Q As_t_Post_attachement_1B.pdf

Attachment 1B

July 15, 2016

Response to Questions from Industry

Question Answer 1 It appears the option years were correct as a result of the recent answers to questions.

However, Option Period IV should be March 29, 2020 through July 28, 2020.

Please clarify.

Should the continuation sheets be included with the SF 1449 reflecting all of the corrected option periods?

You are correct, an amendment is required to correct this oversight. It should be a four (4) month period.

2 Schedule of Supplies/Services CLIN 0003, Quantity of 8.00, Quantity should be 0, as this is an Overtime Plug number.

You are correct; an amendment is required to correct this oversight. It should be a zero (0) month period.

3 Page 111, 7.1 of the RFP, Is the Management Plan referenced here the same as the project management plan mentioned in Section 7.1?

Or should only the management approach be included within the 50 pages required for the Technical/Management Volume?

Yes, the Management Plan and project management plan are the same document.

The management approach is covered in the Management Plan.

4 Section 3.1.3 (“Management and Supervision) of the PWS states that “The Project Manager shall meet with the COR on a monthly basis and as necessary to discuss contract matters.” Will the Government please clarify if meetings between the Project Manager and the COR must occur in person?

There may come times when the Project Manager will be required to meet in person with the COR, Director of W&F, or other executive staff. However, not all meetings are required to be in person.

5 Will the Government please indicate the city and state where the COR will be located?

1111 Constitution Ave.

Washington DC 20224

6 Attachment 5 (Past Performance Questionnaire) references a “Corporate Experience & Performance Self-Assessment Form” (see Question 3) that does not appear to be included in the RFP package. Will the

Omit the referenced Corporate Experience & Performance Self-Assessment Form

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

WASHINGTON, DC 20224

Government please provide it along with relevant instructions (or omit it as a requirement)?

7 Section 5.9 of the RFP presents a list of adjectival ratings that will be used exclusively for the evaluation of the Past Performance section of the technical proposal. The adjectival ratings all start out by stating that each contract shall be assessed based on its parity to the present contract in terms of size, scope, and complexity. This rating system is mirrored in Section 5.7.4 – Criterion 4: Past Performance. Both sections, however, are at odds with the instructions for past performance presented in Section 5.1.1(d).

In the latter section, offerors are merely asked to present PPQs to three clients.

Nothing in the PPQs will allow the Government to assess whether or not the offeror’s contracts are similar to the present acquisition in terms of scope and complexity. The PPQs ask for the size of each project, but then focus exclusively on the customer’s experience with the contractor’s performance, allowing the Government no ability to assess similarity when it comes to scope, type, and complexity. In light of this fact, will the Government please revise Sections 5.9 and

5.7.4 to strike from its evaluation criteria items which cannot be ascertained or assessed from the PPQs?

Section 5.9 pages 112 through 113 have been updated to reflect the instructions in section

5. The adjectival ratings were changed from Relative Past Performance to reflect Relative Experience (section 5.7.2). A truncated portion of section 5 is attached.

8 Will the Government please confirm that the contracts an offeror cites for the “Relevant Experience requirement” (Section 5.1.1.b) need not be the same as the contracts the offer uses for the “Past Performance” requirement (Section 5.1.1.d)?

They do not need to be the same contracts the offeror uses for Past Performance.

9 Section 5.9 of the RFP presents a list of the adjectival matrix will be used for all non-cost/price factors except past performance and Section 508s. The adjectival matrix

The current ratings matrix will stand, but your suggestion is noted for future requirements.

does not seem suitable as an assessment tool for the “Relevant Experience” section of the technical proposal. Will the Government please confirm that this adjectival matrix will be used to assess the Relevant Experience section of the technical proposal, or will the Government present an alternative, more germane adjectival matrix to be used for the Relevant Experience section?

10 Page 76 of the RFP (Section entitled

“IR1052.239-9008 SECTION 508 -

INFORMATION, DOCUMENTATION,

AND SUPPORT) indicates that a detailed listing of Section 508 compliant products is to be found in Section J of the RFP. The clause is not filled in, however, nor is the detailed listing present. Will the Government please provide this listing?

This acquisition is not covered under section 508, aside of reports require per the PWS. No fill in is available.

11 We have a two-part question related to Attachment 3 of the RFP:

a) Will the Government please indicate which labor categories from Attachment 3 are currently covered by SCA and which ones are not?

b) For each of the labor categories that are covered by SCA, will the Government please indicate a corresponding WD position description to be used?

a) Administrative Clerk(s) and Computer Analyst(s) appear to correlate to the wage determination(s).

b) Administrative Assistant(s);

Computer Systems Analyst(s)

Compliance with SCA is the contractor’s responsibility, so it would be highly encouraged for you to read our definitions of labor categories in comparison to definitions provided by the Department of Labor to ensure you are in compliance with SCA.

12 Do employees in Puerto Rico receive compensation, benefits, or holidays in addition to those addressed in Section 2.3 of the RFP? If so, are these a direct charge to the contract?

All observed Federal holidays are listed in section 2.3. They are also available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/

13 Section 4.1 requests a copy of a Recruitment and Retention Plan. Is this part of the Technical Volume and subject to the 50 page limit, or is it an attachment. If an attachment, is there a page limit?

No, it is a standalone product. No page limit is listed

14 Can we assume that PPQs already submitted to customers and emailed to Ms. Sherry

Yes, PPQ’s were forwarded to Mr. Collum but it is suggested through an abundance of https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/

Lutz will be forwarded to Mr. Steve Collum, or should we plan on re-submitting PPQs to our customers listing Mr. Collum’s name and contact information?

caution they be forwarded to Mr. Collum and Mr. Bogan once again.

15 Is a facility clearance required for work on this contract? Page 128, Attachment 4

NACLC is required for IRS contract employees.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY