QA's_-_Solicitation_W91QEX-16-Q-0051_FINAL.pdf

Solicitation W91QEX-16-Q-0051

US Southern Command Financial Management Support Services

Questions & Answers

Question 1 Is this a new requirement, if not, who is the incumbent contractor; and what is the contract number?

Answer 1 This is not a new requirement. The incumbent Contractor is Federal Five Star Consulting. The

Contract Number is W91QEX-13-C-0002.

Question 2 Is the incumbent eligible to bid?

Answer 2 The Government will not make a small business eligibility determination against the incumbent contractor unless the incumbent submits a proposal responding to the subject solicitation. At that time, an active 8(a) small business eligibility evaluation and determination will be made. It will be the inquiring contractor’s responsibility to make this determination relating to the question. You may also check with the Small Business Administration or review the SAM Website (www.sam.gov) for these details to help in making this determination.

Question 3 We are being processed for a facility clearance which should arrive anytime, are we eligible to bid?

Answer 3 In accordance with the evaluation criteria (See “Addendum to FAR 52.212-2”) as written in the solicitation, you must possess the minimum active or interim facility clearance at the time of proposal submission. If your facility clearance is not finalized and in either in an “active” or “interim” status, then you may receive a rating of “unacceptable” under Subfactor 3, Staffing Plan & Resumes.

Question 4 In part 5 under specific tasks, what are the duties of the Financial Analyst?

Answer 4 As specified in Technical Exhibit 1, Reference PWS Paragraphs 5.1 through 5.4.11. Support

PPBES (budget execution) using GFEBS.

Question 5 On page 44 under “Estimated Work Load”, there are No hours budgeted for the Site Manager?

Can the government clarify this situation?

Answer 5 Site manager is the Lead Financial Analyst on site and is a full FTE at 1920 hours. The PWS has been updated with these changes in highlighted yellow text. Please see solicitation amendment for details.

Question 6 And on page 44 to 45 the Financial Analyst budgeted hours are 3840 but the Trainers are budgeted

4560 total, can you clarify the difference since the services are for one 6 months period and two 12 months options. I would assume the budgeted hours would be the same for all labor categories.

Answer 6 The requirement is for Six (6) FTEs - One (1) Lead, Four (4) Financial Analysts/Help Desk

Trainers, and One (1) Audit Compliance Technician. A PWS update has been issued in the solicitation amendment to reflect this change and is highlighted in yellow.

Question 7 Page 44 to 45 listed three positions for trainers in terms of hours, 5.2 GFEBS Trainer, 5.3 System

Management Trainer, 5.4 Transaction Support trainer but on page 107 there is only one trainer listed position Can you clarify how many trainers should be priced out in the proposal.

http://www.sam.gov/

Answer 7 In a performance based service acquisition, it is ultimately up to the proposing contractor to determine how many personnel will be required to fulfill a requirement; however, since only one “Key Personnel” is called for under the “Help Desk/Trainer” category, the Government requires only one Full-Time Equivalent (FTE).

Question 8 Page 25 section 1.6.10 “Key Personnel” refers to Site Manager and No other labor category is classified as Key. But on page 107 under “Key personnel category” there are six labor categories including Site Manager. Will you clarify this difference?

Answer 8 ALL personnel shall be considered Key Personnel as identified on page 107 of the solicitation.

The PWS has been updated with these changes in highlighted yellow text. Please see solicitation amendment for details.

Question 10 It appears that contractor personnel are required to reside OCONUS to support the PWS. How does the government want offerors to submit associated costs for OCONUS cost of living adjustments?

Answer 10 There will be no FTEs residing OCONUS. Incumbent will travel TDY OCONUS to support mission based requirements. Please reference PWS Paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5 for details.

Question 11 Page A-1-1 indicates that a Secret Facility Clearance is required. Will the Army sponsor a

Facility Clearance for the successful bidder?

Answer 11 No. The Government will not sponsor a Facility Clearance for the successful bidder. In accordance with the Solicitation, the security requirements must be met at the time of proposal submission.

Question 12 Some certificates and degrees from our candidates may require obtaining copies from school, university or military records. Will the government consider allowing the certificates, degrees, transcripts, etc. being provided within two weeks of award and no later than commencement of the period of performance?

Answer 12 No. The Government will need to identify that the proposed candidates for all key personnel positions meet the minimum certification, education, and other qualification requirements as identified in the solicitation. The certificates, degrees, transcripts, etc. may be scanned as DRAFT copies for purposes of fulfilling the solicitation requirements and may submit official copies to the Government prior to full performance of the contract.

Question 13 Reference: PWS Paragraph 1.1 – “The contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform Financial Management Services and Support, Information Technology Support, and Training as defined in this Performance Work Statement except for those items specified as government furnished property (GFP) and government furnished services (GFS). The contractor shall perform to the standards in this contract.”

Question: Can the government please clarify what equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools and materials must be provided? For facilities, how big, distance from which location and classification requirements? For transportation, what type of vehicle, capacity, distance, and frequency of travel? What and how many materials? What and how many tools? Will the government add an ODC line to create cost realism since price is an evaluated criteria?

Answer 13 The requirements under PWS Paragraph 1.1 are boilerplate requirements input on all Army issued

Performance Work Statements. Since this is a performance based requirement, it is up to the Contractor’s digression what mix of personnel (other than Key Personnel), equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services are needed to perform successfully under the requirement. The Government does not intend to add an ODC (Other Direct Costs) line under this requirement as there are not any anticipated direct costs the Contractor will be required to make, as directed by the Government, throughout the performance of the contract. Firm Fixed Price line items are considered inclusive and should be proposed as such to include all direct, indirect, and any other fringe benefits associated with the personnel hired under those applicable line items. All other associated line items, including COST line items, have been defined accordingly.

Question 14 Reference: PWS Paragraph 1.6.7.4 – Requirement is for offeror to only have SECRET facility clearance and no safeguarding.

Question: Will government consider requiring Top SECRET facility clearance and SECRET safeguarding to ensure offeror can meet current and future classification?

Answer 14 Not a requirement at this stage. Please refer to the DD254 attached to the original Solicitation posting for further details.

Question 15 Reference: Section 2.a.i(1)

Issue: The following criteria are very narrow to establish a team’s capability for the scope of work described: The Offeror shall provide evidence that the contractor possesses a minimum of two (2) years’ of experience working directly with the U.S. Army GFEBS Program providing support services providing specific support services AND the contractor possesses a minimum of five (5) years’ experience training and consulting in Systems Applications and Products in Data Processing (SAP) similar in size and scope of the requirements in performance work statement. In order for the government to validate the evidence provided in support of this subfactor, the Offeror must include for the contract reference in the technical experience proposal the following:

Contract Number/Task Order Number; award date; period of performance (base and all option periods), an aggregate cumulative total dollar value of the contract/task order; a general description of the work performed and how it relates to the requirement found in the solicitation;

and at least one accurate point of contact for the contract reference identified to include current telephone numbers and/or email addresses. Failure to submit the minimum requirements as stated above will be considered non-responsive and will result in the non-evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

Question: Will the government broaden experience to include other requirements outlined in the

SOW?

Answer 15 The requirement found in the solicitation is very specific and requires highly specialized experience relating to GFEBS support. The Government is not interested in offeror’s which possess experience and expertise in any other areas.

Question 16 Reference: Section 2.a.i(1) note

Issue: “The Prime and Teaming Partner or subcontractor may NOT use their experience combined as part of their proposal submittal both for their Technical Experience and Past Performance Proposal submission. Each prime contractor’s experiences should be evaluated solely in determining if a Offeror is technically acceptable. Unless there is an approved SBA joint venture and/or mentor-protégée in place, evaluation of prime and subcontractor technical competency cannot be combined due to affiliation rules that pertain to the Ostensible Subcontracting Rules.”

We believe that the skills required to successfully execute the PWS may be best served with a team who has specific expertise in certain areas of the PWS vice both prime and sub having concentrated experience in two of the named areas.

Question: Due to the wide variety of financial management expertise and varied system expertise required in the PWS, will the government reconsider the above statement and allow companies partnered to combine experience?

Answer 16 Yes. Please reference the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule and/or contact your local Small Business

Administration (SBA) Office. The rule allows for combined experience provided the SBA has approved a joint venture or other SBA accepted partnership where prime contractor will still be considered an eligible 8(a) company.

Question 17 Reference: Technical Exhibit 1, Section 5.1

Issue: Resumes and language of 6 FTEs contradicts list of staff requirements listed: 1 Site

Manager, 4 cross-functional Financial Analysts, 2 GFEBS Help Desk facilitators and trainer, (1 JIATF, 1 SOCSOUTH) 1 Audit Compliance Technician, 1 SME mobile.

Question: Can the government clarify how many FTEs are associated with the stated requirement?

Answer 17 There will be 6 FTE’s associated with this requirement. This shall include at USSOUTHCOM

Headquarters; one (1) site manager/lead financial analyst in charge of administrative and logistic support of entire support team; two (2) cross-functional financial analysts (GFEBS help desk facilitators/trainers); one (1) Audit Compliance Program Technician; one (1) each cross-functional financial analysts (GFEBS help desk facilitators/trainers) at SOCSOUTH in Homestead, Florida and JIATF-South (1) in Key West, Florida for on-site support. The PWS has been updated to clarify this requirement. Please see changes in the solicitation amendment and reference Technical Exhibit 1, Estimated Workload Data.

Question 18 Reference: Section 5.3

Issue: The government appears to rely heavily on GFEBS past performance and does not require past performance in the tasks or systems listed under systems management.

Questions:

Will the government broaden the past performance criteria to include or be 3 of 5 systems, etc.?

Will the government consider a combination Army Logistics systems, GFEBS, manpower system, PPBS and FIAR experience for past performance?

Answer 18 If the Government understands the question correctly, both questions are in reference to Past

Performance and not Technical Experience. If the offeror does possess experience which is considered recent and relevant in accordance with the solicitation, then the contractor shall make an attempt to submit the recent and relevant experience. If the offeror does not possess that experience, then they need not request past performance questionnaires to be submitted to the Contracting Officer before the closing date of the solicitation. In accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, “…an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”” Therefore, if the offeror cannot or does not provide recent and relevant past performance information, that offeror cannot be favorably or unfavorably be rated under this factor but will be considered to possess “unknown” past performance information which is acceptable.

In relation to the requirements found in the PWS, the Government is constantly changing and introducing new systems, i.e., DAI, EFD, GCSS-A, etc. that will potentially interface with GFEBS. Incumbent is required to assist with identify and resolving those issues. We are not willing to limit number or name of systems as it may change which would put the Government out of scope.

Question 19 Would the government consider teaming arrangement such as: Joint Ventures/Contract Teaming

Agreements (CTA) in order to fulfil this requirement?

In a Teaming Agreement, will the Government evaluate the Past Performance references submitted by each individual companies within the team or will the evaluation of the past performance references be limited to the prime contractor? Reference: page 94, 2.a.i –

Answer 19 The Government will evaluate an SBA approved joint venture or contract teaming arrangement’s proposal to fulfill this requirement provided you are compliant with the requirements of the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule. The Government may verify and validate all teaming arrangements prior to evaluation of an offer. Please contact your local Small Business Administration Office for further details on this topic.

Question 20 Is there an alternative to the Site Manager’s Required Experience for six years specialized in

GFEBS?

Answer 20 The Government is not willing to accept any alternatives to the required experience for the Site

Manager’s; however, the Government has changed the minimum required years of experience to four (4) years. The PWS has been changed accordingly under PWS Paragraph 1.6.11.2. in yellow highlighted text.

Question 21 Can an offeror submit our response via Adobe pdf file?

Answer 21 Due to email size limitations, the Government will not accept a full proposal via an Adobe pdf file.

Question 22 Can the government please clarify that offerors are not allowed to use their company name throughout Volume I (with the exception of the cover page)? Should the offeror use “our team” or another generic term?

Answer 22 With exception to the cover page, the offeror shall not stipulate their name in Volume 1 for objectivity reasons. The offeror may make reference to their company in any way they prefer provided the self-reference is non-identifying.

Question 23 Can the government please confirm that copies of degrees, certifications will not go against the page limit?

Answer 23 As stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Key Personnel Resumes & Associated Certification

Documents will be excluded from the page limitations.

Question 24 In Section 1.6.7.4.1 the government states that personnel designated as system administration and or server maintenance will not need to have an active Secret clearance at time of proposal submission. Can the government confirm that this PWS will not involve systems administration and server maintenance?

Answer 24 Not a requirement. PWS has been updated to reflect this correction accordingly.

Question 25 On the instructions page the government states a font size of Times New Roman Font 10. Will the government allow vendors to submit Times New Roman Font sizes greater than 10 or does the government want the entire proposal as a 10 pt font size?

Answer 25 As stated in the solicitation, the submission must be submitted in “Times New Roman, Size 10

Font, single spaced, 8.5 x 11 (front pages only) format”. This requirement applies to the substance of the offeror’s proposal but will NOT apply to the offeror’s Cover Sheet.

Question 26 Is the government requiring the vendor to submit copies of degrees for alternate resumes?

Answer 26 No. The offeror is not required to submit alternate proposed personnel’s resumes.

Question 27 On page 96 of the Solicitation the government states Key Personnel (Resumes): The Offeror shall submit the resumes of “Key Personnel” as defined in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10. through 1.6.11.2. In Section 1.6.10 Key Personnel the government states that The Site Manager is considered Key Personnel. However, on pages 96 and 104 all Labor Categories are named under Key Personnel.

