HMTAP RFP Questions-Answers.docx

HMTAP RFP Questions and Answers

L.7.B. EVALUATION FACTOR-1 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE appears to put a premium on an offeror’s experience in providing grant application development/review at the applicant and sub-applicant level. Yet I.20 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflicts of Interest, (a) Determination indicates this may result in an actual or potential OCI and (b) states “This conflict of interest is unmitigable. No OCI mitigation plans will be accepted or considered.” 1.20. (c) appears to allow a mitigation plan to eliminate the conflict before contract award. It is our experience that OCI Mitigation Plans are most successful when implemented in a forward-looking fashion at the Task Order Level rather than the Contract level.

We respectfully request FEMA reconsider including the complete set of FAR provisions for 305.209-72 without deviation. This would reincorporate the following paragraphs:

(d) Mitigation. If an offeror with a potential or actual conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage believes the conflict can be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated, the offeror shall submit a mitigation plan to the Government for review. Award of a contract where an actual or potential conflict of interest exists shall not occur before Government approval of the mitigation plan. If a mitigation plan is approved, the restrictions of this provision do not apply to the extent defined in the mitigation plan.

(e) Other Relevant Information: In addition to the mitigation plan, the Contracting Officer may require further relevant information from the offeror. The Contracting Officer will use all information submitted by the offeror, and any other relevant information known to DHS, to determine whether an award to the offeror may take place, and whether the mitigation plan adequately neutralizes or mitigates the conflict.

There is limited national capacity and experience for providing grant application development / review at the applicant or sub-applicant level. This is a highly valued service as evidenced by Evaluation Factor 1 and should not be discouraged when OCI mitigation is possible. We respectfully request FEMA consider the OCI mitigation model currently in place for MT-2 submissions and reviews within your Risk MAP A&E Production and Technical Services contract. The parallels are very strong and would offer a mutually beneficial solution to OCI avoidance without adverse impact to applicants. Brian Koper (brian.koper@fema.dhs.gov) could provide more information.

The solicitation will be amended to include 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflicts of Interest without deviation as follows:

I.20 HSAR 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

(a) Determination. The Government has determined that this effort may result in an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) or may provide one or more Offerors with the potential to attain an unfair competitive advantage. The nature of the conflict of interest includes:

The Contractor and/or any subcontractor providing both: (1) review of HMA grant applications on FEMA’s behalf and (2) assisting with the preparation of the same grant application on behalf of the state or local government requesting the grant for the applicable sector the contractor is supporting under the contract.

In addition, a second potential conflict of interests has been identified. Contractors providing Programmatic Technical Assistance services and/or Training services for HMTAP and assist in developing guidance for HMA Programs may not compete for work under this solicitation unless an acceptable mitigation plan is approved in accordance with paragraph (d) of this clause.

(b) If any such conflict of interest is found to exist, the Contracting Officer may (1) disqualify the Offeror, or (2) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the United States to contract with the Offeror and include the appropriate provisions to avoid, neutralize, mitigate, or waive such conflict in the contract awarded. After discussion with the Offeror, the Contracting Officer may determine that the actual conflict cannot be avoided, neutralized, mitigated or otherwise resolved to the satisfaction of the Government, and the Offeror may be found ineligible for award.

(c) Disclosure: The Offeror and any proposed teaming partners/subcontractors hereby represents, to the best of its knowledge that:

___ (1) It is not aware of any facts which create any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest relating to the award of this contract, or

___ (2) It has included information in its proposal, providing all current information bearing on the existence of any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest, and has included a mitigation plan in accordance with paragraph (d) of this provision.

Please note this certification must be completed and provided by the prime Offeror and any proposed subcontractor(s) and included in the Proposal Business Volume.

(d) Mitigation. If an Offeror with a potential or actual conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage believes the conflict can be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated, the offeror shall submit a mitigation plan to the Government for review. Award of a contract where an actual or potential conflict of interest exists shall not occur before Government approval of the mitigation plan. If a mitigation plan is approved, the restrictions of this provision do not apply to the extent defined in the mitigation plan.

