0 hours)

These revised hours will result in a Total Possible LOE per year (should all Options be exercised) of 45,430 hours instead of 44,760 hours.

R4. The RFP states the estimated labor hours furnished are for the offeror's information only, and is not to be considered restrictive for proposal purposes. Therefore, Offerors may propose the hours they deem necessary to complete the work as described in the SOW and throughout the solicitation. The intent of Option 2 is for an additional 50% of the level of effort for each period of performance. The intent of Option 3 is to extend service for 6 months beyond the anticipated end date of the contract.

Is use of Attachment 10 mandatory, or can offerors submit a different pricing spreadsheet as long as the required breakdown of cost elements is provided? Offerors may submit a different pricing spreadsheet as long as the required breakdown of elements is provided.

R5. Offerors may submit a different pricing spreadsheet as long as the required breakdown of elements is provided.