W912HQ-16-T-0007_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Please explain the use of CLIN 2005.

Discussion: Solicitation W912HQ‐16‐T‐0007 provides for base period of performance of one year and two option year periods of performance each for one additional year. Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) are provided for each year for each of Labor, Material, Travel and the optional support for Policy Development of USACE Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). This accounts for 12 CLINS.

There is a 13th CLIN ITEM NO 2005 Option to Extend Ref: 52.217‐8. Please explain the use of CLIN 2005.

If to extend for not more than 6 months as I think stated in 52.217‐8, what scope is required in that 6 months to provide a cost for? Or, is this to extend the contract past the Base plus two option years for longer than 6 months?

Answer: CLIN 2005 has been deleted and the provision/clause 52.217‐8 deleted.

Is the travel budget plug‐in (NTE $24,000) for each performance work area of for the total PWS?

Answer: Travel of $24,000 in not to be exceeded each year.

Is this a follow‐on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

Answer: The requirement was previously satisfied through a Multiple Award Task Order Contracting (MATOC) contract vehicle under. Task Order W912HQ‐10‐D‐0004‐0163 awarded to CDM Federal Programs to fulfill the NFRMP requirement.

Will you consider selecting more than one contract to allow for competition and additional capacity in meeting this requirement or is the selection limited to one vendor?

Answer: Selection is limited to one.

Please identify scope of effort in option years.

Discussion: Except for Task 4 ‘Outreach and Communication Materials for the Flood Risk Management Program and Silver Jackets’, there is no distinct indication of work in the option years. All other work must therefore be performed in the base year. Except for Task 4, what work is scheduled for the option years? The PWS identified in excess of 130 meetings. If the option year replicates the base year, that would be a total of over 360 meetings.

Answer: It is intended that the base year work would be replicated for option years where no distinction is specified in deliverables. The estimated number of meetings required to complete the tasks described in the performance work statement is based on required level of effort in previous years. Fewer meetings may be required to meet the requirements of the specific activities and pre‐identified objectives;

estimated meeting requirements should be considered estimates and not required quotas.

For Task 1, in support of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, meeting facilitation (while in the title) is not listed as one of the requirements in the bullets below. Do you anticipate needing facilitation services for this group or just assistance with meeting design and preparation?

Answer: As stated in the PWS, the USACE Flood Risk Management Program has an ongoing need for meeting design and facilitation support services. The PWS indicates services being sought under this task are meeting design and facilitation services to include in‐person and teleconference meetings and support tasks such as drafting of agendas and meeting summaries and recording of key action items during each meeting. We anticipate a primary element of this task to include facilitation of the meeting itself with basic meeting support activities.

How many attendees are anticipated for the FIFM‐TF and FIFM‐TF Working Group meetings (Task 1)?

Answer: There are 14 member agencies of the FIFM Task Force. Task Force meetings that include Principals from each member agency typically include up to 30 individuals. FIFM‐TF Working Group meetings are typically less informal and include several representatives from each member agency.

These staff level meetings can include up to 30 participants as well when participation is most active.

How many and what type of meetings are anticipated for supporting the FIFM‐TF consultation to the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (Task 1) or will they be held in conjunction with other identified FIFM‐TF meetings?

Answer: Since much of the FIFM‐TF member agencies are considered to be experts in floodplain management and flood risk mitigation issues, the group has been consulted in the past to consider topics of concern to the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) such as in the development of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). While such work is not regular, it is anticipated that the FIFM‐TF may be required to assist MitFLG in completing activities relevant to flood risk management, interagency guidance, or updates and revisions to key interagency policy. Work under this particular item would not comprise a majority of the overall FIFM‐TF support task.

Does the government intend the contractor to create the content for the technical reports or will the content come from USACE and/or Task Force members?

Answer: Content for technical reports identified in this PWS would be derived from USACE and or FIFM‐TF and FIFM‐TF Working Group meeting activities. It is expected that the contractor would use content of meeting discussions to develop written summaries, reports and other similar materials. Some research may be required to supplement concepts in a written format, but this is expected to be minimal.

Is Task 6 (Optional) anticipated to be part of a potential option year extension or would it be anticipated to be exercised during the base year?

Answer: Task 6 would be awarded during the base year if it is exercised. It could also be extended into a potential option year for award and/or performance.

Which Tasks should be included in the cost proposal for the option years?

Answer: Tasks 1‐5 should be included in the cost proposal for the option year.

Are all tasks anticipated to continue at the same rate during the option years or would there be an anticipated difference in the level of effort between the base year and option years?

Answer: Tasks should continue at the same rate during the option years.

Please rebalance Evaluation Factors

Discussion: The Evaluation Factors provide unfair and unjustified advantage only to those who have recently performed this work for the NFRMP. The PWS sections titled ‘Description of Work’ and ‘Technical Criteria’ state that it is “highly desirable to have a facilitator who is familiar with flood risk management, FEMA and USACE programs and terminology.” and that “The chosen contractor must have demonstrated experience facilitating meetings on the subject of flood risk management policy and initiatives…” Actual experience with NFRMP appears unjustified based on the PWS description above and presumes that other flood risk experience, including with USACE is significantly less valuable.

Factor 1 properly evaluates ‘demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the… National Flood Risk Management Program (NFRMP)’

Factor 2 and Factor 3 unfairly evaluate proposals by giving the highest rating only to those who have recently performed this work for the NFRMP when a facilitator can have equal experience in flood risk management discussion, policy development and implementation in venue other than, but similar to the

NFRMP.

Evaluation factors 2 and 3 for practical purposes can only be met only to those who have recently performed this work for the NFRMP this giving those vendors a 40% advantage in technical proposal merit rating. Factors 2 and Factor 3 provide evaluation for a level of experience in excess of the standards identified PWS sections titled ‘Description of Work’ and ‘Technical Criteria’. Request that Factor 2 and Factor 3 be reworded to allow NFRMP or similar experience be rated as equals.

Answer: Items in Red have changed.

Volume 1 Factor 2 Previous Experience (preparation and facilitation of meetings and workshops in support of the National Flood Risk Management Program). This factor will be evaluated based upon the currency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and any other information which may help the Government complete its assessment. Higher ratings will be given for greater experience and complexity of demonstrated experience directly related to the NFRMP’s or similar complex objectives and the requirements of the PWS.

Volume 1 Factor 3 Key Project Team Members & Teaming Arrangements /Management Approach. This factor will be evaluated based upon the currency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and any other information which may help the Government complete its assessment. Higher technical rating will be given to key personnel with previous/current successful first-hand experience directly related to the NFRMP’s or similar/like complex objectives and the requirements of the PWS.