Can the government confirm all four Labor Categories are Key Personnel therefor requiring resumes?

Answer 27 All four labor categories are considered Key Personnel and will require resumes to be submitted as part of an offeror’s proposal.

Question 28 On page 102 of the Solicitation, the government states the evaluation will be based on whose offer demonstrates the lowest evaluated priced offer which meets or exceeds the evaluation criteria below. Can the government confirm this is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable evaluation method?

Answer 28 Yes. The Government will use a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable evaluation method.

Question 29 On page 103 of the Solicitation, the Technical basis of evaluation is based on experience and management approach versus a technical written response to the requirements. Is the government asking for a technical response to answer the requirements, or asking simply for a submittal of past performance?

Answer 29 A note under 1(c) of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 outlining the distinction between past performance and experience to provide an offeror with clarification of this question has been included under the original solicitation posting. The note states the following: “The distinction between technical experience and past performance is experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor which is comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.”

Question 30 Can the government explain the difference between evaluation factors Technical and Past

Performance as they appear to both be asking for Past Performance?

Answer 30 Please see “Answer 29” for clarification to this question.

Question 31 Based upon our experience working within GFEBS-SA all vendors are required to have a Top

Secret Facility clearance; however the current SOW requires a Secret Facility Clearance. Can the government clarify the facility clearance requirement?

Answer 31 GFEBS-SA is scheduled to roll out in Fiscal Year 20 which is beyond the period of performance for this contract. Currently, the Contractor will be required to assist with coordination which does not require a Top Secret clearance.

Question 32 Can a vendor submit past performance for GFEBS-SA that does not demonstrate five (5) years of experience, due to the GFEBS-SA program being less than 5 years old?

Answer 32 Past performance does not require a certain amount of years of demonstrated experience. The solicitation outlines the minimum parameters of what a past performance reference shall be in compliance with in regard to “recency and relevancy”. Please see Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, a or “Volume 2 / Factor 2 – Past Performance”(i)

Question 33 Can the government please clarify the Period of Performance? The period of performance as list on page 20 of the solicitation states the base period shall be 23 September 2016 - 22 April 2017.

However, on page 107 of the Solicitation the Surge Support Pricing Sheet shows a period of performance for the base period to be 23 October 2016 - 22 April 2017.

Answer 33 The period of performance, including the phase-in period, is from 23 October 2016 – 22 April

2017. Excluding the phase-in period, the period of performance which encompasses only full performance under the contract is 23 September 2016 - 22 April 2017.

Question 34 If a member of the JV is not a managing partner of the JV and therefore did not receive all the revenue of the contract because they served as a Subcontractor can they claim the full contract value for past performance under the joint venture name?

Answer 34 Yes.

Question 35 Is the offer due date still September 8, 2016 at 11 am?

Answer 35 Yes.

Question 36 Can you please provide the anticipated award date?

Answer 36 The Government anticipates a contract award no later than 22 September 2016; however, this date may change due to unforeseen circumstances.

Question 37 In lieu of being able to provide an anticipated award date, can you please provide the post submission review process with a general anticipated time table of each step?

Answer 37 The timeline for this event may change based on extenuating circumstances; however, the

Government anticipates evaluation of proposals to begin no later than 12 September 2016.

Question 38 On page 95 it is noted that Technical Experience and Past Performance of a subcontractor can be combined with that of the Prime if an SBA approved joint venture and/or mentor protégé is in place. If an active mentor protégé and joint venture review is in place, would the SBA approval need to be completed by performance work statement submittal date, award date or service commencement date?

Answer 38 The offeror must have the active mentor protégé and joint venture review in place at the time of proposal submission for compliance with SBA rules and technical evaluation purposes. Please note; the applicable SBA office may be contacted for validation and verification purposes as well.

Question 39 On Page 95, there is a note stating: The Prime and Teaming Partner or subcontractor may NOT use their experience combined as part of their proposal submittal both for their Technical Experience and Past Performance submission. Each prime contractor’s experiences should be evaluated sole in determining if an Offeror is technically acceptable. Unless there is an approved SBA joint venture and/or mentor protégé in place, evaluation of prime and subcontractor technical competency cannot be combined due to affiliation rules that pertain to the Ostensible Subcontracting.

Question: Can a signed Teaming Agreement between 8(a) prime and subcontractor satisfy the requirement for a combined (technical & past performance) submission rather than a SBA joint venture or mentor protégé relationship?

Answer 39 No. There must be an SBA Approved joint venture or mentor protégé in place which is acceptable by the SBA and in compliance with the SBA’s Ostensible Subcontractor Rule. Please contact your local SBA office for further details on the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule.