The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Question RFP Page OR Pre-Proposal Conference OR Site Visit
| RFP Para Reference (if question relates to the RFP) |
| Response |
| Does solicitation SP330020R5004 require 8(a) or is WOSB (woman-owned small business) suitable? |
| Page 2 |
| Paragraph 1 |
| Awardee must be an 8(a) firm. |
| 2 |
| Name of the incumbent contract? |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| The incumbent contractor is Technica, LLC. |
| 3 |
| Will an attendee list with contact information for this pre-proposal teleconference be made available? |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Yes, attendee list will be posted to beta.sam.gov. |
| 4 |
| Which CLIN (0001 CPFF or 0002 FFP) does the Government intend to use for the Management Quality and Training (Program Management Office) task order? |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| During the Pre-Proposal Conference it was announced that this task order would be awarded under the FFP CLIN – 0002; however, the Government intends to award the Program Management task order under the CPFF CLIN – 0001. |
| 5 |
| There is conflicting language within RFP, J.1 and J.19 regarding Key Personnel. Will the Government allow for deviation of FTE count for Key Personnel or does the Government expect a minimum of 8 Full Time Employees, specifically this exact labor mix: 1 FTE Project Manager, 1 FTE Alternate Project Manager, 4 FTE Trainer/Project Supervisor, 1 FTE Procurement Analyst, 1 FTE Quality Control Specialist. |
| RFP Page 55 |
Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.1.
Attachment J.19, Paragraph 6.
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Deviation from the Key Personnel specified in J.19 is not permitted. Proposals shall include 1 FTE Project Manager, 1 FTE Alternate Project Manager, 4 FTE Trainer/Project Supervisor, 1 FTE Procurement Analyst/Buyer, 1 FTE Quality Control Specialist. |
| 6 |
| If the Government requires 8 FTE Key Personnel, given the unknown of CPFF or FFP task order award- are these personnel billable at 1920 hours or only as utilized? |
| RFP Page 55 |
Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.1.
Attachment J.19, Paragraph 6.
| Paragraph L-23 |
| The Program Management task order will be issued under the CPFF CLIN – 0001. Key Personnel positions will be billable only for hours actually worked under the TO. |
| 7 |
| Can the Government provide estimated labor mix for the 26 non-key personnel required by J.19, paragraph 4.5, Task 6 Urgent Requirements? |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.2. |
Attachment J.19, Paragraph 4.5.3.
Non-key personnel will vary. Majority will be warehousing type support positions but this will fluctuate based on particular requirements. Historically, the personnel should be agile to perform warehouse specialist functions to include using some type of WMS, operating/driving MHE and physical labor requirements to manually move material if necessary.
| 8 |
| There are costs associated with having 26 non-key personnel prepared to deploy within 22 days, such as passports and pre-medical workup, are these costs reimbursable and where should these costs be priced? |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.4. |
Attachment J.19, Paragraph 4.5.3.
The Government anticipates these costs to be included in indirect rates.
| 9 |
| Factor 4, Subfactor (b): Continuation of Essential Contractor Services in Section L and CDRL A004 (page 2) provide varying guidance as to what the plan should contain. Which requirement should offerors follow for the Technical Volume? |
| RFP Page 57 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| The proposal shall address the information requested in Section L. The requirements in the CDRL A004 may be required on a task order basis. |
| 10 |
| Does the Government require offerors to address operational approach to PWS tasks listed in J.1 C-5 Specific Tasks in their Technical Volume given that DLA has provided SOPs for all tasks? |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 5 |
The Government is looking for overall management and operations approach as stated in Factor 3, Subfactor (a) of Section L, not an approach to each specific task listed in J.1 C-5 Specific Tasks.
| 11 |
| Training Specialist / Project Supervisor – minimum of 4 years required, is this minimum experience for training or project supervision or both? |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.1 |
Attachment J.19, Paragraph 4.1.3
Trainer/Project Supervisor shall have four years of training specialist experience and a minimum of 1 year experience as a supervisor/work leader.
