Alliant_2_Unrestricted_Questions_and_Responses_No._5_25AUG2016.pdf

Alliant 2 Unrestricted Questions & Responses #5 25AUG2016 Solicitation # QTA0016JCA0003

Alliant 2 Unrestricted Official RFP Questions & Responses #5

Note to Interested Offerors: The Alliant 2 acquisition team provides the following questions and responses to clarify common questions and address common concerns that have arisen since the RFP issuance on 24 June 2016.

Please check the Alliant 2 FedBizOpps website on a daily basis for important announcements regarding the RFP.

Please note that the Government cannot furnish specific advice on individual offers nor respond to questions which are outside the scope of the RFP or which are otherwise unintelligible.

Offerors are encouraged to thoroughly read the plain language of the RFP for guidance in addressing questions or concerns.

QUESTION TOPICS

● GENERAL

● REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

● RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

● PAST PERFORMANCE

● COST ACCOUNTING AUDITS & TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION

● RESPONSIBILITY REVIEW

● CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (POST AWARD)

GENERAL

QUESTION 1: The customer-side bandwidth limitations often resulted in the need to split large PSC or LET files into multiple parts, each disseminated separately to the customer (contracting officer) for signature. Files digitally signed by the KO cannot be merged into a single PDF for delivery to GSA without 'breaking' the digital signature. Will GSA accept J.P-2 or J.P-3 forms that have been merged post digital signature, or would GSA advise that these digitally signed forms be scanned, then merged, or another alternative?

RESPONSE: Yes, a digital signature that has been applied to the J.P-2 and J.P-3 documents and scanned and merged to other supporting documents is acceptable.

QUESTION2: Amendment 1 RFP page 221 Per RFP section L.5.2.3, condition #4 each LET project must have at least one year of performance unless the project has an Interim or Final CPARS/PPIRS, a completed Award Fee Determination, or a basic period of performance (PoP) less than one year and that PoP is complete. If an Offeror has a LET project with greater than 11 months but just a few days short of the 12 months PoP and a Contracting Officer that is willing to complete an Interim CPARS within the timeframe allowed for proposal preparation but is unable to do so due to a backlog greater than 120 days, what alternatives can be accepted?

RESPONSE: There are no alternatives that will be accepted.

QUESTION 3: Will the Government please clarify the difference between an evaluation factor and Offer factor?

RESPONSE: An Offer factor is incorporated into the contract at award, an evaluation factor is used to assess Offeror technical capabilities.

QUESTION 4: How can we obtain credit from a unique funding source that does not an FPDS Report or a Funding Agency ID? The Document Verification and Scoring Sheet only gives credit for unique Funding Agency IDs.

RESPONSE: That is correct. You must have an FPDS specifying the funding agency code. No exceptions.

QUESTION 5: (a) Can offerors send signature-required delivery packages to ensure the submission was received by GSA? (b) If so, can we require signature by the Contracting Officer specifically? (c) Will the CO please provide any confirmation of receipt for mailed packages?

RESPONSE: (a) Yes, signature required delivery is acceptable. (b) No, you cannot require signature directly from the contracting officer; however, a signature may be given by any staff member within the GSA GWAC San Diego office. (c) The GWAC staff may provide confirmation when requested by email toA2@gsa.gov. We will NOT confirm receipt of packages/mail via phone calls.

QUESTION 6: We carry over 100 Technical & Engineering U.S. Patents on-board. Can we add them as part of our Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience Projects submission?

RESPONSE: No, that is not acceptable.

QUESTION 7: We are submitting a Task Order that was awarded against an IDIQ contract for a LET Relevant Project. The Task Order PWS description references the IDIQ SOW. We plan to submit the entire Task Order PWS. Is it acceptable to submit only the relevant pages from the IDIQ SOW, or must we also submit the entire IDIQ PWS as well? The IDIQ SOW is in excess of 600 pages.

RESPONSE: No, the complete Task Order PWS/SOW is required. As instructed in the RFP, you must indicate/highlight the parts of the PWS/SOW that are relevant to the LET in accordance with Section L instructions.

QUESTION 8: Can the offeror use an Assistance Agreement award sheet that is issued by the funding / sponsoring agency of the U.S. Government as the original award document in support of a LET Project submission?

RESPONSE: No.

QUESTION 9: RFP Section L.5.1.4 - Is it acceptable for the bidding entity to have the parent organization sign on behalf of a subsidiary organization for which we are seeking the relevant experience project(s), system(s), or certification(s) for the meaningful relationship commitment letter?

RESPONSE: Refer to the RFP Section L.5.1.4 for instructions on how the Offeror must claim credit for experience, systems, and certification in the context of a Meaningful Relationship.

QUESTION 10: For the ALLIANT 2 Unrestricted, we will be submitting our response as a Small Business. According to Section L.5.2.5.2-Alt Proposed Small Business Subcontractors, it states that proposed subcontractors must be small under NAICS 541512. Since this section was pulled from the Small Business RFP, I wanted to confirm for the Unrestricted RFP whether a Small Business can have small and other-than small businesses as subcontractors, or are we still limited to all small subs?

RESPONSE: For the Alliant 2 Unrestricted, a small business may have both small and other-than small businesses as subcontractors, but they cannot claim any credit/points for their subcontractors’ relevant experience in their proposal if there are any other-than small businesses in a Small Business CTA.

QUESTION 11: What contractors performed similar work as this RFP for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contractors. If you are unable to provide a contract number or contractor names, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

RESPONSE: This is not a new procurement requirement. It is a follow on contract vehicle to the Alliant GWAC. Refer to the www.gsa.gov/gwacs for the current Alliant GWAC Contract Holders.

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

QUESTION 12: Is the NAICS to be entered into Section K.2(a)(1) suppose to be 541512 for all Offerors? It is currently left blank in the RFP.

RESPONSE: Yes, the NAICS for Alliant 2 must be 541512 for “Computer Systems Design Services” and the Section K.2(a)(2) small business size standard is $27.5 million. The PCO will amend RFP Section K.2(a) for purposes of clarity.

QUESTION 13: A contractor address the following clauses in Section K at the task order level, not the master contract level: xvi 52.223-4 Recovered Material Certifications, xvii 52.225-2 Buy American Certificate, xviii 52.225-4 Buy American – Free Trade Agreements – Israeli Trade Act Certificate, and xix 52.225-6 Trade Agreements. Because we don’t have the information necessary to complete them at the master contract level, we recommend these clauses be removed and addressed and applicable at the task order level.

RESPONSE: Correct. Those specific FAR provisions mentioned in your question, Section K.2(c)(1), are not applicable at this time on the Alliant 2 Master Contract level and therefore requires no action until a task order is issued. The RFP had already been amended to reflect that change.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

QUESTION 14: This question is regarding the PSC and LET project references-supporting documentation (award form and modifications) submission, L.5.2.2.1. The CO did not sign some of our modifications. The majority of the modifications are signed by the CO, but some are not. Does the Government require us to have a predecessor at the Agency sign these? Or can we submit the unsigned modifications as long as the original and final modification validating dollar value and period of performance are signed?

RESPONSE: Any executed modification must be issued and signed by the CO. It is not effective without the CO signature whether they are unilateral or bilateral. Only executed modifications that support your claim are required, not every modification ever issued.

QUESTION15: In the event that one or more of our customers does not return signed J.P-2 and/or J.P-3 forms in time for proposal submission, will the Government please confirm that an offeror's proposal will not be dismissed if there is a discrepancy between the LET/PSC 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 project identifier numbering on the J.P-2 and J.P-3 forms and the self scoring worksheet?

RESPONSE: The Offeror may not claim points without all the required forms or without the proper citation signed by the client agency.

QUESTION 16: Please confirm that when the contractor's proposal is incorporated into the contract by reference, information from the proposal is referenceable.

RESPONSE: The Government will not review a proposal for a Task Order. If a resultant contract is awarded from a SOO, refer to the amended RFP Section L.5.2.2.1.1 Verification of PSC Group Relevant Experience Submission for instructions. They are clear.

QUESTION 17: Can an offeror use one of the Task Orders on a LET from a “collection of task orders” that is used on a PSC relevant experience?

RESPONSE: Yes, you can submit a maximum of one LET from the entire PSC “collection of task orders.” However, it is the entire “collection of task orders” that must be presented as a single PSC project for the LET, not just the individual Task Order(s) because you are not permitted to unbundle the “collection of task orders.”

QUESTION 18: What pass/fail or scored evaluation criteria on the J.P-2 and/or J.P-3 forms may Offerors use? Any “official, verifiable documentation” available (e.g., CPARs, Contract Modifications, or CDRLs) to support all data elements being claimed on J.P-2 and/or J.P-3 forms?

RESPONSE: No, as that is already clear in the RFP. Refer to acceptable verification documents noted throughout RFP Section L.

QUESTION 19: Must the Offeror also use the Alliant 2 proposal due date to calculate the 1 year of performance, in accordance with the RFP Section L.5.2.2.5 and L5.2.3.4, or may we use the actual proposal submission date?

RESPONSE: You may use the amended Alliant 2 proposal due date to calculate the 1 year of performance. Do not use your actual submission date to calculate the 1 year of performance if you are delivering it to the PCO’s office earlier than the proposal due date.

QUESTION 20: We have a LET cost share contract valued at $1.2 Million (as stated on award doc). Gov Share via Cost reimbursement 900K (we were reimbursed), contractor share 300K (non-reimbursable). Total Contract value 1.2Million. Does this meet the $1 Million minimum dollar threshold?

RESPONSE: The value that is recorded in the FPDS-NG Report is the value that will be used to validate the threshold.

QUESTION 21: If the Contracting Officer elects to have the COR sign the template because they are in a better position to verify the technical aspect of the citation, will that be acceptable if COR email notification is provided to the CO by the COR that they have signed the LET template on their behalf? Should the Offeror submit a copy of the actual email with our bid?

RESPONSE: The J.P-2/J.P-3 forms require the Contracting Officer’s name and contact information; however, the signature of the CO, or COR in lieu of the Contracting Officer, is acceptable. The current cognizant Contracting Officer email to the COR is needed with the J.P- 2/J.P-3 whenever the COR is signing the form. A retired or former Contracting Officer that does not having cognizance over the Project/Order may not sign the J.P-2/J.P-3 forms.

QUESTION 22: The RFP section includes a note regarding the submittal of support documentation that validates the claimed scoring. The language provides for the submittal of official, verifiable documentation to validate any pass/fail or scored evaluation criteria being claimed. For those subsections of the RFP Section L that require a particular form of documentation for validation purposes, may additional official, verifiable documentation also be submitted to the extent necessary to validate the claimed scoring? There may be such documents beyond the SOW or FPDS-NG Reports that will validate scores.

RESPONSE: The Offeror may submit the contract modification documentation with the original contract attached. Redacted or partial statement of work/modification will not be accepted. The RFP is clear as to what is acceptable for verification. Any information beyond what is acceptable will not be reviewed or considered, e.g., contract deliverables or contractor proposal.

QUESTION 23: For contracts that have been modified after the original award, will the Government please confirm that in addition to providing the original contract award form and statement of work in accordance with the RFP Section s L.5.2.2.1.1 and L.5.3.2.1.1, the Offeror should include only the pages of subsequent contract modifications that are required to substantiate the information on the J.P-2 and J.P-3 forms submitted? Can we submit multiple FPDS-NG Report forms? (to validate relevant experience)

RESPONSE: The Offeror should submit the entire contract modification documentation with the original contract attached. Any modification submitted should be for the relevant period of performance and the actual dollar value. Redacted or partial statement of work/modification will not be accepted.

QUESTION 24: If the final dollar value and end date of the contract are not included on the original contract award, should additional verification information, such as an FPDS-NG report, be included with the LET submission to substantiate the information?

RESPONSE: The Offeror should provide enough documentation for the evaluator to make an informed decision. This may include the last FPDS-NG Report or a modification that expands on the dollar value and/or period of performance. Redacted documents are not permitted.

QUESTION 25: L.3.2 Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements, as Applicable - "…the Offeror has the burden to establish that the claimed evaluation element should be attributed to the Offeror. To do so, the Offeror must provide evidence of the merger, acquisition, novation, or change-of-name agreement, as well as a justification demonstrating how the evaluation element being claimed is applicable to the Offeror". Please confirm where Offerors are to include this information - is it within the PSC/LET project submission?

RESPONSE: Yes. The Offeror should submit the signed J.P-2 and J.P-3, along with the FPDS- NG Report that indicates the Offeror’s name.

QUESTION 26: Will the government allow Project Identifiers (Attachment J.P-3, Part 1.

Project Identification, 8th row) on the signed template to be hand corrected after the CO has signed and returned the completed LET template? The RFP Section L.5.1.2 Paragraph 7 states "The Project Identifier (LET 1-1 through LET 17-3) in the Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet must mirror the same Project Identifier selected in the Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template found in the RFP Section J-P.11."

QUESTION 27: L.5.2.2.1.1- The RFP states that if an Offeror's FPDS-NG Report is available, complete, and accurate that the Offerer is to submit the FPDS-NG Report and a copy of the contract Statement of Work. Can the government please confirm that the CLIN option listed under part e. is ONLY for those contracts that do not have a complete FPDS-NG Report?

RESPONSE: Yes, Part 2(e) is covered under whenever the FPDS-NG Report unavailable, incomplete or inaccurate, and is marked optional.

QUESTION 28: After each PSC Group Relevant Project listed on rows 23-35 (e.g., PSC Project X-X: ) and the LET Projects, rows 78-117; are Offerors required to enter anything after the colons such as the project file name that will also match what is entered into Column F or an intuitive project acronym identifier or should the spaces following the colons be left blank?

RESPONSE: The spaces after the colons should be left blank. The Offeror should follow the instructions that appear above the PSC/LET groups.

QUESTION 29: Please clarify how mechanically the bidding entity will use and fall under an Affiliate's, Division's, or Subsidiary's resources, such as an audited/adequate cost accounting system, approved purchasing system, current FPRA, FPRR and/or approved billing rates, acceptable estimating system, and/or EVMS ANSI/EIA Standard-748?

RESPONSE: Refer to L.5.1.4 for the purpose of the Meaningful Relationship letters.

QUESTION 30: The offeror is demonstrating experience through a series of task orders against an Indefinite Delivery task order contract. Who should the offeror use as the Contracting Officer if different task orders have different named contracting officers?

RESPONSE: The Offeror may choose any cognizant Contracting Officer from the collection of Orders to sign the J.P-2 (if a signature is needed) and the J.P-3 who has cognizance over that specific task order. However, be aware that if the PSC cited on Orders is not consistent with the claimed PSC Group, the Offeror must follow the procedures outlined in RFP Section L.5.2.2.1.1.

QUESTION 31: If the Offeror is submitting a "bundle" of task orders, should we submit all FPDS-NG Report forms, followed by all Award forms, etc? Or should we follow this order for each individual task order? Where should we list every task order? Could we provide an excel list of every Task Order covered?

RESPONSE: All award documents and the most recent FPDS-NG Report for every Task Order in the collection is needed within a single PDF file. The list of Task Orders are to be provided on the J.P-2.

QUESTION 32: The RFP Section L.5.1.4 (Meaningful Relationship LTRS): 2nd paragraph, Offeror can take credit for any evaluation element from an affiliate. In subsequent paragraphs affiliates are not specifically identified, it is also unclear who the "entity" is in the 8 conditions used on pg. 189. Is the "entity" the bidder, the affiliate, division or subsidiary entity reacting to the bidder? Please clarify how an affiliate would fit into the 8 conditions used on pg.189. Provide a definition of "Entity" as it relates to the 8 conditions.

RESPONSE: Entity in this context means Offeror.

QUESTION 33: Will the GSA allow an exception to the requirement on page 188 of the solicitation that "outside" a corporate structure, experience gained in support of a Government Management & Operations (M&O) contract will be accepted as relevant experience?

QUESTION 34: In Section L.5.1.2, the first sentence in #4 states, "If 'Yes' is entered in Column C, the Offeror shall enter the file name(s) in Column F for each associated supporting document submitted." If "No" is entered in Column C, does the Offeror need to provide a statement in Column F to denote that it will not provide any content or file(s)?

PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTION 35: To clarify, Volume 3 requires only Past Performance Assessments (PPIRS or Past Performance Ratings Forms) and Negative Past Performance Narratives, if applicable. We are not required to provide a past performance citation for each PSC relevant experience. Is that correct? Federal Schedule (IT-70) allowed for Multiple award IDIQ extra points PSC?

RESPONSE: A Past Performance assessment is needed for evaluation. Orders issued under a Schedule Contract is not covered under FAR 16.505 therefore would not qualify for the claimed credit.

QUESTION 36: Please define how a "neutral" past performance will be scored?

RESPONSE: Per J.P-1 template, the Offeror may claim points if the projects demonstrates positive or neutral relevant past performance.

QUESTION 37: The determination of either a positive or negative score on PSC project past performance submissions is based on an overall performance rating. CPARS/PPIRS include ratings for performance areas, but do not include an overall performance rating. Please confirm that Satisfactory or above for all performance areas would be the basis for an overall category rating of positive.

RESPONSE: Positive past performance is defined as receiving a satisfactory or greater rating for the majority of rating elements on a PSC Project.

QUESTION 38: Can the Government confirm that if past performance information is in PPIRS, the Government will not attempt to contact Past Performance references.

RESPONSE: The Government is always authorized to contact one or more of the POCs named in the PPIRS/CPARS or the J.P-5 for verification should they choose.

QUESTION 39: Form J.P-7 for use of Past Performance gained while performing as a member company of a J.V. Where in the proposal, should this be submitted?

RESPONSE: Past performance is submitted in Volume 3.

QUESTION 40: If access to a cognizant Warranted Contracting Office is unattainable for the purposes of signing the Attachment J.P-5 Past Performance Rating Form, will the Government accept the signature of a Contracting Officer’s Representative or other cognizant contracting official on the J.P-5 form?

RESPONSE: Yes, it’s clear. An amendment to the RFP now allows completion and signature of J.P-5 by the cognizant COR if the CO is not available.

QUESTION 41: How will Offerors be scored on PSC & LET contracts that do not have the appropriate "J.P" file completed & delivered by CO/COR?

RESPONSE: The Offeror may not claim the scored points without the required forms for validation.

QUESTION 42: L.5.3.2, 1st Paragraph: Can the Govt define what they mean by "finalized past performance ratings in the PPIRs database?"

RESPONSE: Finalized past performance means the government has completed its assessment for the assessed period, whether it is an Interim report a Final report.

QUESTION 43: Will the Government please confirm that if, in the event a PSC project is rejected due to any reason, the total available points in the Past Performance evaluation factor will be calculated based on the remaining total number of projects. For example, if an Offeror provides 7 PSC projects and 1 PSC project is rejected, will the 17,500 Past Performance points then be distributed equally between the remaining 6 PSC projects?

RESPONSE: Yes, that is how the calculation works. We do not reduce the total past performance point value based upon the number of acceptable PSCs.

COST ACCOUNTING AUDITS & TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION

QUESTION 44: If an offeror has an ANSI/EIA 748-compliant Earned Value Management System (EVMS) pending review from DCAA, would the government consider amending the requirement to allow the offerors to provide a Plan describing their EVMS as it responds to requirements set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (FAR 52.234-3/DFARS 252.234-7001) “Notice of Earned Value Management System.”?

