Q_and_A.docx

Question 1:

Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent?

Government answer:

This is a new requirement.

Question 2:

Is there a limitation on the number of resumes submitted or is offeror limited to two resumes?

Government answer:

There is no limitation on the number of resumes that may be proposed, though only two full-time equivalent contractor positions will be filled, and OPIC will only have one person fill each position, working full-time. If a bidder wishes to propose more than one résumé per position, then it would be helpful for evaluation purposes for the bidder to indicate which the primary résumé is and which the back-up is.

Question 3:

Section 2.2 of Attachment A indicates that one FTE is equivalent to 232 days of full-time support. If overnight travel, work beyond the core hours of 0915 through 1600 or more than 232 days of full-time support are required, will the contractor be entitled to invoice for the additional work required?

Government answer:

No. This will be a firm, fixed-price contract with the contractor required to provide a minimum of 232 days of support in a 12-month period or have to adjust invoices downward on a pro rata basis if the level of support falls below 232 days. Per SOW §2.2, any days worked over 232 days will not result in an increase in contract price, though days spent working outside of normal OPIC working days (e.g. days spent on business travel or working at OPIC’s offices on the weekends or holidays) may be counted toward the 232-day total required in a 12-month period. The SOW is being amended accordingly to clarify this.

Question 4:

Will the monthly invoicing by the contractor represent a flat amount of 12th of the contract price?

Government answer:

For the base 24-month PoP, a monthly invoice would be for 1/24 of the base PoP price. For a 12-month option PoP, it would be for 1/12 of the option price. The only circumstance when an invoice would not be for these amounts would be if support fell below the 232 day support requirement. Then the invoice submitted in the final month of a 12-month performance cycle would be reduced pro rata by the number of days of performance shortfall. If the reduction in value were to exceed the amount of one monthly invoice, then the contractor would either owe OPIC a credit for the overage amount or deduct it from future invoices. A Section G term will be included in the contract document to capture this aspect of contract administration.

Question 5:

Is Attachment D required to be returned with the proposal of the offeror?

Government answer:

No, but a firm proposing for this effort shall affirmatively attest in their proposal that they will be able to complete and sign this policy should they win the contract. The RFP is being amended accordingly to clarify this.

Question 6:

In the RFP, it identifies the “Place of Performance” as OPIC offices in Washington, D.C. Since most Government RFPs for legal services require the awardee to perform the work at its own facility, except when necessary to attend meetings, my question is whether OPIC intends that the 2 lawyers who will provide the required legal services will be sitting at OPIC’s offices in Washington, DC, or at the awardee law firm’s offices, wherever located, except for meetings?

Government answer:

In accordance with the requirement established in §6.0 of the SOW, the full-time place of performance for the attorneys’ work on this contract will be OPIC’s offices in Washington, DC (1100 New York Ave., Washington, DC 20527), not at the attorneys’ home office.

Question 7:

Is eligibility restricted solely to law firms or can any firm provide suitable candidates for the solicitation?

Government answer:

OPIC presumes only law firms will be able to propose for this due to restrictions on law firms and lawyers from entering into business arrangements with non-lawyers. However, if you discover a law firm or some lawyers who feel there is an applicable exemption in this instance, then please feel free to propose their support and explain in your proposal how there would be no potential conflict of interest or violation of rules of professional responsibility by establishing such a business relationship.