Industy_Questions_and_Govt_Responses_W56JSR18R0016__13Feb2019.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W56JSR18R0016
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for software and engineering support services. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Software Engineering Center, Command, Control, and Communication Tactical Directorate Mission Command Division Development Branch is seeking consolidated technical, engineering, and management services to provide software and system engineering support for development and follow-on post deployment software support activities for their portfolio of systems. Key clarifications provided in the questions and answers include that proposed direct labor rates and fixed fee rates will become binding under the contract, instructions for joint ventures to submit proposals, and page limit increases for certain volumes of proposals.
Industry Questions and Govt Responses W56JSR18R0016 13Feb2019
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| No. | Document | Page Ref # | Paragraph #, Section | Issue/Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Attachment_0004- Cost_Data_Worksheet_&_Instructions and the excel embedded | Based upon form W56JSR-18-R-0016_Attachment_0004_-Cost_Data_Worksheet_&_Instructions and the excel embedded formulas for the above listed solicitation, it appears that table 1 in the summary tab is not burdening the Direct Labor rates. If these rates are not burdened, then Table 1 in the summary tab will not represent an offeror’s maximum unit cost. Is that the Government’s Intention? Please clarify so that we can accurately pricing.” | Yes that is the Government's intention. The Government recognizes that the awardee will incur indirect cost in performance of each TO. It is the Government's intention to lock in the proposed direct labor rates and fee rates as part of the base IDIQ contract. The labor rates and fee rates proposed by the awardee on the base will be the contracted rates that the awardee must use to price each subsequent TO. It is the Governments intention to use the Total Evaluated Price as described in Section M-1-3.1 for tradeoff and award. | ||
| 2 | Formal Solicitation | L-16.3-1.2 | “The offeror is required to propose to all labor categories and the total level of effort provided to meet the work described in the PWS per CLIN.” The cost data worksheet does not have provisions to propose a level of effort (hours). Where shall our level of effort get proposed? Does this mean offerors are not to deviated from the RFP LOE in Attachment 0002?” | The Level of Effort(LOE) is for informational purposes only. The first order will be issued in accordance with Section H, Procedures for Orders . | |
| 3 | Formal Solicitation | L-16.1.7 | It calls out and references a Basis of Estimate (BOE). If there is no proposed level of effort than there is no need for a BOE. Please confirm? If level of effort and thus supporting BOE is required, shall it go into Volume III worksheet or pricing methodology?” | This requirement has been removed. | |
| 4 | Would the Government sponsor the facility clearance? | No, the Government will not sponsor a facility clearance without the contractor having a contract that requires the clearance. | |||
| 5 | We plan on submitting this proposal as an SBA approved ALLSMPP Joint Venture. Since this Joint Venture is by law unpopulated and cannot have employees itself would you accept individual cost build ups from each member and or a cost build up to represent the Joint Venture itself? | This is a business decision to be made by the Joint Venture. Per Section L of the Solicitation, if awarded this contract, then what ever direct labor and fixed fee rates are proposed in the cost volume are the rates that will be put on contract. | |||
| 6 | Also in previous solicitations we were allowed to submit each of the companies facility clearances to represent the Joint Venture since obtaining a Facility Clearance for an unpopulated Joint Venture still seems to be something the DSS is working through, would this be acceptable? | Yes, the Government will allow offerors to submit each of the companies facility clearances to represent the Joint Venture. | |||
| 7 | L-16.1.6 | L-16.1.6 limits the Volume II proposal file to 15 pages. L-16.2-1.2, states “A minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance contract references shall be submitted for each prime contract, inclusive of at least one (1) reference for each major subcontractor.” L-16.2-1.3 Section 1 a. calls for a ” A specific narrative explanation describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP that shall not exceed 5 pages.” If there are 5 past performance, with a Section 1 basically having a 5 page limit, this would put the volume well over 25 pages if 5 past performance are provided. Would the Government consider increasing the page limit of Volume II Past Performance from 15 pages to 30 pages to support Section 1 a. 5 page limitation? | No, Government remains set on current page limitation. | ||
| 8 | Volume II- Past Performance | RFP, p. 234 | L-16.2-1.8 | Would the Government please clarify if the separate OCI Mitigation Plan file should be considered part of Volume II - Past Performance as indicated by L-16.2-1.8 on RFP pg. 234 and/or Volume IV - Solicitation Documentation as indicated by L-16.1.6 on RFP pg. 231? If considered part of the page-limited Volume II, would the Government please confirm that the OCI Mitigation Plan is excluded from page limitations? | OCI Mitigation Plan should be submitted as part of Volume IV |
| 9 | RFP, p. 233 | L-16.1.6 | Would the Government please clarify its requirements for a Proposal Synopsis as part of Volume IV - Solicitation Documentation? | The Government has removed the "Proposal Synopsis" as part of Volume IV - Solicitation | |
| 10 | Attachment_0004 _- Cost_ Data_ Worksheet _& _Instructions' file | In the 'W56JSR-18-R-0016_Attachment_0004_-Cost_Data_Worksheet_&_Instructions' file some of the table numbers / titles in the 'Instructions' tab do not match the table numbers / titles in the other tabs. Should the 'Total Price Summary ' tab be labeled 'Direct Labor Rate Summary' as stated in the 'Instructions' tab? Would the Government please verify? | Attachment 0004 has been revised to correct discrepancies | ||
| 11 | Section L-16.4-1 | In the Cost Data Worksheet (Attachment 0004, Table 1), please clarify to what "Direct Labor" is referring. |
a. Does the Government intend for Offerors to provide rates that are Fully burdened with fringe, overhead, G&A, etc, without fee, in this "Direct Labor" rate?