QUESTION 45: The Proposal Format Table in the RFP says that the documentation for each of the systems and certifications is "limited to the verification document." However, the descriptive information in Section L.5.4 for the various systems and certifications requires a multi-part submission, including a page with the DUNS and CAGE code and the POC information, and a copy of the official report, certificate, etc. Please confirm that the "verification document" referenced in the Proposal Format table should include all elements described in Section L.5.4.

RESPONSE: Yes, all the requirements contained in the RFP Section L.5.4 for the various systems and certifications are required.

QUESTION 46: The RFP Section L.5.4.1 was rewritten to include a requirement for (1) an official letter that the Offeror's accounting system has been determined adequate; or (2) a copy of the official Cost Accounting audit report. Given that Offerors do not control DCAA's audit schedule, and given the current backlog of DCAA audits, will the Government revert back to the original requirements of the solicitation?

QUESTION 47: There are requirements within the RFP Section s L.5.2.2.4 through L.5.2.2.6 (Scoring for Cost Reimbursement, Fair Opportunity, and Location) that still involve including a description within Part III of the PSC template. It might be helpful to clarify whether that is still required in light of the Notice #9 statement about Part III not being required. We also see where a signature in Part IV would not be required if the FPDS-NG Report includes the claimed PSC;

however we would still expect that the box would need to be checked in Part IV that indicates that the FPDS-NG Report is attached.

RESPONSE: The Offeror should note on the J.P-1 whether it has claimed points for Cost Reimbursement, Fair Opportunity, and Location and provide the accurate FPDS-NG Report.

Although not required if the Offeror has provided an accurate FPDS-NG Report, the Offeror may provide the narrative if it believes this information will help the evaluator.

QUESTION 48: We are utilizing combining two task orders with identical scopes that were issued sequentially under a single IDIQ. Combining them enables us to meet the parameters for inclusion in the PSC submission. The SOWs for these task orders were the same but one was CPFF and the other was not. Please specify if we should check yes or no for the CPFF line item in Part 1 of form J.P-2. Could you also please verify that we should simply write in both task order numbers in the Order number section?

RESPONSE: The Offeror may claim credit for CPFF if the FPDS-NG Report states this as a CPFF Order, and list all the orders that make up your collection of Task Orders for the Project.

QUESTION 49: The RFP Section L.5.4.6 (CMMI), L.5.4.7 (ISO 9001), L.5.4.8 (ISO 20000), and L.5.4.9 (ISO/IEC 27000) all require Offerors to provide a copy of said certifications. The requirement also states the Offeror shall make reference to the page number and paragraph of the certification or letter that determined the approval. Because the certification confirms approval, can Offerors simply refer to the included certificate and reference it as page 1?

RESPONSE: No. We require the complete documentation.

QUESTION 50: In reference to L.5.2.3, Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience, are Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) (Public Law 103-160, Section 845) projects acceptable to demonstrate LET experience, such as the Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC)?

QUESTION 51: For the ISO certifications, if an offeror is in the process of a certification and the audit is complete but the vendor has not received the official letter by proposal submittal date, will the Government accept the auditor’s recommendation for approval letter as evidence?

RESPONSE: No, the certificate is required to earn credit.

PRICING

QUESTION 52: When providing blended rates on Task Order proposals, are Offerors limited on how blended rates are calculated? What are the likely hybrid contract arrangements?

RESPONSE: No, Offerors are not limited on how blended rates are proposed for Task Orders.

GWAC Orders are issued with one or more combinations of Fixed Price, Cost or Time & Material Contract Types. As a reminder, blended rates are not to be proposed on the Master Contract.

QUESTION 53: Will the Government also accept an Offeror’s Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRP) as verification of their proposed indirect rates?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Government would accept an Offeror’s Forward Pricing Rate Proposals (FPRP) to substantiate their proposed indirect rates.

QUESTION 54: What is the Government's criteria, in regard to years of experience for each of the Knowledge/Skill levels?

RESPONSE: The Government has not established the minimum years of experience for each of the skill levels. These levels are pre-established to maintain standardization of the labor categories between Offerors. The Ordering Contracting Officers may request more details as to the Offeror’s established years of experience per each level at the Task Order level.

QUESTION 55: Please confirm that multiple indirect rates are allowed based on the contractor's approved indirect rate structure.

RESPONSE: No. The Offeror is to cite its approved cost rates that will ultimately lead to the final burdened labor rate per labor category including other cost elements not specifically identified. Additionally, the Offeror may provide supporting documentation from the DCAA/DCMA/CFA approved audit reports that provides the specific information citing the various business unit rates. This is not an evaluation to fact check every DCAA approved cost elements of every business unit; nor is it acceptable to establish individual labor category rates per each business unit.

QUESTION 56: In the event the Offeror's highest rate exceeds the J.P-6 range- may the Offeror use the RFP basis of estimate?

RESPONSE: Yes, you may explain there. The Offeror should also understand these rates only apply to T&M/Labor Hour rate.

QUESTION 57: Will T&M / LH ceiling rates be used as ceiling rates for FFP and Cost- Reimbursable contracts?

RESPONSE: Refer to B.6.2, which is very clear on this matter.

QUESTION 58: If the Offeror has current, up-to-date DCAA approved billing rates, are these Alliant 2 rates considered "fair and reasonable" based solely on this approval?

RESPONSE: Not necessarily. For the Master Contract, direct labor rates are deemed fair and reasonable as compared to the ranges outlined in the DOL BLS, and your up-to-date DCAA approved billing rates are considered acceptable. But for Task Orders issued under the Master Contract with known requirements, the client agency OCO will need to determine fair and reasonable pricing specific to the requirement that includes all indirect rates.

QUESTION 59: If GSA is not planning to republish the J.P-6 with 2017 BLS rates, is the contractor authorized to escalate J.P-6 2015 rates to adequately compare rate min/max ranges to the 01 October 2017 start date.

RESPONSE: No. The October 1, 2017 start date is noted in the RFP as an “estimated” date. No changes to pricing will be made at Master Contract award.

RESPONSIBILITY REVIEW

QUESTION 60: If an Offeror’s consolidated financial statement includes income data, will the Government accept the financial statement in lieu of Sections III and IV of the GSA Form 527?

RESPONSE: This clarifies responses to the GSA Form fiscal year and attaching financial documents. Page 2 of the GSA Form 527 isrequired for 1 full Fiscal Year. If the Contractor is submitting audited Statements or Internal Financial Statements for review, they do not have to fill in Page 2, just check Box 23 indicating that Financial Statements are attached. Also Section VI and VII are to be left blank per the RFP, however, entries in these areas will not be rejected.

The attached documents with the GSA Form 527 should be merged into a single PDF file.

QUESTION 61: L.5.6.1 - Please provide guidance on how a contractor can comply with this requirement if the Change-of-Name Agreement has been submitted to the ACO, but has not yet been executed, and as such, the legal entity name in the SAM system has not yet been updated to reflect the new legal entity name. If the contractor fills out the GSA 527 form in the new legal entity name (so as to match the Name Change Amendments that are filed with the State), this will not be the same legal entity name listed in SAM (since the Change-of-Name Agreement has not yet been executed by the ACO) and the contractor will then not be in compliance with the RFP Section s L.3.1 Official Legal Bidding Entity and L.5.1.1. Standard Form (SF)33, 3.

RESPONSE: It is important to initiate the SAM record change since the updated contractor data is relied on for the various government systems. Contact the Federal Service Desk, within the SAM.gov to assist you in expediting the process.

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (POST AWARD)

QUESTION 62: Section G.9, Electronic Access to Contract - Will the conformed version of the Master Contract posted to the GSA GWAC web page include the actual proposal documents incorporated by reference into the Master Contract?

RESPONSE: The GWAC webpage posts the conformed contract and not the Offerors' proposal material. Refer to the www.gsa.gov/gwacs for material being posted.

(End of Alliant 2 Unrestricted Questions and Responses #5)