Attachment J.1 PWS, C-1.3.1 has been updated. See Attachment J.1 PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001
Attachment J.19 PMO Task Order PWS, 4.1.3 has been updated. See Attachment J.19 PMO Task Order PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 12 |
| Slide 99: Government requests that Offeror should not include past performance information in Section L Volume III however specific Factors/subfactors request offeror to provide “experience with this type of work”. Please clarify the expectation for these sections. |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| RFP SP330020R5004 page 56, Factor 2; Program Management Office Approach, Subfactor (c) Support Planning, has been updated to state “approach” vice “experience”. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001. |
RFP SP330020R5004 page 56, Factor 3; Operational Support Approach, Subfactor (b) Staffing and Reach-back Capabilities, has been updated to state “approach to” vice “experience”. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
RFP SP330020R5004 page 69, Factor 2; Program Management Office Approach, Subfactor (c) Support Planning, has been updated to state “approach” vice “experience”. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 13 |
| For non-exempt positions that do not fall under the SCA wage determination, is the proposed rate for the IDIQ implemented for all CONUS and OCONUS efforts or will these be negotiated at the task order RFP/award. |
For locations where SCA applies, all non-exempt positions will fall under the SCA. For OCONUS efforts the SCA will not apply, offerors shall use local rates to the maximum extent practical.
| 14 |
| Can the Government advise if the offeror should propose separate labor rates for deployment vs non-deployment? |
The offeror shall not propose different rates for deployment vs. non-deployment. Deployment rates for exempt positions shall not differ from non-deployment. A Cost of Living Allowance as established by the Department of State may be allowable.
| 15 |
| J.1 C-4.2 Contractor Furnished Facilities states OCONUS facilities NLT 45 days of award; Section L states OCONUS facilities NLT 60 days of award. Which is accurate? |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 4.2 |
RFP Page 56
| Paragraph L-23 |
| RFP SP330020R5004 page 56, Factor 3 Operational Support Approach, Subfactor (c) Contractor Owned Contractor Operated Facilities, has been updated to read 45 days. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001. |
| 16 |
| Do all Major and non-major sub contractors have to have a DSS facility clearance at the time of proposal submission? |
| Pre-Proposal Conference, Slide 98 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Only the prime contractor needs a DSS Facility Clearance. Offerors are responsible for verifying their subcontractors’ facility status. |
| 17 |
| Section B states, “Solicitation Instructions (Totals): Offerors shall enter the Total Estimated Value for the entire contract.” However, CLIN 0002 in Section B is only 12 months. Should offerors provide pricing for all 60 months in this CLIN? If so, would the Government please revise Section B? |
| RFP Page 2 |
| Section B |
| Section B of RFP SP330020R5004 has been updated to reflect 60 months. Offerors shall take the total for all five years and divide by 60 to get the required unit price. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001. |
| 18 |
| Section B states, “Incentives may be utilized in unique circumstances (e.g. short duration, short suspense, security clearance requirements) and inclusion will be negotiated on a task order basis. See Section L-23, VOLUME IV – COST PROPOSAL, for additional information regarding incentives. If offerors do not propose incentives as part of their proposal submission, incentives will not be permitted during contract execution.” |
As incentives will be negotiated at the task order level as appropriate for the task/location/conditions, how should offerors propose incentives in Volume IV – Cost Proposal? Is adding any incentive in this proposal sufficient to ensure the offeror may propose/negotiate incentives on a task order basis? Or does it need to reflect a maximum allowable rate?
| RFP Page 3 |
| Section B |
| The incentive proposed in the offeror’s proposal will be the maximum allowable incentive for any task order. Depending on the nature of the task order, incentives up to this maximum allowable rate will be considered. If the offeror intends to utilize incentives on any task order, it must be proposed with initial offers. |
| 19 |
| Section B states, “The only exception to deviate from the base labor rates for exempt employees will be for Cost of Living Allowances for OCONUS requirements.” |
Given this direction, the base labor rates proposed for exempt labor categories would need to be based on a CONUS location with the highest market rate. How will offerors be evaluated on exempt positions?
