ATTACHMENT_N_-_Industry_Questions_and_Answers_for_RFP_round_2.pdf

Attachment N – Industry Question and Answers from RFP

Item Page/ Paragraph Questions/Comments Government Answers

148 The item that appears in the spreadsheet that does not appear in the Section B table is 1.C.2.

See update.

149 If an awardee takes a full 90 days to transition, the Offeror’s price will be reduced by the hiring lag and 90-day ramp up activities, while increasing incumbent participation (and expense) during the transition. How will the Government evaluate pricing, considering the transition challenges?

The price will be evaluated in accordance with the stated price evaluation approach.

150 Will evaluation of the base year include the additional cost of transitioning in a new contractor, while maintaining the incumbent contractor for transition purposes?

The price will be evaluated in accordance with the stated price evaluation approach.

151 Will the Government consider the additional cost to retain the incumbent contractor at additional cost to sustain the program?

The price will be evaluated in accordance with the stated price evaluation approach.

152 Should Offerors propose transition costs for the first 90 days of the Base Period and then 9 months of full operations of all PWS requirements?

Base period is 9 months. 30 days from award to effective should not have associated cost. 60 days of transition should be priced in accordance with the proposed transition plan.

153 Will the Government evaluate the total cost to the Government, inclusive of any overlap of contractors, during the transition when making an award?

The price will be evaluated in accordance with the stated price evaluation approach.

154 Section B.2 Price/Cost Schedule, pages 40 to 44

Will the Government please clarify the contract type for CLIN 3. The Base Period is listed as T&M, while Option Periods 1 – 4 are listed as FFP. Also, this task is listed as T&M under Section C.

Specific Mandatory Tasks and Associated Deliverables, Task 3.

Operations (Time and Material).

Updated. T&M.

155 Pg. 93, Text underneath the table at the top of the page.

The reference states “The cover page, table of contents, and/or a glossary of abbreviations or acronyms will not be included in the page count of the Proposal Volume.” Does the Government require a glossary or is that optional?

Updated to state “as necessary.”

156 Pg. 93, Text underneath the table at the top of the page.

The reference states “The cover page, table of contents, and/or a glossary of abbreviations or acronyms will not be included in the page count of the Proposal Volume.” If a glossary is required should there be a glossary in each volume?

Updated to state “as applicable.”

157 Pg. 93, Text underneath the table at the top of the page.

The reference states “The cover page, table of contents, and/or a glossary of abbreviations or acronyms will not be included in the page count of the Proposal Volume.” If a glossary is in each volume should that glossary only define terms contained in that volume?

Updated to state “as applicable.”

158 Pg. 93, VOLUME II –

Project Management Plan

The reference states “Letters of commitment or other documentation should be provided to demonstrate offers to incumbent staff.” Will the Government please clarify how non-incumbent offers should approach this if the incumbent contractor has instructed their employees to not speak with other companies potentially bidding on this work?

Updated to remove incumbent employee preference based on this input.

159 Attachment G, Pricing Spreadsheet

Task 4 is listed as an optional task. However, Task 4 pricing totals (row 63) are included in “Total of Tasks” (row 85) and not “Total of Optional Tasks” (row 112). Please clarify whether Task 4 will be considered as part of the evaluated price.

Updated.

160 Reference Attachment H, Past Performance Questionnaire, Part II

May we eliminate the underlining of all of the text we add to Part II?

Yes.

161 Reference Attachment H, Past Performance Questionnaire, Part II

Because we must use Part II and can’t redesign it into a table, for example, must the contents of Part II meet the TNR font 12 requirements that apply to all other text in the proposal?

Please use the provided format/font.

Updates to format should be minor and font requirements do not apply to this template.

162 ATTACHME

NT N –

Can the Government please state definitively if letters of commitment

Requirement deleted.

Industry Questions and Answers to

RFP

Government Answer to Question 126 states: Letters of Commitment should be submitted in Volume II and do count against the 25 page limit.

Government Answer to Question 129 states: Yes, letters of commitment would be considered evidence and would be part of the PMP submission, Volume II.

Letters of commitment do not count against the page limitation.

are included in the page limitation?

163 ATTACHME

NT N –

Industry Questions and Answers to

RFP

Is the government seeking letters of commitment for all incumbent staff or just for key staff?

Government Answer to Question 129 states: Yes, letters of commitment would be considered evidence and would be part of the PMP submission, Volume II.

Letters of commitment do not count against the page limitation.

164 ATTACHME

NT N –

Industry Questions and Answers to

RFP

Government Answer to Question 129 states: Yes, letters of commitment would be considered evidence and would be part of the PMP submission, Volume II.

Letters of commitment do not count against the page

The response to this question means that offerors with access to incumbent staff can use letters of commitment as evidence without expending any of their limited pages to provide that proof, while offerors who have other types of evidence will have to include that evidence within the page count.

To level the playing field, would VBA either (1) count letters against the page limit or (2) set a limit for the number of letters bidders can include and allot the same number of extra pages (beyond the current page limit) for bidders to provide other types of evidence (e.g., an incumbent hiring and retention plan) that they will give preference to hiring current employees?

limitation.

165 ATTACHME

NT N –

Industry Questions and Answers to

RFP

Government Answer to Questions 48, 49, and 50 states: See Attachment F.

ATTACHME

NT F – no Data in Columns K, L, and M

ATTACHME

NT M – Level of Effort

ATTACHME

NT G –

Pricing Spreadsheet

Given that the government will not provide any data about historical run rates for MLC, Capstone, and One-on- One sessions, to ensure a level playing field (since the incumbent has this data), can the government amend ATTACHMENT M and ATTACHMENT G to require LOE per one activity each instead of NTE for 3.A.1 Deliver MLC events (CONUS), 3.A.1 Deliver Capstone event (CONUS), 3.A.1 Deliver One-on-One Engagements (CONUS), 3.A.2 Deliver MLC events (OCONUS), 3.A.2 Deliver Capstone events (OCONUS), 3.A.2 Deliver One-on-One Engagements (OCONUS)?

This information is not currently available. The LOE is per activity, but will roll up into the total CLIN.

166 ATTACHME

NT N –

Industry Questions and Answers to

RFP

Government answer to Question 53 of the Q&A states:

Transition Outreach & Public

Given that the government has not provided information about historical run rates for Transition Outreach & Public Engagement (O&PE) events (3.A.1 and 3.A.2), to ensure a level playing field (since the incumbent has this data), can the government amend ATTACHMENT M and ATTACHMENT G to require LOE per one activity each instead of NTE for 3.A.1 Deliver Outreach & Public Engagement (CONUS) and Deliver Outreach & Public Engagement

(OCONUS)?

This information is not currently available. The LOE is per activity, but will roll up into the total CLIN.

Engagement

(O&PE)

events (3.A.1 and 3.A.2) are assigned and scheduled on a case by case basis with prior approval by VA.

167 ATTACHME

NT N –

Industry Questions and Answers to

RFP

Government Answer to Questions 48, 49, and 50 states: See Attachment F.

Government answer to Question 53 of the Q&A states:

Transition Outreach & Public Engagement

(O&PE)

events (3.A.1 and 3.A.2) are assigned and scheduled on a case by case basis with prior approval by VA.

Given that the Government has not provided historical or project run rates for the activities in Task 3 and Attachment G calculates a price that is part of the total evaluated price, would the Government consider using an evaluation quantity or a NTE dollar ceiling that all offerors are evaluated on to provide consistency in the evaluation of pricing? Or provide clarification on how the amounts in Task 3 of Attachment G are to be evaluated?

The Government cannot provide the NTE for this CLIN.

Price Proposal Evaluation,

pg. 101 in the Solicitation

168 ATTACHMEN

TS N and G

Question #71 in the most recently released ATTACHMENT_N_-_Industry _Questions_and_Answers_to_RFP, the Question states, “Page 19 of the PWS indicates that Task 4 is an optional task.

However, the pricing spreadsheet only lists Tasks 7 and 8 as optional. Would the Government please clarify whether Task 4 is optional or mandatory.” The Government’s response, “Task 4 is Optional. See updates.”

However, on the updated

ATTACHMENT_G_-

_Pricing_Spreadsheet.slsx, Task 4 is still rolling up into the “Total of [Mandatory] Tasks” and not in the calculation for “Total of Optional Tasks”.

Will the Government be sending a revised Attachment G, or are the bidders allowed to make changes to the Government’s template?

Updated.

169 VARIOUS

In the evaluation criteria for Volume II, the RFP states: "preference will be given to proposals that give preference to hiring current employees." In Attachment N, Industry Questions and Answers to RFP, Question 129 notes this preference for hiring current employees and suggests Letters of Commitment (LoC) from incumbent staff. In response to Question 129 the Government adopts LoCs as evidence of preference for incumbent staff. Further in the ADDENDUM to

FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

the Government revised the RFP to make clear the need for LoCs or other documentation to evidence the preference

Deleted preference accordingly.

See updated evaluation.

for current employees (“Letters of commitment or other documentation should be provided to demonstrate offers to incumbent staff.”)

Only the incumbent contractor will 1) know the current employees, 2) have ready access to the current employees, and 3) not potentially violate employment agreements by seeking current employee commitments. Thus, the evaluative preference for retaining current employees seems highly biased in the incumbent contractor’s favor.

Given the incumbent contractor’s significant advantage with knowledge of and access to current employees, how is this evaluation criteria to be fairly applied to both the incumbent contractor and non-incumbent contractors?

While the above reference allows for “other documentation” in lieu of LoCs, what other documentation would still prove a contractor’s intent to retain current employees that would not be inherently biased in favor of the incumbent, since only the incumbent has knowledge of and access to current employees?

Given the seeming inherent bias in favor of the incumbent, would the Government consider removing the Volume II evaluation preference for retaining current employees in favor of relying on included FAR clause 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers—which continues to provide protection for certain incumbent contractor employees?