b. Considering RFP Section C Performance Work Statement (PWS) Article 2.4.b. which states “All caps, ceiling, or limits negotiated and established throughout Section B shall constitute the maximum allowable billing rate”, will the Prime Offeror's fee rates in Attachment 0004 Table 3 Prime Offeror’s Fee Rate be applied to Table 1 Prime Offeror’s Direct Labor Rates for inclusion in Section B of the IDIQ (ie, Direct Labor Rate + (Direct Labor Rate x Fee Rate) = Section B “maximum allowable billing rate”)? Direct labor = Labor Hours × Unburdened Direct Labor Rate
a. Offerors are not to propose fully burdened rates in the Cost Data Worksheet.
b.It is the Government's intention to only put on the base contract the direct labor rates and fixed fee rates. In addition, PWS paragraph 2.4 has been revised to clarify the Government's intent
| 12 | Section L-16.4-1 | CLINs x007 (Items 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, and following years) in RFP Section B and Attachment 0002 Projected LOE specify BUDGET ANALYSTS (SENIOR) SUPPORT SERVICES. However, Attachment 0004 Cost Data Worksheet indicates that CLIN 007 is Business Analyst (Senior). Is the Attachment 0004 Cost Data Worksheet CLIN 007 for Budget Analysts (Senior) (and not Business Analysts (Senior))? | The LOE has been amended to clearly identify the Base(Task Order) and the follow-on option requirement LCATs. Attachment 0004 is capturing all of the CLINs for use for this contract. Attachment 0002 LOE is capturing what is required for the Base (Task Order) and follow-on option requirement LCATs that can be selected at any time on additional task orders. Both LCATS are meant to be on the LOE and should be separate CLINs as stated on Attachment 0004. | |
| 13 | Section L-16.3-1.2 | STATEMENT: The RFP states, "IMPORTANT NOTE: Proposed unit costs are binding for the successful Offeror and shall represent the maximum per unit cost ceiling and fee amount throughout the ordering Years 1-5 of the resultant contract." | ||
| QUESTION: A question about binding unit costs in a CPFF contract was recently asked at a syposium hosted by ACC-APG. The ACC-APG leadership in attendance could not provide a clear answer and was was uncertain as to how costs could be binding under a CPFF acquisition. Please provide an explanation as to how the statement "Proposed unit costs are binding, . . ." can apply to a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract? | Only the proposed direct labor rates and fixed fee rates shall become part of the base IDIQ and be binding. See section H for ordering information |
| 14 | Section L-16.3-1.2 | STATEMENT: Per FAR 16.306, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts allow for a fixed, negotiated fee but variation in actual cost, as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract. | |
| QUESTION: Please provide an explanation as to how "variation in actual cost" can occur under binding unit costs? | See revisions to solicitation in section H for ordering procedures and section G for invoicing rates. The proposed rates are intended as caps for the contract. The contractor cannot propose rates above the caps however, due to the cost reimbursement nature of the contract could be reimbursed for actual, allowable costs incurred above these rates. In this event the Government will use the provisions in section G for rating their cost control in CPARS. | ||
| 15 | Section L - Vol I, Management Volume | STATEMENT: Section L-16.6 indicates the Tech Volume page limit as 25 pages; L-16.1-1.1/.2/.3 provides the recommendations for number of pages of 10 (Risk), 5 (Mitigation), and 10 (Retention Plan) respectively. | |
| QUESTION: Would the Government allow bidders to allocate the 25 pages as they see fit to provide benefit to the Government in ease of review? If not, would the Government allow bidders to use the 15 pages combined for Risk and Mitigation to enable the presentation of risks and mitigations together for easier review by the Government? | Government concurs with allowing bidders to use 15 pages combined for Risk and Mitigation. | ||
| 16 | STATEMENT: Instructions for content required for Section L-16.2-1.3 (a) and (l) are significantly redundent with instructions provided for L-16.2-1.4 (Performance). |
L-16.2-1.3 (a): "A specific narrative explanation describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP. This explanation shall not exceed 5 pages."
L-16.2-1.3 (l):"If the Offeror did not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination."
L-16.2-1.4: "Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP for any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination."
QUESTION: Would the Government consider allowing bidders to respond to the repeated/redundent information that is requested just in either Section I or Section II of the Past Performance volume (and not both)? The Government concurs the instructions are redundent. Section L-16.2-1.4 has been revised, marked as "Deleted"
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .