Tab_26_Amendment_2.pdf

SP4702-20-R-0013 Amendment 2

SP4702-20-R-0013 – AMENDMENT 2

Introductory Note: This solicitation amendment is made to provide responses to vendor-submitted questions.

Nothing in this solicitation amendment makes any changes to the solicitation requirements established in solicitation SP4702-20-R-0013 and then updated by SP4702-20-R-0013 Amendment 1.

Responses to Vendor Questions:

Question 1: Please confirm that three volumes are required: A - Standard Form 1449, B – Documentation of Technical Acceptability, and C – Price Proposal.

Answer: Yes. Please remember to also complete any necessary clause fill-ins when submitting the SF 1449.

Question 2: On page 59 of the solicitation, Subfactor 3 – Prior Experience, the solicitation states, “In order to evaluate the vendor’s prior experience, the vendor’s proposal shall identify no less than THREE (3), and no more than FIVE (5), previously awarded, and completed contracts of similar scope, size, and complexity to the current requirement.” Q - Do the Prior Experience examples all need to be completed contracts, or can they be in progress or ongoing contracts? If completed, how recent must the contracts be?

Answer: Both subcomponents of this question were addressed through SP4702-20-R-0013 Amendment 1. Please review the Amendment 1 updates.

Question 3: Section B – Supplies and Services and Prices or Costs only contains a Quantity of 1 and a Unit of JOB. Q - Is DLA requesting an hourly rate for each line item? If so, what should contractors propose for the Extended Price?

Answer: This both subcomponents of this question were addressed through SP4702-20-R-0013 Amendment 1. Please review the Amendment 1 updates.

Question 4: PWS page 3, 4(B)(III) states, “Requests which fail to provide sufficient lead time, as established by Paragraphs 4(B)(I) and 4*B)(II), will be deemed a last minute request. Should contractors propose a separate hourly rate for last minute requests?

Answer: No. “Last minute requests” are only significant in the sense that the vendor isn’t under an obligation to schedule an interpreter to provide performance. Vendors may elect to still fulfill the last minute request, but will do so at the same hourly rate agreed upon in the contract.

Question 5: PWS 5.C requires resumes for a pool of interpreters. Is this required in the proposal response or upon contract award? If in the proposal response, under which subfactor and evaluation criteria must they be provided?

Answer: The requirement to provide resumes for pool interpreters only arises after contract award.

Question 6: The PWS indicates in section 5.A Scheduling Coordinator that there is to be a single point of contact for this requirement. We are asking if that point of contact may be a position, such as the Coordinator On Duty, rather than a named individual? Naturally, the qualifications of each person who serves in that capacity would be included with the response.

Answer: First, please note that Section L, Paragraph 2(b)(1)(a) requires that “[t]he vendor shall identify a Scheduling Coordinator to serve as the scheduling coordinator for this requirement.” Secondly, please reference solicitation SP4702-20-R- 0013 Section A, Paragraph 5 “C05 Changes to Key Personnel (OCT 2016)”. This paragraph states:

“Certain skilled, experienced, professional and/or technical personnel are essential for successful accomplishment of the work to be performed under this contract. These are defined as "key personnel" and are those persons whose resumes are submitted as part of the technical/business proposal for evaluation. The contractor shall use key personnel as identified in its proposal during the performance of this contract and will request contracting officer approval prior to any changes. Requests for approval of any changes shall be in writing with a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the change.

The request must contain a complete resume for the new key personnel and any other pertinent information, such as degrees, certifications, and work history. New key personnel must have qualifications that are equal to or higher than those being replaced. The contracting officer will evaluate the request and notify the contractor whether the requested change is acceptable to the Government.”

PWS Paragraph 4 states that both the Scheduling Coordinator and Shift Interpreter are considered to be key personnel.

In summary, if a vendor does not satisfy the requirements established by Section L, Paragraph 2(b)(1)(a), then the vendor’s proposal will not be technically acceptable. However, there is nothing in this requirement that would prevent a vendor from providing multiple individuals (with supporting documentation) with their proposal. Further, after award has been made SP4702-20-R-0013 Section A Paragraph 5 establishes a process by which a vendor can propose alternates to replace or supplement the individual(s) submitted for this role with the proposal submission. The requirement that “a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the change” could theoretically be as simple as that such a change would be preferred from the perspective of a vendor’s optimal business operations. All other requirements would still need to be met, and approval would still be at the Contracting Officer’s discretion, but the vendor may make such a request on this basis alone.

Question 7: Amendment 1, Section B indicates estimated hours of service for the base and each option year. Do those hours include a minimum time greater than 1 hour for each request? Based on the current market in Columbus, Ohio, interpreters expect, at minimum, an hour and a half of service time per job. In some cases, the interpreters are now expecting 2 hours of service time per job. Should this market condition be indicated in our response?

Answer: Nothing in solicitation establishes a minimum time for Pool Interpreter appointments; and Shift Interpreter hours are on a pre-determined, set schedule.

However, please refer to FAR Subpart 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors – Commercial, Paragraph (e) Multiple Offers: “Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items (provided that the alternative line items are consistent with subpart 4.10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation), or alternative commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.”

This solicitation is being processed using FAR Part 12 procedures, as it has been determined that we are procuring a commercial service. Therefore, a vendor may choose to submit multiple proposals which present alternative terms and conditions. Any vendor that chooses to submit multiple proposals is strongly encouraged to also submit an offer which fully complies with all terms and conditions set forth in the solicitation. The vendor then should indicate what differences exist in the alternative proposal and provide a brief rationale for why the alternative proposal would be advantageous. These proposals shall be evaluated separately, on a lowest priced technically acceptable basis, and the Government is under no obligation to accept a vendor’s alternative proposal.

Question 8: Again, in Amendment 1, this time section L 1) c subfactor 3 prior experience it is indicated that prior experience should be limited to contracts within the past 5 years. Are those years to be counted based on the initial contract date or the contract completion date including option years? For example, we held a contract that ended 5 years ago but was granted 5 years before that (it ran all the option years). Is that contract one that can be included in this section to serve as proof of prior experience?

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-4-administrative-and-information-matters#iSubpart_4_10

Answer: The contract completion date should be the actual contract completion date, inclusive of options (e.g., the completion date on a base plus four option year contract where all options were exercised would be at the end of the fourth option year’s period of performance) . From the relevant paragraph:

“When Referencing A Completed Contract: If a vendor references a completed contract, the contract shall have been completed within 5 years of this solicitation’s (SP4702-20-R-0013) proposal submittal date (May 6th, 2020) in order to be deemed relevant.”

Accordingly:

- If a contract ended on May 5th, 2015 or earlier (e.g. May 4th, 2015); that contract would not be able to be deemed relevant.

- If a contract ended on May 6th, 2015 or later (e.g., May 7th 2015); that contract would be able to be deemed relevant.