Qs and As - set 1 - Program Eval Services.doc

Contractor Questions & Answers

Set #1 For Solicitation No. S-AQMMA-11-R-0314 Technical and Advisory Services

DoS Program Evaluation Requirements Following is a list of the questions I have received from prospective offerors for the above solicitation. Each question is followed by the Government’s response.

Question #1: What is the expected place of work?

Answer #1: The work could be anywhere worldwide, including any domestic bureau of State Department or any U.S. Embassy or other U.S. Mission overseas. The specific locations will be identified at the task order level. Also related is #2 that follows.

Question #2: The place of performance is listed as worldwide. Do you expect to have people in country to respond to specific task orders? Or do you expect to have consultants flown to the various places? In each case, how are incremental costs handled?

Answer #2: From the contractor’s perspective, it would not be anticipated that the contractor would already have personnel in a country where a project might be performed. Once a contractor receives a Request for Task Order Proposal (RFTOP), the contactor would need to determine how to provide the required personnel. This may include a number of possible scenarios, such as hiring local (in-country) personnel, bringing in experts from the U.S., etc.

The contractor would also need to determine the costs (labor, Other Direct Costs, etc.), which it would be including in the task order proposal.

Question #3: Please indicate what Offices, Bureaus and Programs does the Department expect will be included in the work to be performed through this IDIQ?

Answer #3: Once the contracts are awarded, the program office overseeing DoS Program Evaluations will begin coordinating with the various bureaus, Embassies, etc. to determine individual projects. All State bureaus, offices and posts will also be able to use the contract, so requirements may originate from within the various Bureaus, Embassies, etc. At this time, no specific projects have been identified.

Question #4: Will all the work be classified? Does the vendor need to have a cleared facility?

Answer #4: There may be some work of a classified nature. This, however, will be determined at the task order level. Each awarded contract will include a DD-254, Department of Defense Security Classification Specification. Prior to performing any work of a classified nature, the contractor will be required to possess a SECRET Facility Clearance. For any such work, personnel performing the services will also be required to possess the required clearances. In some cases, security clearances may be required where the actual work may not be classified. For example, there may be cases where contractor personnel must possess a security clearance before being permitted unsupervised access to data (i.e., to address possible exposure to classified material), or where a clearance may be required for unescorted access within a facility where the work will be performed.

Offerors are not required to possess a SECRET Facility Clearance as a condition for award, nor will possessing a clearance (or not) be an evaluation factor. This also applies to proposed contractor personnel. However, it is a requirement that offerors have the capability of obtaining the required security clearances. Consequently, an offeror may be removed from further consideration if during the evaluation process (pre-award) there are facts discovered that may indicate problems with an offeror being able to obtain a clearance for its facility and/or personnel. An awarded contract may also be terminated if a contractor is not able to obtain the necessary clearances after award.

Once contracts are awarded, DoS will assist the successful contractors with initiating the process for obtaining security clearances.

Question #5: Section L notes that the deadline for submitting clarification questions is COB Wednesday October 18th. This year, October 18th falls on a Tuesday. Could you please clarify?

Answer #5: This is clarified as follows: Questions will be accepted until the close of business on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. Close of business is considered 4:00 p.m. local (Charleston, SC) time.

Question #6: I wanted to confirm that the deadline for all materials to be in your possession is November 3, 2011, in order to be considered for the requirement.

Answer #6: That is correct. Please review #7 below for amended proposal delivery instructions.

Question #7: Will the Government accept hand-delivered final proposals?

Answer #7: No. Due to entry access restrictions, it’s not practical to allow hand-delivered proposals at our facility. As such, offerors should make sure to allow sufficient advance time for proposals to reach our Charleston, SC facility on or before the November 3, 2011 deadline.

Since hand-delivered proposals will not be accepted, the delivery instructions are revised as follows:

· U.S. Mail: Our mail room picks up U.S. mail once daily from the Post Office, usually between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

· UPS: UPS delivers once daily to our facility, typically around 3: 15 p.m.

· Federal Express: This courier service delivers once daily to our facility, typically in the afternoon before 5:00 p.m.

· DHL: This courier services delivers once daily to our facility, typically in the afternoon before 5:00 p.m.

To be accepted, offerors shall use one of the above four means of submitting proposals. Since the delivery times can vary daily, there will be no time deadline (only a date deadline). To be considered, a proposal must have been received at our facility on or before November 3, 2011. The only exception would be if an offeror used one of the above four services, and for some reason that service did not make its daily delivery (or pick up in the case of U.S. mail) on November 3, 2011. This is extremely unlikely, and to my knowledge has never occurred. The offeror would also have to provide documentation showing that it had used the particular service that did not make its November 3, 2011 daily delivery, and that but for the missed daily delivery, the proposal would have been received on time.

If a service used by an offeror makes its daily delivery on November 3, 2011 (at any time during the day), and the proposal is not in that delivery, no proposals will be accepted on any date after November 3, 2011. Likewise, if an offeror submits its proposal by U.S. mail and the mail room at our facility makes its daily pickup, and the proposal is not in the daily mail picked up, no proposals will be accepted on any date after November 3, 2011.

Question #8: In regards to Section L.4 of Offers, could DOS please confirm the following:

Responses in Red.

a) Offerors are only required to submit (1) paper copy of each of the three volumes, and only one (1) copy of the entire proposal on CD-ROM.

The following is a revision from the original RFP: Offerors must submit a total of two (2) paper copies of the proposal (one original and one copy). Only one (1) complete copy on a CD-ROM disk is required.

b) While all three volumes should be physically separate, they can be submitted in one and the same envelope together with the CD-ROM.

That is correct. In fact, only one envelope/package is recommended. Additionally, although the proposal consists of three separate Volumes, this does not mean that each Volume must be in a separate binder. All three Volumes may be in a single binder, folder, etc., as long as each Volume is clearly identified.

c) Proposals can be sent by registered mail and will be accepted between Monday, October 31, 2011 and November 3, 2011, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Please see #7 above for revised delivery instructions. Proposals will be accepted at any time on or before the November 3, 2011. There is no established date/time as to how early a proposal may be submitted before the November 3, 2001 due date.

d) As part of volume 1, the completed Section K is only required for the prime offeror.

That is correct. If an offeror has completed Online Representations and Certifications (https://orca.bpn.gov/), just note this in the proposal. I will then download the document myself from the ORCA website. Offerors who may not have completed Online Representations and Certifications are encouraged to visit the above website and complete this document on line.

e) FAR 52.204-7 Central Contractor Registration (APR 2008), included in the RFP under Section I.2.1, is only applicable to the prime offeror.

That is correct. As with Online Representations and Certifications, offerors who may not have registered in CCR are encouraged to visit the CCR website (https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/) and register.

f) Paper copies of the ORCA records of both prime and any subcontractors are not required as part of Volume 1 (or any other volume).

That is correct. Representations and Certifications are only required for the prime contractor, and if the prime has completed the document online (via ORCA), a paper copy is not required with the proposal.

g) Please confirm that the completed Price Calculation Worksheet currently provided in Attachment #2 of the RFP should be submitted as part of Volume 2 and in addition to the Completed Price Section B.8 (see also Section M.1.2.1 Price Calculation). If so, is it sufficient to include the completed summary page which can be found in Attachment 2 on Page 11 of 11?

As a clarification, in Item L.4 (Submission of Offers) Volume 2 should read: Completed Price Section (B.8) and Completed Price Calculation Worksheet (Attachment #2). The complete Price Calculation Worksheet (all pages) must be provided. It is not sufficient to include only the summary page (page 11).

Question #9: Section L.6.2 Format provides that the type size used for the technical proposal “shall be no smaller than 11 pitch”. Please confirm that offerors using variable-width fonts such as Times New Roman can assume a minimum font size of 11 point.

Answer #9: That is correct. Font pitch is limited to no smaller than 11 pitch, but the font type is at the discretion of each offeror.

Question #10:

Responses in red.

a) In Section L.5 General Company Information, the RFP requires offerors to submit information about their respective firms. Does DOS envision this information to be submitted (a) separately from the three volumes identified in Section L.4 Submission of Offers (i.e., in an additional, fourth volume) or (b) as part of one or more of these three volumes? If (b) is the correct answer, please specify (i) the volumes which should contain information to be provided pursuant to L.5 and (ii) if this information can be presented in an annex.

I will provide a format for providing the General Company Information specified in L.5. This will be provided as a new attachment, and will not be part of any of the three proposal Volumes.

b) Please confirm that the General Company Information is not included in the 25 page limit of the Technical Proposal.

That is correct. This will not count towards the 25 page limit for the technical proposal.

Question #11: Does the Government have an anticipated date of award for this contract?

Answer #11: It is anticipated that the contract(s) will be awarded this calendar year. However, task order projects are not anticipated until 2012 and after the holidays. No anticipated dates for possible task orders in 2012 have yet to be determined.

Question #12: Please confirm the number of awards that the Government intends to make. Section L.2.1 indicates that the Government contemplates award of up to six. Section L.2.2 states “The Government intends to award multiple contracts for the same or similar advisory and assistance services to “two or more sources” under this solicitation unless the Government determines, after evaluation of offers, that only one offeror is capable of providing the services at the level of quality required.”

Answer #12: Section L.2.2 is the standard (required) FAR clause and language for anticipated multiple awards for Advisory and Assistance Services. By including L.2.1 and L.2.2, as worded, it establishes the range of possible awards (one to six). The likely number is five to six contracts.

Question #13: Section L.6.3.2, Personnel Information, item (b) 1 states “It is not a requirement that a specific individual be identified as an available expert in only functional area.” Can DoS please clarify whether the intention was to state “…available expert in only one functional area.”?

Answer #13: That is correct. It should have read “…available expert in only one functional area.”

Question #14: Section L.6.3.1.1 specifies that the prime contractor “must have provided the types of professional services required to either Government or Commercial entities for a minimum of three years.” Our company has over 2 years relevant DoS experience to cite. Moreover, many of the company staff who will ultimately be proposed for this opportunity have over 20 years experience. We feel that the government would benefit from a robust competition of small firms and request that this restriction be reduced or waived. The statement of work appears to acknowledge the importance of including newer companies in Section L.6.3.4(b) where it states: “If project experience for the specific company is relatively limited (e.g., newly formed company), the offeror may substitute relevant projects of predecessor companies or key personnel that will be performing major aspects of the work.”

Answer #14: As a clarification, the same “substitution for relevant experience” would also apply in the case of Corporate Experience. That is, if Corporate Experience is relatively limited (e.g., newly formed company), the offeror may substitute relevant Corporate Experience of predecessor companies or key personnel that will be performing major aspects of the work.”

Question #15: Does the Government wish the offeror’s response to the Technical Elements of Section L.6.3 to apply to the Prime Contractor only, or can it apply to the entire proposed consortium (e.g., proposed major and/or non-major subcontractors; resource groups; etc.)?

Answer #15: Subcontractors and other teaming arrangements should be considered when addressing the technical elements of the proposal. In any event, the contractor must describe on what the information provided is based. For example, if demonstrating certain experience or a particular capability is based on a subcontractor or other member of the consortium, this should be clear in the proposal.

Question #16: Section L.6.3.1.2 Institutional Capability provides three bulleted paragraphs specifying how offerors are to demonstrate their institutional capabilities. Seeing that the second and third paragraphs, quoted below under (a) and (b), respectively, are similar in content to information required under L.6.3.1.1 Corporate Experience, is it permissible for offerors to address related experience in the Corporate Experience section of their technical proposal instead of the L.6.3.1.2 Institutional Capabilities Section?

a) Second Paragraph: “Describe capabilities with regard to managing multiple large projects requiring multiple types of services, hiring and maintaining qualified support staff, handling personnel issues, assembling high quality technical assistance teams in a timely manner, mobilizing technical resources to fill immediate short-term requirements, and fielding several teams simultaneously. This includes capabilities for projects involving subcontractors.” (Section L, page 5 of 7).

b) Third Paragraph: “Discuss capabilities with regard to project implementation, project management, client relations, use of local personnel in conducting evaluations and training, and working collaboratively with host-country counterparts and other donors to provide such groups with all necessary support and oversight.” (Section L, page 5 of 7) Answer #16: There is some overlap. However, to make the evaluation process consistent, each section should be completed. However, you may cross reference the two sections to save space, if the response in one of the sections was fully addressed in the other section.

Question #17: In light of the fact that sub-paragraph (b) under Section L.6.3.3 Management Plan is similar to the requirements put forth under 6.3.1., Corporate Experience/Institutional Capabilities, please confirm that offerors should follow the more specific instructions provided in the evaluation criteria under M.1.3.4 Management Plan.

Answer #17: Since the Management Plan (L.6.3.3) will be evaluated as per M.1.3.4, it is recommended that offerors read both of these sections and make sure that the Management Plan is appropriately developed.

Question #18: In Section L, page 7 it states that, “Note: Past Performance information must be provided using the format provided as section J, Attachment 3.” However, there is no section J, Attachment 3 in the document, only Attachments 1 and 2. Page 7 also refers to both “Attachment #2” and “Attachment # 3” for providing past performance information. It appears, though, that Attachment #2 is the Price Calculation Worksheet. Please clarify.

Answer #18: The solicitation attachments should be as follows:

Attachment 1:

QDDR References (link to download QDDR reference documents).

Attachment 2:

Price Calculation Worksheet.

Attachment 3:

Format for Past Performance Information.

Attachment 4:

General Company Information.

The first two attachments were provided with the solicitation. Attachments 3 and 4 will be provided with Solicitation Amendment 01 to be issued shortly.

Question #19: Do Past Performance References count against the 25 page limit or can they instead be presented as an annex to the proposal, as non-counted pages? It is unclear whether L.6.3.4 item (d) in referencing material not being included in the 25-page limit applies to the entire section, or just item (d)?

Answer #19: Past Performance References do not count towards the 25 page limit for technical proposals. This includes any of the items (a through d) of L.6.3.4. See also Item L.6.2 (Format) for the list of items that do not count towards the 25 page limit. A format for providing Past Performance Information will also be provided (see #18 above).

Question #20: To comply with L.6.3.4 (Past Performance), are offerors required to include a narrative description on relevant prior experience as part of the 25 pp technical proposal limit?

Answer #20: No. A narrative is not required in addition to the information that would be provided as per L.6.3.4. As long as past performance information includes the information specified in L.6.3.4, that would be considered sufficient (see also #19 above).

Question #21: In reference to the base year and option year tables in Appendix 2: what does “Hours (Annual Est)” indicate? Is this the minimum number of hours that will be required per year or the maximum annual ceiling of hours?

Answer #21: It is neither the minimum nor the ceiling. It is only an annual estimate of hours for each category. It is the multiplier you must apply to your proposed hourly labor rate to arrive at the Total Annual Estimated Amount for the respective labor category.

More About the Price Calculation Worksheet (RFP Attachment 2): For Government contracts, cost/price must always be one of the evaluation factors. As per the FAR, the RFP must state the relative importance of cost/price and technical factors. This is addressed in M.2.4, which states that all evaluation factors other than cost/price when combined are significantly more important than cost/price factors. This means that although cost/price is always an important consideration, the Government is giving greater importance to the technical qualifications and capabilities of firms. In a best value scenario, the Government may decide to award to a better qualified firm, even though it may not offer the lowest cost to the Government. This also means that in cases where firms may be similarly qualified, price will become more important as a determining factor.

Since actual future requirements are not known, a process was developed for calculating prices using a reasonable and practical approach. Based on the most likely requirements, a list of positions and the estimated annual hours for each was developed. A mix of skill levels was also included. The labor categories, estimated annual hours, and mix of skill levels is considered representative of the requiring activity’s best estimate of likely services. This is why not all 29 positions were included in the Price Calculation Worksheet.

Question #22: RFP Section M.1.2.1. The Price Calculation states that “the labor rates for each contract position shall be based on Senior (Skill Level I) personnel” (Second paragraph). The same section also states that “The price calculation shall include all positions shown, as well as all skill levels listed for each position” (First paragraph): Please provide clarification as to how the rates shall be based on Senior personnel. Should the rates for Levels II and III be derived from the rates of Level I skill level personnel for which offerors are asked to submit resumes?

Answer #22: This should be corrected to read as follows: Offerors shall fill in the labor rates for all positions and all skill levels in the worksheet and calculate the total estimated amount for each position and skill level based on the estimated hours provided for the respective positions and skill levels.

Question #23: 3) Section J Attachment 2: What is the purpose of the column heading “Labor Rate (Level I)” in Attachment 2 and what information are offerors expected to provide under this column?

Answer #23: The column heading should be “Labor Rate” and not include the reference for Level I, as there are multiple skill levels listed for several positions.

Question #24: On the Base Year rates starting on page 3 of 22 in Section B, there are 29 position categories listed. However on the price calculation worksheet in Attachment 2 there are only 13 position categories. Are all position categories expected to be utilized? Why is there this discrepancy?

Answer #24: Please see the Answer for #21 above.

Question #25: Section M.1.2.1 Price Calculation indicates that “price will be calculated based on a sampling of the contract positions,” which “includes 13 of the 29” CLINs listed.

Responses in Red.

a) Please confirm that while the price calculation will only include 13 of the 29 contract positions, DOS is requesting offerors to provide rates for all 29 positions.

That is correct. Volume 2 (considered the pricing section of the proposal) must include the following: Completed Price Section (B.8), including all 29 positions, and Completed Price Calculation Worksheet (Attachment #2).

b) Please specify how offerors cost/price proposals will be evaluated inasmuch as the remaining 16 contract positions are concerned (those positions not included in the Price Calculation Worksheet).

Although the remaining 16 positions will not be considered in calculating the proposed price, the technical evaluation panel will note any proposed rates that may appear questionable based on the knowledge and experience of panel members. This, for example, may include rates that have an apparent mistake (e.g., wrong decimal place), or rates that may appear either unreasonably high or low. Apparent errors or other issues would not preclude an offeror from being otherwise included in a competitive range (if established). Typically, apparent errors are addressed through clarifications. Other issues (e.g., rates that may appear unreasonably high or low) are typically addressed through discussions with offerors included in the competitive range.

The Government’s objective is to identify possible errors, unbalanced proposals, or other pricing issues, to ensure that these items are addressed prior to contract award. This does not mean that revisions will be required. It’s simply in the best interest of all parties to make sure there are no unintended errors or issues with proposals.

c) Will fixed hourly rates provided for these remaining 16 CLINs in no way influence cost/price evaluation as per Section M of the RFP?

All rates will be reviewed in terms of reasonableness, and will be considered. However, as noted in Item “b” above, rates considered unreasonably high or low and/or having apparent errors are typically addressed through clarifications or discussions with offerors in the competitive range. Offerors should also keep in mind that task orders will generally be competed (reference C.12). This is one area where an awardee with relatively high labor rates may be at a competitive disadvantage for task order projects. However, since contract holders may propose different solutions (personnel, labor mix, etc.) for meeting specific requirements, whether or not labor rates are an issue generally cannot be determined until after some task orders have been awarded. In keeping with the fair opportunity objective, feedback will be provided to contract holders during the course of the contacts. This will allow contactors to determine if there are areas they may need to take into account to be more competitive.

Question #26: Section J Attachment 2. At the end of this section there is a Table for “Total Estimated Contract Amount”: Should the amounts for each year include “plug-in” figures for Other Directs Costs?

Answer #26: No. Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will be proposed at the task order level, and will be as permitted by Government regulations and/or as negotiated for certain requirements. Unlike the estimated amount of services, there is no practical way to determine estimated ODCs for the purpose of arriving at the proposed contract price.

Question #27: Section C.10 (Other Direct Costs): Please confirm that all the costs under this section will not be included in the cost proposal of IDIQ.

Answer #27: That is correct. The price section of the proposal (Volume 2) is only to include the items as noted in Question #25, item “a”.

Question #28: RFP Section C.10 does not discuss hazardous pay. Does the Government wish to see this component as an ODC?

Answer #28: Although not a stated policy, for contractor personnel working overseas on a project, post differential and danger pay allowances (when permitted under a contract) generally follow the same rules as those that apply to U.S. personnel (e.g., Foreign Service Officers) assigned to the location where the work will be performed. For this requirement, post differential and danger pay allowances will be permitted. I will include this in Solicitation Amendment 01 to be issued shortly.

Question #29: Section C.10 (Other Direct Costs) includes in Sections C.10.2 through C.10.5 a listing of ODCs included in this contract. Kindly indicate whether the following specific ODCs are to be understood as included in the IDIQ, provided that any related expenses are incurred in direct support of the performance of services identified at the Task Order level:

a) Travel: (1) medical exams, (2) inoculations, (3) medical evacuation insurance, (4) passport and visas;

b) Household Effects (HHE) Shipments;

c) Operations, Equipment, and Supplies: (1) communications, (2) document reproduction, (3) postage, shipping, and courier, (3) office supplies, (4) legal, accounting, and payroll services;

d) Allowances: (1) foreign per diem allowances, (2) cost-of-living allowances, (3) recruitment and retention incentives such as Danger Pay and Post Hardship Differential;

e) Purchase Orders for the acquisition of services from specialized firms which are not in a subcontractor relationship with the offeror. Examples of relevant services include IT services, professional production of communication materials, management of the logistics of a multi-country population-based survey.

Answer #29: Section C.10 (Other Direct Costs) was not meant to be all inclusive. It should be amended to add “and other allowable ODCs that may be proposed at the task order level.” For example, I would consider all of the examples you provided in items “a” through “e” above to be allowable.

Following up on my response to Question #25 (item c), since task orders will generally be competed, it’s likely that contract holders will propose varying solutions for specific requirements. For example (using an overseas project), there may be a case where one contractor has identified qualified individuals that live overseas near the location of the project, whereas another contractor intends to relocate personnel from the U.S. to the project location. Both scenarios may be suitable solutions, but the costs involved (particularly ODCs) would vary significantly. As specified in C.12.2.1, award of a task order will be based on price, technical, and past performance factors. In some cases it may be that a task order will be awarded primarily on price. This may not be the case with other task orders. In any event, the Request for Task Order Proposal (RFTOP) will state the criteria on which the task order will be evaluated.

Question #30: The tables in Appendix 2 do not contain rows for the hours and rates for the IDIQ and Technical Managers. How should we provide this information?

Answer #30: The IDIQ Manager and Senior Technical Advisor are considered Key Personnel assigned as having overall responsibility for the contract. These types of positions are typically considered overhead positions, which is why they were not included as positions with rates in the pricing tables.

If there are projects where these individuals will perform tasks or services related specifically to the project (i.e., a functional labor category), the cost of those services (labor rates, proposed hours, etc.) would need to be included in the task order proposal. In general terms, though, the general contract oversight duties of these key individuals would not be billable.

Question #31: Will the Government allow the Key Personnel (IDIQ Manager or Senior Technical Advisor) to simultaneously fulfill the requirements in one or more functional labor categories?

Answer #31: See #30 above.

Question #32: Can the Department of State provide descriptions for the following labor categories in Appendix 2 with respect to the requirements of this RFP:

a. Human Capacity Development Specialist.

b. Program and Policy Analyst.

Answer #32: Prospective Offerors with experience in this type of work should be familiar with the above positions. In fact, familiarity with the all of the positions included in the RFP is assumed.

Question #33: Must a company submit a bid for all of the positions listed in the positions listed in the RFP or can a company bid on only some of the positions?

Answer #33: Proposals must include all positions.

Question #34: RFP Section L.6.3.3.b stipulates that “all categories of the statement of work” are to be addressed when describing processes and procedures to provide the Technical and Advisory Services. Would the Government please clarify how offerors should prepare our responses to this section? Specifically:

a) Does the Government wish to see a general management plan which describes how offerors will provide the services described in the SOW – i.e. a technical approach to each of the services in the SOW?

b) Does the Government wish to see a high-level description of how offerors would structure their teams and manage Task Orders issued under this contract?

Answer #34: Your two assumptions above correctly describe how offerors should respond to the Section you referenced.

Question #35: For the Master’s Degree requirement for Level 1 personnel, would the Government consider additional years of experience in lieu of the Master’s Degree?

Answer #35: This would be acceptable.

Question #36: The Government indicated that there is no commitment to issue any task orders against this contract upon award. Given this statement, will the Government please clarify what it is looking for in the “Signed acknowledgement letters from each of the proposed personnel confirming their intent to serve in the stated position should a contract be awarded?” These are highly skilled, senior level individuals, and it may therefore be difficult to restrict them from seeking employment elsewhere if they are not immediately engaged, and likewise it may be difficult for a small firm to hire them immediately upon contract award if there is no billable work for them to perform.

Answer #36: It’s not expected that the companies awarded contracts will actually be filling all positions (via hiring) immediately following award. What the Government is looking for are letters demonstrating that the personnel included in your proposal are committed to work when available, should a task order be awarded that requires their respective types of expertise.

Question #37: Section B.8.1 provides minimum experience and education requirements for Senior, Mid-level, Junior, and Support staff.

Responses in red.

a) In keeping with prior USG practice, and as specifically permitted for IDIQ key personnel in Section C.7.3 of the RFP, can relevant professional experience (typically eight years) be substituted for advanced degrees required for Senior and Mid-level staff, both at the RFP and implementation stage of this IDIQ?

Yes. This would be acceptable.

b) Would DOS consider reducing the minimum years of experience required for Level I (Senior) and Level II (Mid Level) staff from 15 and 10 years, respectively, to 12 and 8 years, respectively?

No. These will remain as specified.

Question #38: RFP Section L.6.3.4.a stipulates “the offeror must provide past performance references for itself, as well as each significant subcontractor”. Does the Government wish to receive a minimum of 3 past performance references for the Offeror, AND another minimum of 3 past performances for each significant subcontractor?

Answer #38: This would be a minimum of three references total, not three for each entity.

Question #39: In our experience, a one year base period (as provided in Section B.4. Contract Period) sometimes limits interest from operating units who want to initiate longer term task orders. This has led to under utility of previous similar IDIQs. Would it be possible to extend the base period to cover the five year period?

Answer #39: No. What you are describing is a multi-year contract, which will not apply in this case. Although I understand your concerns, this will be a contract with a Base Year and Four Option Years, for a possible total contract period of five years.

Question #40: In Section L.6.3.3 Management Plan, following the sentence “In this context, the offeror shall:” the RFP provides three sub-paragraphs with additional instructions. Considering that these three paragraphs are labeled (b), (c), and (d), please clarify whether an additional paragraph labeled (a) is missing from the list.

Answer #40: This was an auto-formatting error and there are no missing items.

Question #41: In Section L.6.3.4 Past Performance, following the sentence “Each contract […] shall include the following customer reference information:” the RFP provides a list with nine numbered items, starting with “2.”. Please clarify whether an additional item labeled “1” was accidentally omitted from the list.

Answer #41: This was also an auto-formatting error, and the items numbered 2 through 10 should have been numbered 1 through 9. I will also be providing the format to use (as a new attachment) for Past Performance.

Question #42: Section L.6.3.4 Past Performance lists individual elements of customer reference information required for past performance information. Item 7 of the list asks for the “dollar value of the entire project.” Could DoS please confirm that offerors providing a past performance reference for a project on which they were a subcontractor should report the “dollar value of the entire project,” as opposed to the dollar value of the applicable subcontract?

Answer #42: What I would suggest is to include the dollar amount of the entire project, but provide details on what aspects and percentage of the work (not in dollars) you performed as a subcontractor.

Question #43: Please clarify whether offerors should provide information to support consent to subcontractors as part of their cost proposals, i.e. Volume 2 per Section L.4 of the RFP. If so, what kind of information would be required to support consent?

Answer #43: If an offeror includes proposed subcontractors, it’s assumed that appropriate arrangements/agreements have been made between the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors, should a contract be awarded. Keep in mind that the technical qualifications of offerors will be evaluated based on the information provided in offers, including proposed subcontractors. Consent forms or copies of signed agreements for subcontractors are not required with proposals. However, if determined necessary at any time during the evaluation process, the Government may request additional information regarding proposed subcontractors. The Government may also take additional steps to verify subcontractor roles, etc., once the apparent successful offerors have been identified.

Question #44: Could DOS please provide the percentage weight of each evaluation criterion in Section M of the RFP?

Answer #44: The FAR requires only that technical elements be listed in their relative order of importance. The technical evaluation criteria (and relative order of importance) is detailed in M.1.3.1. In recent years, DoS has moved away from providing specific point values. Offerors are encouraged to adequately address all technical elements as specified in Section L.

Question #45: Diplomacy is not included in the CLINs Table but it is mentioned several times throughout the RFP. Please clarify whether it should it be included in the table.

Answer #45: No. In general, Diplomacy is the key function of DoS. This is true of the work performed by DoS both domestically and overseas. Diplomacy is considered more an overarching concept than a functional labor category.

Question #46: Section L.6.1 (General) states that the Technical Proposal should indicate a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken and the responsibilities of all parties involved. Since the Technical Proposal elements are: 1) Corporate Experience; 2) Personnel Information; 3) Management Plan; and 4) Past Performance, please indicate where we should include this information.

Answer #46: Since the information provided in L.6.3.1 through L.6.3.4 should be relevant (speak to the program evaluation requirements as laid out in all sections of the solicitation), it’s assumed that if the information provided for L.6.3.1 through L.6.3.4 is sufficient, adequate, and relevant, by default the offeror will have demonstrated a clear understanding of the work and the roles and responsibilities of the various parties.

Question #47: Please confirm whether we need to submit bio data sheets for the proposed experts for the functional labor categories.

Answer #47: Resumes are required (see L.6.3.2, Item b).

Contractor Questions Set #1 – RFP No. S-AQMMA-11-R-0314 – Technical and Advisory Services