(e) Other Relevant Information: In addition to the mitigation plan, the Contracting Officer may require further relevant information from the offeror. The Contracting Officer will use all information submitted by the offeror, and any other relevant information known to DHS, to determine whether an award to the offeror may take place, and whether the mitigation plan adequately neutralizes or mitigates the conflict.

(f) Corporation Change. The successful offeror shall inform the Contracting Officer within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of any corporate mergers, acquisitions, and/or divestures that may affect this provision.

(g) Flow-down. The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause in each first tier subcontract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.

2.

I.20 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

Please confirm FEMA’s intent for the following subparagraphs:

1. Paragraph (a) Determination will only apply to the specific zone an offer is awarded.

1. Paragraph (a) Determination: the language “the preparation and/or facilitation of HMA grants or any other activities to be evaluated under the contract” is very broad. Please provide a definition of “other activities” and confirm FEMA’s intent is that it does not include specific engineering/environmental analysis provided under separate contract that might be used by others in preparing future HMA grants.

1. Paragraph (b) appears to be focused on a task order basis, not on the IDIQ procurement. Please confirm.

1. Paragraph (c)(1) appears to be contract level based and forward looking. Please confirm that the intent is to limit future applicant HMA-related contracting by Prime offerors in their assigned zone.

1. Paragraph (c)(2) appears to allow offers to provide an OCI mitigation plan that enables offerors to finish out any existing contract work activities, without resorting to contract termination steps. These OCI mitigation plan elements are typically information and personnel firewalls between JV partners, subcontractors, and Prime contractor staff engaged in FEMA work. Please confirm FEMA’s intent to allow the successful offeror the ability to mitigate existing OCI using these approaches at the task order level.

1. Paragraph (e) Flow down. Subcontractors typically bring a broad range of experience and capabilities and often experience OCI scenarios between their applicant/sub-applicant work and the FEMA work, which are normally mitigated by recusing the subcontractor from specific task orders. Please confirm that this OCI mitigation strategy is reasonable and allowed under the flow down clause.

a) The potential OCI only applies to supporting the both the development and review of grant applications within the same sector. There is no potential OCI if the Contractor supports the grant application development for other sectors not supported under the contract.

b) This language has been narrowed as stated in response to question 1.

c) The nature of this potential OCI applies at both the IDIQ contract and task order levels.

d) The intent is to avoid any potential OCI in which the Contractor and/or subcontractor reviews grant applications for FEMA in which it helped to develop on behalf of the state or local government for its applicable sector.

e) FEMA will give consideration to the successful Offeror’s ability to mitigate existing and/or future potential OCI’s as described in HSAR 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflicts of Interest, but it is unlikely they can be mitigated through the use of firewalls at the task order level.

(f) Subcontractors are subject to the same standards as the prime Offeror with respect to existing and/or future potential OCI’s as described in HSAR 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Mitigation plans will be considered, but it is unlikely they can be mitigated through the use of firewalls at the task order level.

The RFP states “The video must display a letter of commitment for each (if any) proposed subcontractor referenced in the responses to the experience questions provided below.” Please confirm that this does not count towards the 12 minutes or please consider allowing submission of the letters of commitment as a PDF when submitting the e-mail with the link for the video submission.

The solicitation will be amended to state that Letters of commitment shall be submitted in PDF format when submitting the email with the link for video submission rather than being displayed in the video.

4.

Attachment C - HMTAP Cost Price Worksheet Sector A.xlsx

In the spreadsheets, there are several inconsistencies that we respectfully request the government to address:

1. Lines 130 through 133 (Geographic Information System Specialist [GIS]) seem to be duplicated by lines 142 through 146 (GIS Specialist), with slight differences in the number of years of experience for the levels.

1. Lines 273 and 274 (Word Processor, First and Word Processor, Junior) have different levels indicated, but with the same number of years of experience requirement.

Lines 242 and 243 (Technical Editor/Writer) do not have a level qualifier but have different years of experience. They also seem to duplicate lines 238-241 (Technical Editor) and lines 245-248 (Technical Writer).

Attachment C of the solicitation will be amended as follows: a) Labor categories identified in lines 130-133 Geographic Information System Specialist [GIS] have been deleted and b) Line 270 has been updated. Lines 242 and 243 (Technical Editor/Writer) have been updated and represent individuals with a combined skillset. Lines 238-241 and 245-248 have not been duplicated.

When in the process should the small business plan be submitted? Should it be part of the Phase-2 Technical Volume?

The small business subcontracting plan will only be required to be submitted by the apparent successful Offeror for each sector. Submission of the subcontracting plan does not constitute discussions.

Subsection a. and f. appear to be the same requirement and reference the same FAR clause. Please clarify.

Under Section L.7, subsection (f) will be removed from the solicitation via an amendment since it duplicates the same standards in section (a).

Please provide the scoring rubric that will be used to assess the technical evaluation criteria.

Confidence ratings will be utilized to assess technical evaluation criteria.

· The solicitation Section F.4 Reports of Work requires

1. Monthly Progress Reports (assumed to be for each task order) and

1. Final Report (contract-wide)

· Attachment A Part 4 requires

a. Task Order Work Plan (for each task order),

b. Quarterly Status Reports (at the contract level),

c. Quarterly Progress Reports (at the contract level),

d. Project Monitor Verification (at the task order level), and

e. Final report (task order level) The solicitation will be amended as follows:

a. Monthly reports are required at the task order level.

b. Final reports are required at the task order and contract level.

Attachment A Part 4

a. Task order work plans are required for each task order

b. Quarterly Status reports are required at the contract level.

c. Quarterly Progress Reports are required at the contract level.

d. Project Monitor Verification form are required at the task order level.

e. Final report is required at the task order level.

Page 6 of Attachment A – 1.6.7 Security Requirements states “Contractor must ensure contractor employees receive a favorably adjudicated public trust suitability prior to entry on duty (EOD) and must maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract. It further states “FEMA’s Personnel Security Division (PSD) will determine the risk designation for each contractor position by comparing the functions and duties of the position against those of a same or similar federal position, applying the same standard for evaluating the associated potential for impact on the integrity and efficiency of federal service” and explains the tiered approach to background investigations Please confirm that only staff requiring routine access to FEMA facilities and IT resources will require PIV cards.

Confirmed.

1.24 SAFEGUARDING OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION of the solicitation for definitions.

The RFP states that the response to each question must reference at least one project in which the Offeror or a proposed subcontractor performed the work to be considered and requires specific information to be provided on each project. If an Offeror references the same project as part of its answer to multiple questions, does the Government expect to see the "Project title, description, etc." information multiple times in the same video for the same project?

Yes

The LCATS for "Education and Training Specialist" in CLIN 001 - Base Period include the notation "**". No citation is provided to explain the notation. Please explain if there is additional information that should be associated with LCAT.

Please strike/disregard the notation.

27.

L.7 (B) STEP 1: PHASE-1 OFFEROR INSTRUCTIONS, p120 and L.7 (D) STEP 3: PHASE-2, p125 Step 1 - Phase 1 - Corporate Experience references a 5-year time period for performance relevancy. Step 3 - Phase - 2 Evaluation Factor - 3 Past Performance states that past performances should be from work performed in the last 3 years. Please confirm that the past performance time period and corporate experience time period are both intended to be five years.

For experience projects must be within the past 5-years. Past performance must be within the past 3-years.

The evaluation factor for Oral Presentation Element 2 - Key Personnel states "Additional positions designated by the Offeror as Key Personnel and the minimum qualifications for each position as well as resumes and letters of commitment for proposed Key Personnel shall be included in the Phase-2 Technical Volume. Information presented during the Oral Presentation shall be internally consistent with the written material provided in the Technical Volume." As the Government has indicated that staff may be designated as key on a task order basis, how would the Government like Offerors to handle the submittal of resumes for staff that are not key at the IDIQ level, but at the Task Order level, since only resumes for IDIQ Key staff are requested? This is of significance should the revealed scenario by the Government result in the Offeror presenting staff as Key at the Task Order level that were not key at the IDIQ level. An inconsistency would then exist with the written material provided in the Technical Volume due to the nature of the unknown Scenario.

The technical scenario will be provided prior to phase-2 submission. Therefore, Offerors will be able to include the positions and associated minimum qualifications deemed to be key for the scenario in their Phase-2 Oral Presentation. Since the scenario if not for actual work, names and resumes of individuals are not required.

How would the Government prefer the offeror to price labor categories included in the RFP that the Offeror does not have staff to allocate to/support? Will the Government accept a $0 rate and the offer be considered compliant, realistic and reasonable?

All labor categories shall be priced at a rate that is reasonable and realistic. Attachment C includes labor categories anticipated to complete the required work as set forth in task orders. Therefore, Offerors who do not have employees on staff for all positions shall price the positions based on subcontractor, consultant, and/or as contingent hires.

M.3 states that the "technical and past performance evaluation factors, when combined, are more important than price/cost". In this context, is the Oral Presentation Factors outlined in L.7.D the "technical evaluation factors" referenced?

Yes, the technical factors include the Oral Presentation.

L.7(D) states each of the 3 subcomponents of the Oral Presentation are of equal performance. When combined, is the full weight of the Oral Presentation (Technical) equal to or greater than Past Performance?

Oral presentation is more important than past performance.

In STEP 1: Phase 1, under EVALUATION FACTOR-1 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE, the RFP states: “The video shall be no longer than 12-minutes in duration utilizing YouTube.com for the Government to access. “ There is no guidance on protection of the video from disclosure and how to incorporate such protection into the front or back of the 12 minute video. By comparison, the Draft RFP for the subject contract stated “An offeror who does not want their video to be to be disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall prepare a text indicating such. This text may be displayed for no more than the first 30 seconds of the video submission. This 30-second display will not count towards the video time limit.” Can the Government please verify if a 30-second text display is allowed to be placed at the front or the end of the video submittal to provide protection from disclosure? And that this 30-second text display will not be counted against the 12-minute duration of the submittal?

Confirmed. The solicitation will be amended to revise Section L.7 to allow a 30-second text display to be placed at the front or the end of the video submittal to provide protection from disclosure. And that this display will not count towards the 12-minute time limit.

The RFP states for the 5 questions that must be addressed in the video for corporate experience "The response to each question must reference at least one project in which the Offeror or a proposed subcontractor performed the work to be considered." When the information on the project is provided, but the project is a task order within a larger, multi-year IDIQ program what information should be provided

a) Only the project information related to the task order scope, task order number, dollar value, and type of contract?

b) Both the task order and the program information adding the program information in addition to the task order information?

c) Or does the task order only need to be identified by task order number, fee, and period of performance under the larger IDIQ contract number, contract value, and larger contract type (including combined FFP and cost reimbursable)?

The solicitation will be amended to reflect the following: Both the IDIQ contract number and task order number shall be provided. The dollar value of the IDIQ contract and the task order shall be provided. The type of contract shall be based on the task order. The following information shall be provided with the response to each question.

Oral Presentation Element 2, Key Personnel states “Offerors shall identity positions and individuals proposed as Key Personnel as well as the minimum qualifications established for each position. “RFP Section I.21 KEY PERSONNEL stated that the only key personnel is the Project Manager. How will the Offerors’ other identified key personnel be compared if FEMA does not identify specific key personnel and provide minimum criteria for those personnel/positions?

The Program Manager is designated by the Government as Key; however, Offerors may identify other members of their staff as key personnel by position and minimum qualifications.

While there is a requirement for the protection of government data, there is no labor category for IT Security Managers, Specialists, or Technicians. Please advise if FEMA will add such positions to the Price Schedule to support the IT security requirements set forth in the RFP.

The necessary IT labor categories will be added to the solicitation via an amendment. The IT positions are incidental since this is not an IT procurement.

Attachment C provides fully burdened ceiling rates for FFP proposals. How is the profit negotiated?

Profit shall be included in the fully burdened labor rates which will be only used for fixed priced task orders. No additional profit or fee will be permitted under fixed priced orders.

Please confirm how the Government wants Offerors’ to provide evidence of responsibility. Also, please provide guidance in terms of what will be accepted as proof.

Please see FAR 9.104-1.