| RFP Page 3 |
| Section B |
| The Government will not provide direction on how the offeror should propose exempt rates. The rates proposed for the exempt positions will be evaluated on a cost basis only – non-cost factors, i.e. location, will not be taken into account. |
| 20 |
| Will OCONUS-related costs such as DBA insurance, Danger Pay, Post Hardship Differential, CONUS Replacement Center (CRC), etc. be proposed at the task order level? Will they be reimbursed under ODCs? |
| RFP Page 3 |
| Section B |
| Yes, these costs will be handled at a task order level. If allowable, costs that pertain to wage rates, such as Danger Pay, will be billable to either CLIN 0001 or CLIN 0002, depending on which is included in the specific task order. Other Direct Costs, such as DBA Insurance, will be billable to CLIN 0003. |
| 21 |
| Due to the file size constraints of an email submission, would the Government consider accepting proposals through the use of a secure file exchange website such as DOD SAFE? |
| RFP Page 49 |
| Paragraph L-22 |
| Proposals shall be submitted via email. |
| 22 |
| Is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) billable? If so, is it included as part of CLIN 0003? |
| Section B |
| Yes, PPE will be allowable and will be reimbursed under CLIN 0003. |
| 23 |
| Is Material Handling Equipment (MHE) training billable? If so, is it included as part of CLIN 0003? |
| Section B |
| Yes, MHE Training will be allowable and will be reimbursed under CLIN 0003. |
| 24 |
| Are Department of Transportation (DOT) Physicals, which are required on some bases to operate MHE, billable? If so, is it included as part of CLIN 0003? |
| Section B |
| Yes, DOT Physicals will be allowable and will be reimbursed under CLIN 0003. |
| 25 |
| Hazardous Material Handling Specialist is listed in the PWS C-1.3.3 paragraphs 11 and 21 with different requirements (degree, training requirements, etc.). Please confirm the correct requirements for the Hazardous Material Handling Specialist. |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.3 |
Attachment J.1 PWS C-1.3.3 paragraph 11 has been removed and replaced with the following: 20. Hazardous Material Handling Specialist - Must have the capability and training to receive, issue, and prepare for shipment hazardous materials. Requires successful completion of OSHA compliance training and Hazardous Materials Preparer Certification IAW Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) Part II, Cargo Movement, Chapter 204-7, Training, DLAI 4145.3 Preparing Hazardous Material for Military Air Shipment, and DLAI 1307 Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Training for Packaging and Transportation Personnel Process Guidance prior to the beginning of full performance. (See TE 4.1, Contractor Training). Uses WMS and other Government Data Systems to perform the requirements in the PWS.
See Attachment J.1 PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 26 |
| Would the Government provide a tentative schedule for training requirements to personnel other than the contractor’s own employees, as this impacts offeror’s PMO proposal? |
| Attachment J.19, Paragraph 4.3.1 |
There is currently no scheduled requirement for the contractor to provide training to personnel other than the contractor’s own employees. Any requirement to train personnel other than the contractor’s own employees will be addressed in the requiring task order’s PWS.
| 27 |
| For proposal outline purposes, would the Government please confirm whether Subfactor (a) should be titled “Program Management Office Support” or “Program Management Office Staffing.” |
| RFP Pages 50 of 71, |
54 of 71, 67 of 71,
| Paragraph L-23 |
| RFP SP330020R5004 page 54, Subfactor (a): Program Management Office (PMO) Support, has been updated to state Subfactor (a): Program Management Office (PMO) Staffing. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001. |
| 28 |
| Based on the tables of labor categories and hours provided in Section L, Volume IV: Cost, it appears the PMO will be billed under CLIN 0001 only as those labor categories do not appear under the CLIN 0002 table. Based on the pre-proposal conference, our understanding is the PMO is intended to be billed under CLIN 0002 FFP. Should offerors propose rates under the CLIN 0001 table only or will these tables be modified? |
| RFP Page 60 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| The Program Management Task order will be issued under CLIN 0001. |
| 29 |
| The Trainer/Project Supervisor is referred to various ways throughout the solicitation documents: |
J.1 C-1.3.1 as Trainers/Project Supervisors J.19 4.1.3 as Trainers/Project Supervisors J.19 6.2 as Training Specialist/Project Supervisor
RFP Volume IV CLIN 0001 Table as Training Specialist.
RFP Volume III Factor 2, Subfactor a Level of Effort Table as Project Supervisor/WMS Training Team Would the Government confirm the proper naming convention for the intended labor category?
| RFP Page 60 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Trainer/Project Supervisor |
Attachment J.1, PWS C-1.3.1 paragraph 4 has been updated. See Attachment J.1 PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
Attachment J.19 PMO Task Order PWS, 4.1.3 and 6.2 have been updated. See Attachment J.19 PMO Task Order PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001
RFP SP330020R5004 page 55, Subfactor (a): Program Management Office (PMO) Support has been updated. See RFP SP330020R5004 Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 30 |
| CDRL A006 outlines the QCP is due NLT 45 days prior to the end of transition. J.1 C-1.8.4A outlines a due date NLT 45 calendar days prior to the start of full performance. Please advise which is correct. |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.8.4A |
Attachment J.5 CDRL A006
Attachment J.5 CDRL A006 has been updated to state, “NLT 45 calendar days prior to the start of full contract performance..”. See Attachment J.5 CDRL A006 Quality Control Plan Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 31 |
| CDRL A008 outlines subsequent submissions are due by 1 October of each year. J.1 C-5.4.5B outlines the contractor shall submit by the 31st of August of each year. Please advise which is correct. |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 5.4.5B |
Attachment J.5 CDRL A008
Location surveys are due 15 September.
Attachment J.5 CDRL A008 has been updated. See Attachment J.5 CDRL A008 Open/Unconfirmed MROs Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
Attachment J.1, PWS C-5.4.5 Location Surveys Para B has been updated. See PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 32 |
| CDRL A016 outlines it’s due NLT 5th day of each month. J.1 C-5.3.8.2C outlines the 5th workday of the month. Please advise which is correct. |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 5.3.8.2C |
Attachment J.5 CDRL A016
| J.1 C-5.3.8.2C, CDRL A016 |
| 5th working day. |
Attachment J.5 CDRL A016 has been updated. See Attachment J.5 CDRL A016 Open/Unconfirmed MROs Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 33 |
| CDRL A022 outlines the RPO checklist is due the 15th working day of each quarter. J.1 C-1.6 outlines a due date of NLT 15 calendar days after the end of each quarter. Please advise which is correct. |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.6 |
Attachment J.5 CDRL A022
15 working days.
Attachment J.1, PWS C-1.6 Radiation Protection Program Para B has been updated. See PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 34 |
| CDRL A024 outlines as required by task order. J.1 C-6.6 outlines required by Task Order rather than “as required.” Please advise which is correct. |
| Attachment J.1, Paragraph 6.6 |
Attachment J.5 CDRL A024
CDRL A024 is required for the base contract and as required by task order.
Attachment J.1, PWS C-6.6 has been updated. See Attachment J.1 PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0001.
| 35 |
| For OCONUS efforts, Wage Determination is not applicable, does the Government intend to negotiate labor rates at the task order level? |
| Section B |
| See answer to questions #13 |
| 36 |
| M.2.4 states that the Government will evaluate CPFF CLINS in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Specifically, (ii) The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. Therefore, if the offeror is proposing an incentive for non-exempt categories that would not be appropriate for York County, PA, the Government will adjust the proposed costs in accordance with DCMA guidance and the description governing the appropriateness of incentives included in the offeror’s cost proposal. |
Is this an appropriate interpretation of Section M? If so, the offeror may base the proposed incentive upon conditions in other potentially more challenging areas without fear of having that incentive applied during cost realism analysis for rates appropriate to York County, PA.
