GFEBS_FMSS_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

FMSS Question & Answer

W91QEX-19-R-0002

1. Can the Government please provide the GS equivalent for the following CLINs: 0002, 0003, 0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 0004, 0005, 0005AA, 0005AB, 0005AC, 0006.

The following labor category is GS-13 equivalent:

Program Manager/Lead Financial

The following labor categories are GS-11 equivalent and higher:

Financial Analyst

Developer/Database Administrator

Audit Compliance Program Tech

The Travel Assistant is equivalent to a GS-9.

2. Will the Government please provide the name of the company who is the incumbent contractor?

Awardee: LINTECH-VPG LLC

Contract Number: W91QEX-16-P-0076

Number of FTE’s: Please refer to the Estimated Workload Data on part 7.3 of the solicitation.

3. Can the Government please confirm that during the 30-day phase in period the incumbent personnel under the current contract will be on the payroll of the incumbent contractor and that the awardee will only have management employee personnel on site for the 30-day period? Is that correct?

The Government has a reasonable expectation that during the 30-day Phase In period the incumbent personnel under the current contract will be on payroll of the incumbent however the

Government can’t confirm or deny.

Please refer to Section 1.6.18 of the solicitation for Phase In. The Government does not express that the awardee will only have management employee personnel on site for the 30-day Phase In period; however, the solicitation states the contractor shall have personnel on board during the

30- day Phase In/Phase Out period.

4. Can the Government please confirm that for CLINs that read for example “9 months” that we are to provide one fully burdened lump sum for that individual for the entire 9-month period, not an hourly rate?

In regards to the 9 month period under Section B, the Government is requesting the contractor to submit monthly unit price.

5. Can the Government please clarify the following – the offeror will complete the form

“FMSS Surge Support Pricing” and include it with our offer; however, we do not understand how to complete page 9 of 121 CLIN 0008, Page 15 of 121 CLIN 1007, Page 21 of 121 CLIN 2007, Page 27 of 121 CLIN 3007 and Page 33 of 121 CLIN 4007. Can the

Government please explain what the “1 job” should include so that we can calculate the

“amount” for the surge CLINs?

Please see the Amendment 0002 for all Surge CLINS. The contractor will not price the Surge

CLINS on the Standard Form 1449. The contractor shall provide pricing on the “Surge Support

Pricing” Attachment #2.

6. Can the Government please provide a typical matrix of incumbent personnel showing by location how many FTEs are in place and how many openings there currently are?

Please refer to the Estimated Workload Data on Part 7.3 of the Solicitation.

7. Can the Government please provide an average number of base closure days by location?

The base closures can be simply “emergencies;” thus, an average number of base closure days by location is not available.

8. Can the Government please advise what documentation must be submitted and how often to meet the requirement as stated on page 35 of 121 Part 1 General Information 1.

“The contractor shall ensure that all contractor employees and subcontractor employees are medically, dentally and psychologically fit for performance of their duties.” This is PII.

This is a requirement for the contractor to perform and to retain in the contractor’s personnel file.

9. Can the Government please advise if they will require a Financial Analyst for 12 months for the following CLINs, as there is no quantity and unit listed on Page 17 of 121? The

CLINs in question are: 2002AA and 2002AB. The quantity of 12 months resumes on Page

23 of 121 for CLINs 3002AA and 3002AB.

Please note on page 17 of 121, CLIN 2002 (Financial Analyst) is an “Information CLIN.” Please see Amendment 0002 which reflects 12 months for CLINs 2002AA and 2002AB.

10. The aggregate $4,000,000 threshold to meet the standard for relevancy, considering this is an 8(a) set aside, seems to unduly limit competition by being set at the maximum level for direct awards. Would the Government consider reducing this threshold to the $2.5 – $3 million range to increase competition?

At this time the Government will not consider reducing the threshold.

11. On page 110 in the note for subparagraph c. Similar Size and Scope prevents the use of a sub-contractors past performance to determine technical acceptability which seems to unduly limit competition to firms with less specialization in individual areas. Would the

Government consider allowing limited sub-contractor past performance to meet the technical acceptability requirements if the prime can show solid performance and plan to manage sub-contractors to increase the amount of competition?

At this time the Government will not consider allowing limited sub-contractor past performance to meet the technical acceptability. As stated in the solicitation 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.

12. On page 110 and 111 in ii Sub factor 2 – Staffing and Resumes. In the subparagraphs it is clear that the government wants one resume for the Program Manager/Lead Financial

Analyst, and resumes for all of the proposed Developer/Database Administrators. For the

Travel Assistants, the workload data shows a need for two Travel Assistants, but the submission information seems to show a need for only one resume. How many of the Travel

Assistants are considered Key Personnel and need resumes submitted?

This is a Performance Based acquisition. The contractor is to determine the number of personnel required to provide service for this contract.

13. CLINS for Surge support (0008, 1007, 2007, 3007 and 4007) indicate that they are Firm

Fixed price (FFP), but text both there and in the RFP states that they are Cost

Reimbursable. Can the government clarify if the Surge CLINs are FFP or Cost

Reimbursable?

CLINS for Surge support are Cost CLINS (please see Amendment 0002 for the changes). The

Government will only pay actuals from the Surge Support Pricing in the event Surge is required.

14. Can the Government confirm that the period of performance for the base year will be for twelve months (as specified in Section 1.5, Page 36)?

Please see Amendment 0002, Section 1.5 of the PWS is updated to reflect nine months for the base year.

15. In section 1.6.18.1 (Page 46) the solicitation discusses “installing trailers”. As trailers are not mentioned elsewhere, is this an error, or is there an expectation that the contractor will need to acquire and install trailers?

This is standard language; however, the requirement to install trailers will not be necessary.

16. The RFP incorporates Service Contract Act (SCA) clauses and a wage determination.

Can the Government specify which positions it considers subject to the SCA?

Please refer to Wage Determination No: 2015-4543, Revision No: 10 for the classification list.

17. Are you seeking qualified SBA certified 8a/WOSB/HUBZONE/SDVOB (VIPS certified) vendors to support your market research?

Market research has been completed. This requirement is Set Aside 100% for 8(a) vendors only.

18. We’re wondering if it’s a ‘pre-solicitation’ or a ‘final’ solicitation. It states that proposals are due on 22nd April.

This is the only solicitation and adjustments will be posted as amendments.

19. Could you please tell me if the pre-solicitation posted as solicitation number

W91QEX19R0002 on FBO contains requirements similar to any work performed currently or in the past, or will this be a new requirement? If possible, can you please provide the most recent contract or task order number?

Please refer to the answer in Question #2. This is not a new requirement.

20. Given the recent policy updates deterring organizations from using Lowest Price

Technically Available (LPTA) (e.g. Section 880 of the National Defense Authorization Act

FY2019). Would the government consider utilizing a Best Value approach, as the solicitation requirements detail a need for skilled professional services with financial analysis and system expertise? Additionally, this could avoid the need for a justification for the use of a LPTA evaluation?

The Government Acquisition Strategy has been approved for Lowest Priced Technically

Acceptable for this acquisition.

21. Regarding Evaluation Factors (p.109-111) - To ensure highest level of participation in the solicitation, would the government consider allowing Experience and Past Performance references from proposed subcontractors?

As stated in the solicitation, the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

22. The March 20th FBO listing shows this opportunity as a pre-solicitation. Is the solicitation the final RFP or a draft?

Please see the answer to Question #18.

23. The “NOTE: 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…” Does this pertain only to meeting the experience longevity requirement, or is the government disallowing all experience citations other than the 8(a) prime contractor’s? In other words, may the

Government confirm that only the prime contractor's contract reference is allowable in either Technical or Past Performance volumes?

Please see the answer to Question #21.

24. On Page 110, Section L.2.a.1.c: "In order for a reference to be considered similar in size, search reference must hold an aggregate cumulative dollar value of at least

$4,000,000.00." May the Government also consider task orders similar in size and scope for references that are at least $1,000,000/year?

Please see the answer to Question #10.

25. Evaluation Criteria Vo1. 2 - Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating. If an

Offeror does not submit a Past Performance Volume resulting in "information on past performance is not available" per FAR 15.3.05(a)(2)(iv), and thus "determined to have unknown past performance," will this result in an "unknown" / "acceptable" rating?

As stated in the Solicitation under Volume 2, for Past Performance under the Acceptable/

Unacceptable chart, if an offeror without a record of revelant past performance or whom the past performance is not available, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

26. Relevancy: "To be considered recent, the contract reference must have been awarded within the last five (5) years; performance must have begun no less than five (5) years; and is still active or was active within the last five (5) years, at time of proposal submission."

For the purpose of clarity, may the Government remove "performance must have begun no less than five (5) years"?

The verbiage will remain as stated in the Solicitation.