BAMC_IT_Q_A.docx

Q1: Please confirm if Past Performance evaluations will be based only upon Prime’s submission, or can they include subcontractor’s past performance, or possibly reflect only subcontractor’s past performance.

A1: Past Performance evaluations will be based only upon Prime’s past performance.

Q2: "Will there be a site visit or bid conference for the following?"

A2: There will be no scheduled site visit or bid conference.

Q3: "Who is/are the incumbent(s)?"

A3: The incumbent is ACTIONET INC.

Q4: BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION CRITERIA (page 118) states: “…The proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors: Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Acceptability is divided into three sub-factors, and each sub-factor shall be evaluated individually….”However, only 2 Sub-factors are listed: Sub-Factor A: Technical/Management Approach and Sub-Factor B: Staffing Plan. Request identification of third Sub-Factor for Factor I.

A4: Solicitation will be amended to reflect there are only 2 Sub-factors for Technical Acceptability Sub-Factor A: Technical/Management Approach and Sub-Factor B: Staffing Plan.

Q 5: "Can there be a conference call of this opportunity?"

A 5: No. A conference call is not feasible.

Q6: Waited a year for the release of the above referenced solicitation and upon review we have discovered it has been released as an 8(a) opportunity. Would the Department of the Army and the MICC, Fort Sam consider making this solicitation a small business opportunity?

A6: Market Research was conducted thoroughly to determine the socioeconomic firms capable of satisfying the government’s requirement; the results of the market research shaped the determination to release this opportunity as an 8(a) set aside. Requirement will remain an 8(a) set aside. However, Teaming Arrangements are allowed but the 8(a) firm must perform at least 50% of the cost of contract performance.

Q7: Would MICC contracting consider changing the evaluation method to Best Value? We respectfully request your consideration in light of how important this work is to the mission of the hospital.

A7: All evaluation methods were carefully considered prior to the release of the solicitation. Best value is a continuum and describes the solicitation procedures to obtain best value. LPTA will produce the best value for this requirement. Evaluation method will remain LPTA.

Q8: Would MICC contracting consider providing a response more quickly than April 25th?

A8: Questions and responses will be posted on a weekly basis (Friday) to FBO until April 25, 2016.

Q9: “Is this a new requirement?

A9: No this is not a new requirement.

Q10: "What is the actual or anticipated overall FTE requirement?"

A10: The government did not provide an overall FTE requirement this is at the discretion of the contractor. However, an historical FTE was included in the solicitation. (Attachment 3 Historical Workload Data)

Q11: "Is this contract governed by the SCA?"

A11: This contract is not governed by SCA.

Q12:"Can the 8(a) Prime use Subcontractor PP Quals (Are pp quals interchangeable)?"

A12: 8(a) Prime must use their own Past Performance qualifications. Past performance qualifications are not interchangeable.

Q13: Since this is LPTA, using our sub’s PP, will it be considered non-relevant, hence counted against us, hence disqualify our firm? Please advise.

A13: Only the Primes relevant current/past performance will be evaluated. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Q14: Are any of the positions associated with this solicitation subject to the Service Contract Act? And if so will the government provide the anniversary dates of the applicable SCA positions?

A14: The positions associated with this solicitation are not subject to the Service Contract Act.

Q15: We have a question regarding whether or not the use of the word ‘contractor’ means Prime or whether a Subcontractor teammate can fulfill the experience requirement.

A15: The word 'contractor' means Prime and a subcontractor can fulfill the positions experience of the various labor categories but not the past performance experience.

Q16: Who is the incumbent, and the current value of the contract?

A16: The incumbent is ACTIONET INC. $20,594,208.49

Q17: Is a Facility Clearance required? If so, what level?

A17: This question will be addressed in the next round of questions and answers on 4/22/16.

Q18: Can the incumbent personnel be hired by the new contract holder?

A18: Yes.

Q19: Should we submit documentation proof of any certifications with our response?

A19: The contractor shall submit the clause 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications from the Solicitation. Position certifications are addressed at 1.6.4.3 of the PWS.

Q20: Are there any limitations or restrictions for responses by JV companies?

A20: There are no limitations or restrictions for responses by Joint Venture companies.

Q21: Reference Past Performance Relevant Contract Sheets – Is there a required number of Past Performance Relevant Contract Sheets that must be submitted in Volume III?

A21: No. There is not a required number of Past Performance Relevant Contract Sheets that must be submitted in Volume III but there is a 15 page limit for Past Performance.

Q22: Reference Past Performance Relevant Contract Sheets – as the Prime, are we allowed to submit Past Performance Relevant Contract Sheets from our subcontractors, or must submitted Past Performance be only contracts from the Prime?

A22: See Q&A 1

Q23: Reference the Key Personnel (Contracts Manager / Alternate Contracts Manager) – are these Key Personnel expected to be on-site full time?

A23: Contracts Manager / Alternate Contracts Manager are not required to be on-site full time but shall be available between 6:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday thru Friday except Federal holidays or when the government facility is closed.

Q24: Reference Submittal of Electronic Copies of Proposal Volumes – on what type of media are we required to submit our electronic copies – compact discs?

A24: Yes. Electronic copies should be submitted on a compact disc (cd)

Q25: Could you please confirm that if a company states it has no relevant past performance, it will receive an “unknown” past performance, which will be considered “acceptable”, for Factor 2, Past Performance?

A25: Prime’s without a record of relevant past performance will receive an unknown rating on past performance. In the context of acceptability/ unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”