TIRNO-09-R-00013_A0009_Addendum.doc

Addendum to Solicitation TIRNO-09-R-00013 – Amendment 0009

1. Q&A question #23 states that the Attachment J.4 should read “Attachment J.4 rev. 1”. However, it simply reads Attachment J.4. Is this the correct version? Should we use it?

Response: The language in Amendment 0008 was an error. Attachment J.4 rev 1 should read Attachment J.4. Please see Amendment 0009.

2. The table referenced in Section B, Page B-3 ( “The Labor Category Rate Table shown below shall be completed at the time of award using the NTE fully loaded hourly labor rates submitted in the offeror’s Revised Price Proposal (Volume III)”) is not present. When will the table be supplied.

Response: Section B.3 has been amended. Please see Amendment 0009.

3. Instructions section L.12 states that “Offerors shall prepare the schedules in accordance with the sample pricing schedule in Attachment J.1.1 Rev 1,” and Attachment J.1.1 Rev 1 states that it shall be completed in accordance with the instructions. Neither the instructions nor the attachment make any mention of a breakout by subcontractor, yet in response to question 30, about incorporating subcontractor pricing into Attachment J.1.1, the Government stated that “Offerors are required to clearly show and identify the prime and subcontractor's loaded NTE hourly labor rates, hours and price for each CLIN.” In question 28, when asked if the new pricing table no longer required showing the allocation of hours to the subcontractors, the answer was “Yes, that is correct,” but then went on to say that “offerors are required to clearly show and identify the prime and subcontractor's loaded hourly labor rates, hours and price for each CLIN.” Furthermore, since the number and types of task orders that any offeror will receive under the contract cannot be known at this time, we believe that any allocations of hours by CLIN and subcontractor in the cost proposals would be purely speculative and thus would skew the price analysis and could provide an opportunity for deceptive allocations. Since the prime must perform over half of the work, we recommend that the price analysis be based on the prime contractor’s rates applied to the hours and CLINs. Since it is impossible at this time to make realistic projections on the actual hours and CLINs that will be awarded to offerors and then allocated to their subcontractors, we recommend that a simple, uniform method be employed to aggregate and compare subcontractor rates (e.g. average of all the offeror’s subcontractor rates).

Response: The proposed NTE rate needs to reflect one rate per labor category (i.e., the prime or subcontractor rate) applied to the hours. No breakout of the subcontractor’s rate is required.

4. On question 8, with regard to site-specific rates, the answer states that “Only Contractor site pricing must be submitted,” yet the amended section B.2.1 states that “Each offeror shall also propose NTE loaded hourly labor rates for the Government site and the Contractor site for each year.” Since contractor site rates are based on government site rates, we believe that contractor site rates will provide the government with the most complete figure for comparison, and thus government site rates should not be included in the cost proposals.

Response: Section B.2.1 has been amended. Please see Amendment 0009.

5. In question 12, when asked if an offeror would be able to increase prices at the task order level, the answer was that it is at the discretion of the CO to determine…“the appropriate profit associated with performing the work,” yet in question 16, when asked if “not to exceed” meant that this is the maximum rate the contractor can charge for each labor category, the reply was “Yes, this is correct.” We understand the Government’s reluctance to provide an avenue for price creep, but this ambiguity could encourage some offerors to submit optimistically low rates, relying on the expectation of renegotiating at task order award, while other offerors who make no such assumptions might submit more realistic rates. This could lead to the most realistic offers being eliminated from the competitive range. We suggest that the Government resolve this ambiguity by clarifying that offerors will be expected to deliver on the rates they propose.

Response: Offerors are expected to abide by the rates they propose, However, when requirements are issued at the task order level, it is at the discretion of the contracting officer to determine the contract type (permissible in the RFP) appropriate for the requirement and the appropriate profit associated with performing the work, Therefore, profit may fluctuate throughout the life cycle, yet keeping in mind the overall profit of the contract.

6. In question 96, when asked what criteria the Government will use to determine the competitive range, the answer was that the competitive range will be established in accordance with Section M.4 and thus will be evaluated against five factors—price being the least significant. Yet the answer to question 102 states that the Government will use price analysis techniques to determine the competitive range. As we noted in our Amendment 7 questions, the FAR specifies that “Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals” (emphasis added). Thus, we recommend that competitive range be established in accordance with all evaluation criteria, as stated in the answer to question 96, rather than as stated in the answer to question 102.

Response: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s total proposed contract price using price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Price analysis will be used to determine the competitive range. These prices will be used in conjunction with other non-price evaluation factors in the solicitation in order to make the award decision in accordance with the basis of award stated in Section M.3.

7. Please clarify what is required in the response. There are conflicting instructions pertaining to Volume III. Specifically, Section L Tab B does not call for any subcontractor rates to be identified; the Q&A state in different places that subcontractor rates both should and should not be listed in the response.

#28 requires identification of prime and subcontractor loaded hourly labor rates, hours and price for each CLIN.

Response: Please see response to Question #3.

#30 requires the same, but goes further to provide an example.

Response: Please see response to Question #3.

While #30 states composite rates should not be used, #21 & #107 state that contractor NTE rates must take into account the rates of their subcontractors.

Response: Please see response to Question #3.

#78 states that names and costs proposed for each subcontractor is no longer required.

Response: The answer provided to the question in its entirety (in context) remains unchanged.

#143 states the only information required from subcontractors is updated financial capability information for purposes of the submission.

Response: Please follow the instructions in Section L of the RFP.

8. Per Modification 0008, Price analysis will be used to determine the competitive range. FAR 15.404-1 (b) Price analysis states: “(1) Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.”

This being the case, why is the government requesting a breakout of cost and profit? Please clarify that the IRS no longer requires subcontractor pricing data.

Response: In determining price reasonableness, it is the Government’s obligation to evaluate profit. The Government must know profit percentages when negotiating prices. Regarding the latter part of the question, please follow the directions in Section L of the RFP.

9. Is the intent of the IRS in #30 to provide a work allocation matrix showing the proposed hours allocation between the prime and its subcontractors (an hourly breakout not a price depiction)?

Response: Please see response to Question #3.

10. Please clarify the contents requested for inclusion in the revised response. The Q&A present seemingly conflicting information. For example:

· #38, 76, 84, and 85 state to only resubmit the parts affected by A0008

· Section L states to include full sections

· #46, 48, and others state resubmission is required in its entirety

If Sections B, J, L, and M are to be included in their entirety, please clarify that updates are only to be made on the called out subsections within Modification 0008. If only affected subsections are to be included, please list those out for compliance purposes in Section L.

Response: Please see Amendment 0009.