Microsoft Word - SOLR5100005 Solicitation Q A.pdf

Questions and Answers in Response to SOLR5100005

Kendra Kozak, Contract Specialist

March 23, 2011

Evaluation of Price and Price Related Issues

Q.1 Please clarify how we should interpret the term “price will not be evaluated” in Evaluation

Factor I, especially in conjunction with the phrase mentioning cost from FAR 1552.215-7(a) “The

Government will make award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government cost or other factors considered.”

We understand per the cited FARs that other factors besides price, when combined, are significantly more important than price, and that proposed pricing may be assessed for reasonableness and fair understanding of the work. Does “price will not be evaluated” mean, however, that any cost advantage (lower costs) proposed to the government will not be considered at all by the Agency in evaluating the price or technical proposal or in determining an award?

A.1 Price and technical proposal are evaluated independent of each other; price or cost is not considered when evaluating the technical proposal. Reference M.4 regarding how price will be evaluated.

Q.2 Page 73 of 86. Section L.5, Table of Proposal Copies and Page Limits restricts the Price

Volume to 10 pages. This page restriction could restrict the level of supporting documentation provided by the prime, especially if the prime is proposing Team members that will also be required to provide supporting documentation. Is EPA willing to exclude the Price Volume from page limitations?

A.2 In an amendment to the solicitation, EPA will increase the page limit for the price volume to 20 pages; the Section B spreadsheet will NOT count toward the page limit.

Q.3 Page 73 of 86. Section L.5, Table of Proposal Copies and Page Limits. Could EPA provide further detail as to what is required to address the supporting documentation requirement listed for Volume I Price Proposal? Is EPA looking for the proposed labor rate development for each labor category?

A.3 Please provide a buildup of each labor rate as part of the supporting documentation.

Q.4 Are the rates in Schedule B intended to apply to all team members, both prime and subcontractors (i.e. one Schedule B)?

A.4 Rates in Schedule B apply to the price and team members or team subcontractors. Under this requirement, EPA does not have privity of contract with the subcontractors.

Q.5 Page 14 of the RFP provides amounts for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and Travel. For pricing purposes only, does EPA require offerors to distribute these total ODC and Travel amounts amongst the major task statement of work areas? Do the amounts provided for ODCs and

Travel include or exclude G&A?

A.5 Please refer to the spreadsheet for Section B; the bottom of the schedule has a table for

ODCs, travel, and applicable G&A.

Q.6 Section B, Page 15, states that the Government shall pay the contractor for the life of a task order the rates in effect at the time the Task Order was issued, even if performance under the task order crosses into another period. Would EPA please confirm if this statement also applies to individual years of the Base Period? For example, would an award of a task order during Year

1 that is anticipated to continue to Year 3 be priced using only Year 1 rates?

A.6 Yes; rates at the time of task order placement apply throughout the task order period of performance. Task orders will be project based.

Technical Approach

Q.7 Page 17 of 86. Task 1.2 GLRI Reporting states “Examples of the reports include…financial reports on the progress of the GLRI. Under this contract, does this requirement include financial reporting of activities performed by others receiving GLRI funding (e.g., other federal agencies such as NOAA) or will this be limited to EPA’s GLRI funding?

A.7 No.

Evaluation Factors

Q.8 Page 84 of 86. Section M.5, II. Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, states that “technical experience will be evaluated on the demonstrated understanding, capability and expertise to perform all tasks…” However, Section L.5, Table of Proposal Contents, Volume II, Part I

Technical Experience (page 74 of 86) asks offerors to “discuss understanding and knowledge of the government’s requirement as well as technical ability and approach to performing the tasks…” Please confirm that Section M. Evaluation Criteria takes precedence and EPA is not looking for a formal technical approach for each task under Volume II, Part I.

A.8 Following the evaluation criteria, the technical proposal should discuss how the firm will achieve each task in the SOW.

Q.9 The current sub-contracting past performance threshold is listed as a subcontractor receiving more than $100K will be required to submit past performance. Industry’s concern is that given the page constraints for Volume II we feel that having to include past performance data for subcontracting at such a small dollar threshold will reduce industry’s ability to fully respond to the requirements of Volume II. Given the potential 3 year base value of the contract is estimated at $12M, would the government consider increasing the $100K threshold to a larger figure (e.g., $500K)?

A.9 Not at this time; This value applies to the prime and proposed team subcontractors.

References should be limited to 5 submissions per firm. Reference submissions, using the attachment, will NOT count toward the technical proposal page limitation under Volume II.

Q.10 Part IV of Volume II on Page 73 lists the Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization reporting requirements as “Provide targets expressed in dollars and percentages total contract value intended participation of SDB”. Whereas Part II of Volume III on page 73 lists the

Subcontracting Plan reporting requirements as “All goals should be submitted as a percentage.”

To keep cost information out of the non-cost volumes, would the Government accept both of these values in Volumes II and III being represented only as percentages?

A.10 Targets should be represented in terms of a percentage.

Q.11 On RFP p. 73, the Table of Proposal Copies and Page Limits lists Volume II, Part IV as Past

Performance, and Part V as Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization. On page 75, the Table of

Proposal Contents says just the opposite. Which is correct?

A.11 The solicitation will be amended to show SDBU as Part IV and Past Performance as Part

V as it is represented in Section L and M.

Key Personnel and Labor Categories

Q. 12 Please clarify the types and quantities of resumes required/allowed. Section H.24 (a) Key

Personnel appears to identify four key personnel for the contract: Program Manager, Project

Manager, Engineer IV, and Scientist IV. Volume IV Part II requires three page resumes of Key

Personnel that follow the “Key Personnel temple [sic] attached...”, so we assume this means four resumes at three pages each – is this correct? Volume II requires presentation of proposed personnel technical experience and professional qualifications, including referencing resumes of Key Personnel in Part II. We assume that the qualifications and experience of other proposed personnel other than the four individuals identified as Key Personnel can be presented in any format (e.g. narrative) in Volume II – is that correct? Can or should the resumes of individuals other than Key Personnel be presented in Volume II, or in any other place in the response? If so, do the resumes of the other individuals have to conform to the attachment A.7 Key Personnel resume template?

A.12 Resumes should only be submitted for Key Personnel using the template format.

Q.13 In regards to the Technician II Labor Category, the Job Description calls for a “P.E. or equivalent certification”. This is not consistent with the requirements for the lower level engineering categories, as these do not require a P.E. Is the P.E. requirement for the Technician

II accurate?

A.13 The solicitation amendment will redact the P.E. requirement.

Q.14 Pages 26 of 86 through 31 of 86 provide descriptions of the Labor Categories to be used under the subject contract, including minimum qualifications. Are equivalencies possible for any of these minimum qualifications? For example, is it possible to substitute a Bachelors plus

15 years of experience for the Masters plus 10 years experience listed for Program Manager?

A.14 The solicitation will be amended to allow experience to substitute education.

Q.15 Given the complexity and diversity of the Statement of Work elements, could offerors propose labor categories in addition to the labor categories listed in Attachment B, while staying within the total number of hours requested? Doing so enables offerors to propose a labor category mix matching the technical approach proposed, at a best value to the

Government.

A.15 No.

Q.16 Page 45 of 86, Section H.24 Key Personnel outlines for labor categories to be considered key personnel. However, Section B. Pricing Spreadsheet directs offerors to provide rates for these labor categories (among others) separately for each Task, as well as Program

Management. Please confirm that EPA is looking for offerors to provide four (4) Key Personnel total, as opposed to four (4) distinct Key Personnel for each Task Area and Program

Management.

A.16 Please provide four (4) Key Personnel total.

Q.17 Volume IV Part III Letters of Intent: The sample letter of intent says “U.S. Region 5

Information Technology Support Service, Request for Proposal SOL-R5-10-00005”. We assume the actual reference should be “USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office Mission Support

Services, Request for Proposal SOL-R5-10-00005” – is this correct?

Q.18 Page 77: In the required items listed under Part III, Volume IV, Miscellaneous, the sample format for the letters of intent appears to be the same as the language in the client authorization letter shown in the file A.4.a Past Performance Questionnaire CPARS.doc. Is there another sample format we should use for the Letters of Intent?

A.17 and .18 An amendment to the solicitation will be issued removing the sample language from Section L. Offerors should provide Letters of Intent in their own language on corporate letterhead.

Format and Delivery

Q.19 RFP pages 72 and 73: Footnote 1 says that the page limit of the Cover Letter and Table of

Contents is 2 pages, but the Table of Proposal Copies and Page Limits says that the Executive

Summary is limited to 2 pages. Please clarify if the 2-page limit applies to the Executive

Summary only or also to the Cover Letter and Table of Contents.

A.19 The solicitation will be amended to redact “Executive Summary”. The two (2) page limit applies to the table of contents and cover letter.

Q.20 The RFP contains no specification for the size of type contained in graphics and tables.

Would 8-point be acceptable to the Government?

A.20 Yes.

Q.21 On p. 73, the Table of Proposal Contents, 2nd column, last sentence in the 1st paragraph reads “The offer shall be considered to be firm for a period of 180 days from the due date of the RFP.” Should this read “from the due date of the proposal?”

A.21 Read this as, “a period of 180 days from the due date of proposals stated in the RFP”.

Q.22 Would the Government clarify the delivery requirements on page 72/73? Are offerors to provide 6 paper copies only containing volume II and III and also provide a CD-ROM that includes volumes I, II, III and IV?

A.22 The CD-ROM should contain the entire offer submission. When paper copies are desired, they are identified by the number requested. For example, Six paper copies of the technical proposal should be submitted; One copy of the QMP should be submitted; A paper copy of Schedule B was not requested.

Q. 23 Page 71 of 86, Proposal Copies and Response Time, states that offerors must use standard

8.5” x 11” paper. Are offerors permitted to use 11” x 17” paper folded into 8.5” x 11” size?

A.23 Yes. This is restricted to spreadsheets, tables, or diagrams.

Q.24 In consideration of the limited page allocations, are offerors permitted to use ¾” margins in their submission?

A.24 Yes.

Q.25 Page 68 of 86. Section L.4, (3)(ii)(A)(3)(iv) states “If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal government process…the time specified for receipt of proposals will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the solicitation on the first work day on which normal Government process resume.” Considering the uncertainty related to a possible government shutdown, and for the Agency’s convenience of timing an amended proposal submission date and time, will EPA provide more notice than the “the first work day on which normal government processes resume?” In light of the fact that this is a print submission, would EPA change format to an electronic submission in the event the submission date needs to be extended for this reason?

A.25 If there is a government shut-down the solicitation will be suspended and instructions will be provided to all offerors prior to the effective shut-down.

Submission of Plans

Q.26 Page 79 of 86: Clause L.8 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees (FEB 1993) requires that offerors “submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.” This plan is not referenced in the Table of Proposal Contents and Page Limits (Pages

72 of 86 through 78 of 86), nor the Evaluation Factors for Award (Page 84 of 86 through 86 of

86). Is this plan to be a part of proposals submitted in response to this RFP, and if so how will it be evaluated/scored? Similarly, where should the plan be placed with respect to the Table of

Proposal Contents?

A.26 The solicitation will be amended to include the Evaluation of Compensation of

Professional Employees plan in the tables of Section L and M. Evaluation will be on a “pass” or “fail” basis in accordance with the standards of the clause. No page limit is placed on the plan.

Provisions and Clauses

Q.27 Page 70, section 6 states that “The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards”. Page 7, section B.1 states that “This is a single award IDIQ”. Can the Government confirm that this is either a multiple award or single award contract?

A.27 The government intends to award as single contract resulting from this solicitation.

Q.28 In addition to the offeror, are team subcontractors also required to complete and submit

Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Bidders?

A.28 Yes.

Q.29 The RFP has incorporated FAR 52.222-41 "Service Contract Act of 1965" by reference in

I.30. Should this clause be applicable to this RFP since the principal purpose of the contract is not to furnish services through the use of service employees as defined in FAR 22.1001? The vast majority of the services will be performed by professional staff.

A.29 The Service Contract Act applies to this requirement.

Q. 30 Page 61: Under K.1(a)(1), please specify what the NAICS code is for this solicitation (it is not included in the RFP).

A.30 The solicitation will be amended to add NAICS 541620.

Q.31 G.4, Ordering by Designated Ordering Officers, paragraph (c) requires that the Contractor acknowledge receipt of each order and prepare a staffing plan within ten days of receipt of an order, while I.71 Ordering Procedures requires the Contractor to respond to Requests for Offer.

Please clarify which of these procedures will apply to the contract, and if G.4 applies, does EPA authorize the Contractor to proceed with the work while preparing its staffing/work plan?

A.31 Because this vehicle is not an EPA work assignment vehicle, the ordering procedures at

I.71 will apply.

Q.32 The Section I references for the following FAR clauses appear to be out of date. Would

EPA please confirm the appropriate references?

a. 52.204-10

b. 52.219-9

c. 52.222-19

d. 52.222-37

A.32 Award documentation will be updated to include the most recent version of each clause.

Q.33 On page 76 of the solicitation, it states that for the Quality Management Plan, offerors should refer to section “L” of the solicitation as well as to an EPA link. Could you please clarify what specific information in section L is relevant?

A.33 The statement, “Offerors should refer to section “L” of the solicitation” will be redacted from the solicitation in an amendment.