| RFP Page 70 |
| Paragraph M-2 |
| Offerors shall complete the incentive percentage on any position that it anticipates may require it, irrespective of the location for purposes of the proposal. Application would be applied per task order depending upon the circumstances of the requirement. Offerors who do not propose a rate in the Section L tables and include this in their estimate, will not be permitted to utilize them upon award. The Government’s intention is to consider the incentive in evaluation of proposals and requires it to be applied to all hours for a labor category. The Government reserves the right to apply any portion of FAR 15.404-1(d) as the situation warrants. |
| 37 |
| Section L references a Transition Plan and J.1 PWS C-1.8 Transition Plan references a POAM. Can the Government advise if the POAM can be provided as an Excel attachment? |
| RFP Page 56 |
| Paragraph L-23, Volume III, Factor 3, Subfactor (a) |
| POAMs can be submitted in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Project. |
| 38 |
| We are proposing a major subcontractor whose services will meet a minimum of the 20% of total contract value but will be priced under CLIN 0003 at the task order level. Since this subcontractor will not be reflected in subcontractor labor tables, how are we to propose this major subcontractor in the cost volume in order to ensure their past performance will be evaluated? |
| RFP Pages 53, 59, 62 |
| Paragraph L-23, Volumes II and IV |
| Offerors may complete only the dollar value portion of the Subcontractor Summary for the potential portion they will provide. The manhours, total manhours, and percentage would only apply if it is a labor CLIN they will be supporting. These sections may be listed as N/A with an explanation that the subcontractor is supporting CLIN 0003 only. Offerors shall explain how they are anticipated to be a major subcontractor and an estimate of the amount they will be utilized. |
| 39 |
| The solicitation speaks of including “[d]ocumentation…such as documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement, etc.” in the Past Performance Proposal. It would seem that administrative documents of this sort would more appropriately be included in Volume I. Can the Government confirm that such documents should be included in Volume I and not in Volume II? |
| RFP Page 53 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| This documentation shall be provided within the Past Performance Proposal (Volume II). It will not be counted towards the page limitation. |
| 40 |
| Section L states that, “All offeror proposal submission documents must be submitted in native file format.” Since much of Volume I requires the insertion of various pdf documents, will the Government consider the native file format of Volume I to be pdf? |
| RFP Page 50 |
| Paragraph L-22 |
| Volume I may be submitted as a PDF or in Word. |
| 41 |
| As a response to Q&A 29, the Government changed the Project Supervisor/WMS Training Team position to a Trainer/Project Supervisor in both the PWS and in the table in Volume III of Section L of the RFP on p. 55 showing 7,680 hours. |
The RFP Volume IV CLIN 0001 Table however still shows separate positions for a Training Specialist with 7,680 hours, and Project Supervisor with 10,448.
Could the government please confirm if these positions should be combined into one Trainer/Project Supervisor position? If so, should the estimated productive hours for this position should be 7,680 as provided on page 55?
| RFP Pages 55, 60 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| The RFP Volume IV CLIN 0001 Table has been updated. “Training Specialist” has been updated to “Project Supervisor/Trainer” and is the Key Personnel position (See Attachment J.1 PWS Section C-1.3.1 Key Personnel Labor Categories) that will work under the PMO Task Order. The Project Supervisor position listed in the Volume IV CLIN 0001 table with 10,448 hours is a separate labor position (See Attachment J.1 PWS Section C-1.3.2 Primary Non-Key Personnel Labor Categories) that will be hired on a task order basis. |
See RFP SP330020R5004_Sections B-M-Conformed thru Amendment 0003.
| 42 |
| In the RFP Volume IV CLIN 0001 (p. 59), the government specifies that “The estimated regular and overtime labor hours are the same for the base and each option year period.” This table uses the same 1920 estimated hours for all key personnel with no mention of reduced hours in Year 1 for a transition or phase-in period. |
The table in RFP Volume III (pg. 55) shows 1920 productive hours for the key personnel for all years 2-5. For Year 1, these hours are broken into 1440 productive hours in Year 1 with the other 480 productive hours included in the Phase-In.
Could the government clarify if the offeror should price the full estimated hours provided in the CLIN 1 tables, or should the estimated hours in Year 1 be reduced based on a 9 month period of performance, and add the remaining hours for the first three months to CLIN 5 instead.
| RFP Pages 55 and 59 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Offerors shall address their technical support IAW 1440 productive hours for year 1 with the 480 segregated in the Phase-In for Volume III. For Volume I and IV pricing, offerors shall use the phase-in hours as provided and 1920 per year for CLIN 0001 as provided in lieu of needing to submit separate tables for each year of performance. The CLIN 0001 value establishes the estimated value for the CPFF CLIN. The first task order is anticipated to procure the phase-in and remaining full performance for Program Management and will be reflective of actual hours required. |
| 43 |
| The government’s response to Question 42 states that offerors shall use the 1920 per year for CLIN 0001 in lieu of submitting separate tables for each year of performance. |
However, page 59 of the RFP states the following: “offerors shall provide a separate table for each year of performance.” The heading of the CLIN 1 tables also state “YEAR (Insert 1-5)”.
