RFP_GSMO_QA4_Rev_B_20160411.pdf

GSMO-2 RFP Q&A 4

#1 Question: Is the recording of “ABC” value in the below example (table) correct?

Reference: The answer provided to Question #6 (From GSMO-2 RFP Q&A 2) results in additional confusion as to how to determine values for the SB Subcontracting Plan and the resulting goal percentages.

Question #6: “Reference Government’s table summarizing percentage goals for participation by various categories of small businesses. In the table provided, the total participation by all Small

Businesses is shown as 22%, yet a sum of the percentages for all categories is 24.3%. Please clarify.”

Answer #6: Small Businesses may represent themselves under multiple categories. There may also be

Small Business Concerns that do not meet any of the sub-category criteria. Ex) One Small Business may be a Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (VOSB) and a Woman-Owned Small Business

Concern (WOSB). This business would count under the “Small Businesses (SB), Veteran-Owned

Small Business Concern (VOSB) and Woman-Owned Small Business Concern (WOSB) categories.

We understand businesses that are represented as more than one small business category can be counted in each of those SB categories. The value of that business is represented one time in the SB category and is NOT a sum of the multiple categories it also represents. To further clarify, we have provided an example below:

Example: ABC is a Small Business, WOSB and a VOSB that is estimated to receive a subcontract for

$100. They are represented in the SB Plan as follows:

We are concerned that the answer to Question #6 may allow an Offeror to interpret the Government’s answer and over-represent its Total Small Business amount as $300 (instead of $100 as shown in the above example) by summing the amounts represented in each SB category (Small, WOSB and

VOSB).

Description

% of

Subcontract

Amount

Total Large Business

Total Small Business (includes SDB, HUBZone, WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB) $100

Total Subcontracting 100%

Total Small Disadvantaged Business

Total HUBZone Small Business

Total Woman-Owned Small Business $100

Total Veteran-Owned Small Business $100

Total Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

Answer: The recording of “ABC” value in the example provided is correct.

#2 Question: The Government’s response to both questions included in GSMO-2 RFP Q&A 3 states, “Offerors are expected to use Times New Roman throughout the entire proposal.” Times New

Roman, 10-point type is extremely difficult to read in exhibits—particularly graphics. Further, this clarification, coming 25 days after the release of the final RFP when offerors are beginning to finalize their responses, has a severe impact on those responses. We ask the Government to either remove this requirement or increase the page limitation for the Mission Suitability volume from 80 pages to 100 pages, and to extend the RFP closing date to Monday, 2 May 2016 to allow offerors to rework all previously completed graphics and tables developed in accordance with RFP Section L requirements.

References: GSMO-2 RFP Q&A 3, Questions 1 and 2, RFP Instructions

Answer: The Government will not be extending the RFP due date, nor will the Government extend the page count. The 10-point type size is a minimum for “Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs”, not a directed statement to utilize 10-point type size for “Diagrams, schedules, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs”

#3 Question: Exhibit 12 appears to be the total overall value of the contract, “Proposed Goals based on

IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value of $442M”. However, paragraph (7) of Subfactor C states, “Offerors shall show the proposed subcontracting goals for the basic contract requirement and each option separately”. Section F.2 GSFC 52.217-92 EFFECTIVE ORDERING PERIOD (JAN 2014) indicates “The effective ordering period of this contract shall be for a period of five (5) years from the contract effective date of TBD”. There is no indication of any Option Periods. Recommend changing

Subfactor C to indicate ““Offerors shall show the proposed subcontracting goals for the basic contract requirement of 5 years and IDIQ Maximum Ordering Value of $442M”

RFP Reference: L.13, Subfactor C and L.14 para 2(p) and Exhibit 12

Answer: There are no option periods, so there is no need to show the proposed subcontracting goals for non-existent options separately. This section will not be revised.

#4 Question: The Section L instructions do not specifically indicate if significant or non-significant subcontractors are to complete Exhibit 4. The template for Exhibit 4 only has check boxes to indicate prime offeror or significant subcontractor. Does the Government require all subcontractors to complete and submit Exhibit 4 or just the prime contractor and significant subcontractor?

Recommend the Solicitation, L.14, Section 2(H) and Exhibit 4 be changed to state all subcontractors proposing labor complete and should submit Exhibit 4.

RFP Reference: L.14 Cost Volume Instructions; Section 2; Para (h) CONTRACT SOURCE OF

PERSONNEL and Exhibit 4

Answer: Please see L.14 Cost Volume Instructions, 1. Instructions Page 121, “A proposed significant subcontractor shall complete and submit Exhibits 2A, 2B, and 4 through 11B and provide the same supporting information that is requested from the Prime Offeror.” Exhibit 4 is to be submitted by significant subs (and the prime). Non-significant subs do not submit Exhibit 4.

#5 Question: Will the government please clarify the response to Question #20 in

RFP_GSMO_QA2_Rev_G_20160331? There appears to be a disconnect between the information required for significant subcontractors in Section L and the subcontractor information to be evaluated in Section M.

Section L specifically states Offerors are to provide the following information for only significant subcontractors: “…identify their interfaces to your organizational structure and provide: 1) the basis for selection of the subcontractor, 2) the nature and extent of the work to be performed by the subcontractor, including split of responsibilities and the potential percentages of work to be performed 3) the benefits of these arrangements to the Government, and 4) methods of management and reporting to GSFC of subcontractors' financial and technical plans and performance.”

Section M states the Government will evaluate the following information: “1) the basis for selection of the subcontractor, 2) the nature and extent of the work to be performed by the subcontractor, including split of responsibilities and the potential percentages of work to be performed 3) the benefits of these arrangements to the Government, and 4) methods of management and reporting to GSFC of subcontractors' financial and technical plans and performance…”

Section M does not clearly state that its evaluation of the above information (items 1 – 4) is only for the significant subcontractors.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government clearly state in Section M that the information of the significant subcontractors is being evaluated as follows (changed/added text is indicated in bold font): “The Government will evaluate the contractor’s strategy for using (or not using) significant subcontractors (based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions) to include 1) the basis for selection of the significant subcontractor, 2) the nature and extent of the work to be performed by the significant subcontractor, including split of responsibilities and the potential percentages of work to be performed 3) the benefits of these significant subcontractor arrangements to the Government, and 4) methods of management and reporting to GSFC of the significant subcontractors' financial and technical plans and performance will be evaluated for demonstrated understanding of the work, effectiveness, and benefit to the government.”

RFP Reference: Government Response to Question #20 and Section L, Subfactor B and Section M, Subfactor B

Answer: The information requested in Section L and to be evaluated in Section M only pertains to significant subcontractors (based on the definition of significant subcontractor in the cost volume instructions). The Government does not believe Section M requires amending.

#6 Question: With regard to the government’s response to Question #20 in

RFP_GSMO_QA2_Rev_G_20160331, please clarify how the Government intends to evaluate “or lack thereof”? It seems the Government will negatively evaluate an Offeror if there are no or few significant subcontractors proposed by an Offeror.

RFP Reference: Government Response to Question #20

Answer: The Government will not negatively evaluate an Offeror due to proposing no or few significant subcontractors.