SOL-CI-15-00017_Technical_Questions.docx

SOL-CI-15-00017 Technical Questions

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

SOL-CI-15-00017

(1) Attachment 6 (Technical Proposal Instructions): Item #4 on p. 6-2 refers to a CBI plan. There is no other reference to this plan. Please explain the required elements of the plan and where it falls within the evaluation factors.

There is no requirement to submit a Confidential Business Information (CBI) plan in response to this solicitation. Please refer to the applicable section H clauses (e.g. H-10 EPAAR 1552.235-70 Screening Business Information for Claims of Confidentiality, H-11 EPAAR 1552.235-71 Treatment of Confidential Business Information, H-12 EPAAR 1552.235-79 Release of Contractor Confidential Business Information, and H-13 EPAAR 1552.235-80 Access to Confidential Business Information) for requirements regarding CBI.

(2) Attachment 6 (Technical Proposal Instructions): Under Criterion 1 (Past Performance), no mention is made of “all current contract” in contrast to the requirements in Section L.15 of the RFP. Please clarify this discrepancy; we assume Section L is controlling.

There is no discrepancy. Note that the Criterion instructions on Attachment 6 are provided to supplement the technical evaluation criteria as set forth in the provision at M-4 EPA-M-15-101 Evaluation Factors for Contract Award (see #6 on page 6-2 of Attachment 6). Note also that paragraph 3 under Criterion 1 on page 6-3 of Attachment 6 requires the offeror to provide the information as required by L-15 EPAAR 1552.215-75 Past Performance Information.

To clarify further, there are three distinct issues relevant to this discussion.

First, who is required to submit past performance information? Section L-15 (a) requires the offeror to submit past performance information, as part of the proposal, for both the offeror and for any proposed subcontractors whose subcontracts are expected to exceed $500,000.

Second, what information is required to be submitted? For all vendors (prime and subcontractor) that are required to submit past performance information under L-15(a), section L-15 (b) requires past performance information on all or at least five contracts or subcontracts completed in the last 3 years AND all contracts and subcontracts currently in process, which are similar in nature to this requirement.

Third, what past performance information is being used under the evaluation factors for award? Section M-4 (b) then provides that the evaluation of past performance will be based on the same information required to be submitted under L-15(b), i.e. all or at least five contracts or subcontracts completed in the last 3 years AND all contracts and subcontracts currently in process, which are similar in nature to this requirement.

(3) Attachment 6 (Technical Proposal Instructions): Under Criterion 1 in the Technical Proposal Instructions, EPA states: “Type is defined as nature of the agreement (i.e. cost-reimbursement/cost-plus-fixed-fee) and offeror’s role (i.e. prime/subcontractor).” By using “i.e.” instead of “e.g.” was EPA trying to say that in order for the type of past performance to be considered similar it must be as stated (only cost-reimbursement/CPFF contracts) or were you including these are examples? For example, if we have a T&M contract that has very similar size and scope of work, should we not include it as the prime because it is not a cost-reimbursement/cost-plus-fixed fee contract? And, as another example, for our subcontractors, should they only provide references where they acted as subcontractor since that is the role they have here? We do not think EPA wanted to be so exclusionary on this element of identifying similarity in past performance, but the use of “i.e.” could be read to mean so.

The Technical Proposal Instructions are revised to replace “i.e.” with “e.g.” As noted, the use of “i.e.” denotes a different meaning than the use of “e.g.” It was not EPA’s intent to be so exclusionary and specific so as to preclude the inclusion of similar contract types not specifically identified following the “i.e.” abbreviation.

(4) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): EPA states that “Those individuals included in the technical proposal must be included in the cost proposal in a magnitude consistent with the significance of their role in the technical proposal.” Based on the technical proposal requirements, the only requirement for personnel in the Technical Proposal is the individual(s) who will fulfill the Program Manager role and any individuals in the Quality Management Plan that may bill direct labor. Please confirm that this underlined sentence (and the subsequent discussion in that paragraph) only refers to the Program Manager (and QA staff that bill direct).

Correct, the only personnel required to be specifically identified in the technical proposal is the Key Personnel (i.e. Program Manager). This individual must be included in the cost proposal in a magnitude consistent with their role in the technical proposal.

Note, however, that the quoted underlined sentence relates to the more general principle that the technical proposal and cost proposal must proportionately reflect the potential anticipated usage of direct labor personnel. The main factor being that an appropriate crosswalk of expertise and cost must be evident within the technical and cost proposals.

(5) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): EPA states in Paragraph (g) that: “This chart should be included in both the technical proposal and the cost proposal. However, only in the cost proposal should the chart also reflect the allocation of the specified ODC.” Where in the Technical Proposal would EPA want to see this chart? Is this part of the Corporate Experience evaluation?

Allocation of the specified level of effort among the prime and proposed subcontractors establishes a crosswalk between the technical and cost proposals, and allows for an evaluation that the labor breakdown is consistent with the technical approach. Placement of these charts within the technical proposal is a matter of offeror discretion.

(6) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): Please confirm that indirect cost build-up is required of all subcontractors and that each subcontractor (including those without approved cost accounting systems that will be billed on a T&M basis), must provide the detailed breakdown that shows fringe, overhead, and fee.

Inclusion of subcontracting costs is necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price for the prime contract. All offerors must separately identify costs and supporting data for each entity proposed, including subcontractors. Details of subcontract costs should be provided in the same format as the prime contractor’s costs.

Note also that the third paragraph under the “Note:” section on page 7-5 of the Attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Instructions provides instructions on the approach for proposed subcontractors or consultants who do not have an approved accounting system. In these instances, “a fixed-rate type subcontract would be more appropriate, and, for proposal purposes, the ODCs should remain with the prime contractor. During performance, the ODCs … may be allocated to the subcontractor or consultant on an as-needed basis.”

Additionally, attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Instructions is revised to add a new section (h) with details on cost proposal requirements for subcontracts.

(7) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): Can we assume that all subcontractors can submit this detail directly to EPA through FedConnect and a hard copy sent directly from the subcontractor to the government?

Yes, any vendors (including subcontractors) may identify and submit information as ‘cost sensitive’ through FedConnect. The attachment must be uploaded under “Cost Sensitive Attachments” instead of just “Attachments.” For additional information on the process of submitting cost sensitive information through FedConnect, please contact the FedConnect Help Desk at (800) 899-6665 or by email at support@fedconnect.net.

Also see the revised Attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Instructions, section (h) for additional details on providing cost sensitive data.

(8) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): For consultants, can we assume that an independent evaluation of rate reasonableness and include a letter of commitment showing the rate can take place of an indirect breakdown requirement?

For consultants’ costs, the offeror may include an independent evaluation of rate reasonableness and a signed agreement showing the proposed consultant rates.

(9) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): Would EPA consider some threshold before requiring indirect rate detail from subcontractors, such as the $500,000 threshold used for past performance?

There is no minimum threshold before requiring indirect rate details from subcontractors. Inclusion of subcontracting costs is necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price for the prime contract. All offerors must separately identify costs and supporting data for each entity proposed, including subcontractors.

See the revised Attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Instructions, section (h) for additional details on cost proposal requirements for subcontracts.

(10) Section L.27, Note 1, specifies detailed records that must be submitted to support direct labor, overhead, and G&A costs. Does this requirement apply to all subcontractors as well, regardless of the overall value of expected subcontracting? Or is the prime contractor’s evaluation of subcontractor as required by FAR 15.404-3(b) (2) (and specified in Clause L.27(c) deemed adequate?

The requirement to provide documentation to support proposed rates applies to all subcontractors regardless of the overall value of the expected subcontracting. See also the revised Attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Instructions, section (h) for additional details on cost proposal requirements for subcontracts.

(11) The estimated hours for the Program Manager show only about a 25% commitment for the base quantity (50% if optional quantity exercised). Can we propose a Program Manager that is fully committed to the contract but may spend a portion of his/her time conducting project management and/or technical work, such that their remaining hours would be allocated to the pool of non-Program Manager P-4 hours? Or does EPA expect a less than full time Program Manager for this effort?

Allocation of the level of effort, number of individuals, and position titles are all matters of offeror discretion and business judgment. The cost proposal shall reflect the level of effort of professional personnel proportionately to the potential anticipated usage of that particular personnel. It is not the intent of EPA to define the duties of the Program Manager so as to require a certain level of effort for this position from the contractor. Thus, while this is not a requirement, the offeror may propose a Program Manager that also works as or contributes substantially as a higher level technical specialist.

(12) Section L-15 refers to Section J for Client Authorization Letter and Past Performance Questionnaire forms. However, no forms are included in Section J or the Attachments referenced in Section J. Please provide the expected form for each of these items.

See attachments added: Attachment 9 – Client Authorization Letter and Attachment 10 – Past Performance Questionnaire

(13) Attachment 7 (Cost Proposal Instructions): Section b - Can the cost breakdown format be altered to add lines for additional cost details (to include Subcontractor Handling costs and further breakdown ODC costs to include Travel, Communications, IT Licenses, and Other Meeting Costs)?

Offerors should prepare proposals utilizing the cost breakdown, labor categories, level of effort, and ODCs specified in the solicitation. The primary purpose of this is to provide a sound basis on which to compare competing cost proposals. Nevertheless, the Attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Instructions allows offerors to adjust the cost proposals to add separate line items and revise the allocated ODC amounts under special circumstances.

Section (f) provides that if additional ODCs other than those listed are anticipated, the cost proposal must identify such costs as separate line items and include a narrative explanation regarding the basis for the additional ODCs.

The revised section (i) provides that if it is the offeror’s disclosed practice to apply an indirect rate to any of the categories of cost listed, that indirect cost would be over and above the specified amounts. The proposal should then identify the applicable indirect cost as a separate line item. Additionally, if the vendor has any normal ODC items that are not included, the offeror shall explain the basis for the ODC in the proposal and the appropriate amount shall be added to the specified ODC.

(14) Please clarify. There is no validity period specified for proposal submissions. The SF33 lists “60 days” if no other period is inserted. Is 180 days acceptable?

The cover memo that was included with the solicitation indicated that Block 12 of the SF33 form shall provide for a period of “120 calendar days” for acceptance of the proposal.

- 4 -