Should the offeror still submit five separate tables for CLIN 0001, one for each contract year?
| RFP Pages 55 and 59 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Offerors shall submit a table for each year of performance. The Government’s response to question 42 was to indicate that all five years shall have the same number of hours. |
| 44 |
| The tables in J.19 and page 55 has 480 hours for the transition period and 1440 hours for Year 1. |
The response to Question 42 and page 59 of the RFP states that the transition hours provided in J.19 and on page 55 are included in CLIN 0005 Transition, but the offeror is still to price a full 1920 hours for Year 1, instead of the 1440 hours included in the CLIN 0001 table.
This appears to be an error as this methodology would be double counting the phase-in hours. Can the government confirm that we are to price 1920 hours Year 1?
RFP Pages 55 and 59
Attachment J.19, Paragraph 5
Offerors shall price 480 hours per FTE for CLIN 0005 Transition and 1920 hours per FTE for each year under CLIN 0001.
| 45 |
| C-1.3.3, Secondary Non-Key Personnel Labor Categories lists the position of Quality Control Inspector. This position is not included in the CLIN 0001 – Year Table. Should this labor category be included in the CLIN 0001 Labor table or was it intentionally omitted? |
| RFP Pages 60-61 |
Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.3.
| Paragraph L-23 |
| The RFP Volume IV CLIN 0001 Table has been updated. “Quality Control Inspector” has been added. |
See RFP SP330020R5004_Sections B-M-Conformed thru Amendment 0004.
| 46 |
| The Labor Category Table found on page 60 of the RFP contains the title “Supply Systems Analyst”. The “Supply Systems Analyst” position is not one of the positions in J.1 PWS under C-1.3 Personnel. Will the Government clarify the position description for the Supply Systems Analyst in the PWS? |
| RFP Page 60 |
Attachment J.1, Paragraph 1.3.2
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Attachment J.1, PWS C-1.3.2 Primary Non-Key Personnel Labor Categories has been updated. |
See Attachment J.1 PWS Conformed thru Amendment 0004.
| 47 |
| The CLIN 0001 Labor Category table starting on page 60 of the RFP contains a “DOL Code” column that designates each labor category as either exempt or assigns a DOL occupation code. There are several positions currently classified as exempt that we believe could be mapped to an SCA labor category based on our analysis of the position description against the SCA Directory of Occupations. May offerors revise the DOL Code column designation based upon its own mapping of applicable DOL classification? |
| RFP Page 60 |
| Paragraph L-23 |
| Changes are permitted; however, the offeror must clearly delineate where changes have been made and must substantiate how the alternative solution affects the offerors ability to meet the Government’s requirements. Evaluation Factor 3, Subfactor (b) has been revised as a result of this change. |
See RFP SP330020R5004_Sections B-M-Conformed thru Amendment 0004.
| 48 |
| As a consequence of the challenges inherent in responding to a complex RFP during the current COVID-19 pandemic, would the Government consider an extension of one week? |
| RFP Page 49 |
| Paragraph L-22 |
| The proposal due date has been revised to 1:00PM ET on May 25, 2020. |
| 49 |
| Reference Section B, Limitations on Indirect Cost Rates. The RFP states the following: "The Limitations on Indirect Cost Rates applies to the cost type CLINs 0001 and 0003. Rates subject to the limitation include fringe, overhead, material handling, and/or General and Administration (G&A)." Given the nature of this contract, the labor categories and hours, as defined in the CLIN 0001 pricing schedule, represent what can only be defined as sample task or scenario. Consequently the actual task orders issued on any resultant contract are for a level of effort are to be defined and at a location to be determined location. Yet the government has capped all indirect rates for the full performance of the contract. Specifically, as it relates to fringe, the wage determination and applicable fringe benefits are based on a local area wage determination that will most likely never be used. The individual fringe elements for the task orders will be based on a different wage determination and in consideration of federal and statutory regulations, all matters that need to be considered in developing a fringe rate. Based on the above, can the government remove the RFP language as it puts an unfair burden on the contractor given the inability to assess the relevant financial matters in forecasting? |
| RFP Page 3 |
| Section B - Instructions |
| The fringe benefits should be fairly consistent across Department of Labor locations; however, the Government has considered the challenge posed and has removed the indirect rate cap as it pertains to the fringe rate. All other indirect rates will be subject to the cap. |
The Government will utilize the proposed fringe rate methodology for the basic contract and local wage determination in performing reasonableness analysis of any task order awarded. The Government will not accept a different approach to the fringe rate on task orders than is utilized on the basic contract.
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution